Sqrl, you've made some good points that I do not dismiss. However, the very quality of your objections makes the overall issue a marathon debate which I do not want to invest in at this time. Sorry to disappoint. I promise to look into it in the future, assuming I don't forget. I'm busy right now with the FairTax and Huckabee (separately) and need a little time left over for (gasp) games and books.

I do want to continue on one very specific point, however: how much humans have contributed to the rising levels of CO2.

I know your source has small percentages for human CO2 contribution, but I don't trust that website and I couldn't see where he got the data for determining human vs. natural contribution. (I looked in the source he used for the table he got the other numbers from but couldn't find that information. If I've overlooked the obvious, again, please do correct me.)

Wikipedia's numbers from earlier, as well as the same gov't source your website used, show levels of CO2 that have risen at striking speed to unprecedented heights and I just don't buy that it just so happens to correspond exactly to human industrialization without some other compelling explanation.

Do you have such an explanation? Or do you question the levels that scientists attribute to past eras?

Final-Fan said: Sqrl, you've made some good points that I do not dismiss. However, the very quality of your objections makes the overall issue a marathon debate which I do not want to invest in at this time. Sorry to disappoint. I promise to look into it in the future, assuming I don't forget. I'm busy right now with the FairTax and Huckabee (separately) and need a little time left over for (gasp) games and books. I do want to continue on one very specific point, however: how much humans have contributed to the rising levels of CO2. I know your source has small percentages for human CO2 contribution, but I don't trust that website and I couldn't see where he got the data for determining human vs. natural contribution. (I looked in the source he used for the table he got the other numbers from but couldn't find that information. If I've overlooked the obvious, again, please do correct me.) Wikipedia's numbers which I quoted show levels of CO2 that have risen at striking speed to unprecedented heights and I just don't buy that it just so happens to correspond exactly to human industrialization without some other compelling explanation. Do you have such an explanation? Or do you question the levels that scientists attribute to past eras?

Well first of all that graph calls its human connections into question on its own. it starts to rise around the year 1750 at a very sharp rate. The first problem is that the industrial revolution begins around 1780 which this seems to be offset from. But the second problem is the rates of change, I have a hard time believing that the increase by mankind would be that steady over that period with only a single plateau. It increases linearly even though the industrialization happened exponentionally, so already it doesn't even fit.

But also there are problems with the use of this data due to the period of the graph. If you want to compare it to the other time periods when C02 and rates of change were at their highest you have to go back a lot further than this...and since those periods are the best analogue for what is being alleged now it is the best place to go to find supporting evidence and the best place to avoid if there is no such supporting evidence.

Also I want to point out that this graph is misleading to those who don't know how to read graphs very well. The starting point for mixing ratio in ppm is 270 at the bottom of the graph. The highest point is about 347. If we assume a natural content of that 347 of about 280 we still only come up with about 19.3% of C02 in the atmosphere as being man-made.  And that automatically assumes that ALL C02 from 1750 until now was added only by mankind..an assumption that is probably far from accurate but still proves a point just by being an extreme example that still doesn't add up to huge man-made influence.

This next paragraph uses numbers from your graph and %'s from realclimate.

Now using the wikipedia numbers of 36-70% which are sited from realclimate lets establish an average (this debate doesn't require exact precision so this is a fair middle ground) of 50%, this is still a bit on the low side but its an easy number to work with also. So redoing my calculations from before we end up with man-made C02 is responsible for about 6.755% of warming due to the GHE. Again no where near meaningful. Even on the low end using 36% water vapor as our number man-made C02 is only ~8.6% of warming due to GHE.

And once again I have to point out that no scientist out there attributes all of the warming to the GHE in the first place. So that number shrinks even further. Its also worth pointing out the rest of my points which you have asked to be put on hold bring into question the validity of GHE as a climate driver on any meaningful scale as well. Which would even further reduce the overall impact being imposed by these numbers.

And lastly I point out that I feel I have made huge concessions in data to reach those numbers and I have massive problems with much of that data and yet it still supports my conclusions despite a lot of much friendlier data I could have used. I think that by itself is a remarkable testiment to the validity of this argument.

 

Sqrl said: Final-Fan said: Sqrl, you've made some good points that I do not dismiss. However, the very quality of your objections makes the overall issue a marathon debate which I do not want to invest in at this time. Sorry to disappoint. I promise to look into it in the future, assuming I don't forget. I'm busy right now with the FairTax and Huckabee (separately) and need a little time left over for (gasp) games and books. I do want to continue on one very specific point, however: how much humans have contributed to the rising levels of CO2. I know your source has small percentages for human CO2 contribution, but I don't trust that website and I couldn't see where he got the data for determining human vs. natural contribution. (I looked in the source he used for the table he got the other numbers from but couldn't find that information. If I've overlooked the obvious, again, please do correct me.) Wikipedia's numbers which I quoted show levels of CO2 that have risen at striking speed to unprecedented heights and I just don't buy that it just so happens to correspond exactly to human industrialization without some other compelling explanation. Do you have such an explanation? Or do you question the levels that scientists attribute to past eras? Well first of all that graph calls its human connections into question on its own. it starts to rise around the year 1750 at a very sharp rate. The first problem is that the industrial revolution begins around 1780 which this seems to be offset from. But the second problem is the rates of change, I have a hard time believing that the increase by mankind would be that steady over that period with only a single plateau. It increases linearly even though the industrialization happened exponentionally, so already it doesn't even fit. But also there are problems with the use of this data due to the period of the graph. If you want to compare it to the other time periods when C02 and rates of change were at their highest you have to go back a lot further than this...and since those periods are the best analogue for what is being alleged now it is the best place to go to find supporting evidence and the best place to avoid if there is no such supporting evidence. Also I want to point out that this graph is misleading to those who don't know how to read graphs very well. The starting point for mixing ratio in ppm is 270 at the bottom of the graph. The highest point is about 347. If we assume a natural content of that 347 of about 280 we still only come up with about 19.3% of C02 in the atmosphere as being man-made. And that automatically assumes that ALL C02 from 1750 until now was added only by mankind..an assumption that is probably far from accurate but still proves a point just by being an extreme example that still doesn't add up to huge man-made influence. This next paragraph uses numbers from your graph and %'s from realclimate. Now using the wikipedia numbers of 36-70% which are sited from realclimate lets establish an average (this debate doesn't require exact precision so this is a fair middle ground) of 50%, this is still a bit on the low side but its an easy number to work with also. So redoing my calculations from before we end up with man-made C02 is responsible for about 6.755% of warming due to the GHE. Again no where near meaningful. Even on the low end using 36% water vapor as our number man-made C02 is only ~8.6% of warming due to GHE. And once again I have to point out that no scientist out there attributes all of the warming to the GHE in the first place. So that number shrinks even further. Its also worth pointing out the rest of my points which you have asked to be put on hold bring into question the validity of GHE as a climate driver on any meaningful scale as well. Which would even further reduce the overall impact being imposed by these numbers. And lastly I point out that I feel I have made huge concessions in data to reach those numbers and I have massive problems with much of that data and yet it still supports my conclusions despite a lot of much friendlier data I could have used. I think that by itself is a remarkable testiment to the validity of this argument.

First, I should note that this graph ends in 1978. I forgot to mention that before.

The graph does not start to rise in 1750; it clearly shows a space after the 1750 mark before it rises; and you'll notice that the rate of increase doesn't really take off until about 1850.

The rate of increase is pretty damn steep; are you sure that it's not in fact exponential? I can definitely discern an increase in the rate of increase. And a really thorough analysis would account for the switch from coal to oil.

A different CO2 graph. This one stretches out the graph, revealing that an exponential curve does exist.

I agree that it would be nice to see the earlier graphs, but we have already heard that those earlier CO2 levels do not rise above about 300 ppm, a level we passed in the beginning of the 20th century (I think, judging by this graph) and have since left in the dust. (Wikipedia says never in the last 800,000 years; Linkzmax's source says not in the last ~375 million years.)

The point of the current discussion isn't how much of the TOTAL CO2 we're responsible for but how much of the INCREASE of it. I've shifted away from the main GW debate because as I've said, it's clear that it will be a truly massive debate and I clearly haven't done enough research on it yet; I intend to do this research, but not at a the pace required for doing it in the middle of a debate on what I am researching.

All I ask is this: Look at that graph. Know that it goes up another 35 points vertically in a few millimeters horizontally after the graph ends. Then tell me: what makes you think that the cause is mostly natural instead of due to the "exponential" rate of human industrialization?

Final-Fan said: First, I should note that this graph ends in 1978. I forgot to mention that before. The graph does not start to rise in 1750; it clearly shows a space after the 1750 mark before it rises; and you'll notice that the rate of increase doesn't really take off until about 1850. The rate of increase is pretty damn steep; are you sure that it's not in fact exponential? I can definitely discern an increase in the rate of increase. And a really thorough analysis would account for the switch from coal to oil. A different CO2 graph. This one stretches out the graph, revealing that an exponential curve does exist. I agree that it would be nice to see the earlier graphs, but we have already heard that those earlier CO2 levels do not rise above about 300 ppm, a level we passed in the beginning of the 20th century (I think, judging by this graph) and have since left in the dust. (Wikipedia says never in the last 800,000 years; Linkzmax's source says not in the last ~375 million years.) The point of the current discussion isn't how much of the TOTAL CO2 we're responsible for but how much of the INCREASE of it. I've shifted away from the main GW debate because as I've said, it's clear that it will be a truly massive debate and I clearly haven't done enough research on it yet; I intend to do this research, but not at a the pace required for doing it in the middle of a debate on what I am researching. All I ask is this: Look at that graph. Know that it goes up another 35 points vertically in a few millimeters horizontally after the graph ends. Then tell me: what makes you think that the cause is mostly natural instead of due to the "exponential" rate of human industrialization?

First the second graph is better but still not to the point in time that the rates and temperatures were at there highest, which again is the data that is needed for meaningful comparison. You can't make the claim that the current situation is abnormal and not look at the other periods this situation has happened in. It would be like trying to find a cure for a disease without examining any samples of that disease...it makes no sense.

Now, looking at the first graph if we assume the starting point lines up correctly, we still have the issue that the increase in C02 is quite steep initially, actually it is a comparably steep incline to the portion of the graph representing the late 1800's and early 1900s. So unless you and pro-GW scientist want to fight historians about exactly how quickly industrialization occured in the late 1700's and mid 1800s you must concede that they do not fit properly.

Is there a connection? There is probably a case to be made there, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causation. This is not a new concept in science or logic, and has been accepted for some time. Correlations are justification for further research not confirmation of theory. And certainly not the basis of an argument.

As for defining the debate, the increase and total are completely related, I fail to see why they aren't part of the same larger issue. Really I fundamentally object to the exclusion of all of the larger topics you are asking us to not consider. You see as I said early one of my major points coming into this debate is that the GW topic in general was seriously lacking in context so I have a very big issue with you attempting to remove that context even further.

 

Responding to your final paragraph. This entire post was basically telling me what data to use, what portions of the graph to look at and in general you are trying to take all of the thought out of it and say "here look at it exactly like I want you to and then tell me what you think".

I actually even went along with that in my last post and used the entire increase in C02 over the last 250 years and assumed that ALL of it was man-made to get that ~ 6.5% number. But you didn't even bother to respond to the fact that I used numbers and figures from YOUR graphs and from websites YOU personally have sited data from and you still don't accept it?

 

To be honest I don't think that the C02 increase is independant of man-kind's influence, and never said it was, I just don't think the C02 increase means a damn thing on the larger scale when put in context with larger climate drivers. Which is why I have a hard time sitting here letting you phrase the debate to your liking only.

edit: To be clear, if you don't feel up to this debate then just step out. But trying to frame it in only the areas you feel comfortable in essentially says that you don't have a grasp on the bigger picture which is fundamental to understanding the overall picture. Again, I don't claim to be an expert but that doesn't stop me from addressing all of the issues.

I am not trying to use the CO2 argument as a platform to say "I'm right on this small issue so I'm right on the entire GW debate". I'm trying to argue that the recent dramatic increase in CO2 levels is in all likelihood due to human causes.

If you don't want to restrict yourself to this small area, that's fine, but don't accuse me of things I'm not attempting.

You have completely missed what I thought I pretty specifically laid out:

Not "CO2 and therefore global warming". (What would be the point of saying "I'm not going to participate in this debate right now" and then trying to sneak in the backdoor when nobody's looking?) CO2.

Now, on to your counterpoints:

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you believe the rate of change of CO2 was greater in these earlier periods? We have no data AFAIK capable of that kind of accuracy going back further than the ice cores, which go back less than 1 million years, which is far less than you want. If we have something that says, "BOOM CO2 went up 1,000 points in 10,000 years" (and that would certainly be an extreme increase!) that's a geological eyeblink but averages out to 0.1 points per year, while the period 1832 to 2007 has seen a rate of 0.57 and 1960-2006 it's been closer to 1.67!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere )

That's a good point, but you may notice that one temperature jump in particular looks like an outlier. Other than that one dot, it's almost a straight-line increase to the late 1800s. Or, if we assume it is accurate, there is indeed an oddity where CO2 rate-of-increase jumped towards the end of the 18th century but slackened off in the early-mid 19th before skyrocketing. [edit: slight correction to timeline]

Hell, maybe the 1700s increase isn't primarily human-caused after all. But that doesn't explain the rest.

If there's one potential cause that correlates very strongly to a result and the others do not, I'd call that sound basis for an argument. I have asked you for alternative hypotheses for the massive increase at the end of the measurement which you have been unable to provide.

As I have explained, I am no longer talking about global warming, I am talking about the increase in CO2 in recent centuries and the cause of that increase. If you think (presumably non-human-caused) GW caused that increase, well, I have my doubts but you can certainly make that argument.

Ah, no. It is a fact that the graph ends in 1978 at about 337 ppm; that the present total has increased about (correction) 40 ppm from that time to 2004 according to this source; that such a time period would be not more than "a few millimeters". I asked you to consider the amended data and provide me a hypothesis other than human industry that might explain it. I don't see how asking you to look at DATA is asking you to "look at it exactly like I want you to". If I sounded condescending or haughty, it was completely inadvertent, I assure you.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BUT ABOUT CO2 AND WHETHER MOST OF ITS INCREASE FROM ~280 PPM TO ~380 PPM IN A MATTER OF TWO CENTURIES IS DUE TO MANKIND OR NOT.

There's some truth to the allegation that I picked this particular battle because I felt I could win it; but that doesn't mean it's an invalid subject.

It's true that I currently haven't dug up info enough to be effective in the larger debate, but I do have enough knowledge to incorporate any relevant info from the "overall picture" into our CO2 discussion. That's a much easier task than incorporating all relevant info into the overall picture to discuss the overall picture. There's much more info that is relevant in the latter case, and much more to discuss.

You aren't an expert, but you're sure as hell an educated layman. And I'm not as educated as I need to be to debate you on the sprawling GW subject. But I do have the education required for this CO2 discussion, even though the CO2 issue is not independent from the GW issues. Because GW does not enter into our CO2 discussion at all except as a potential cause (or inhibitor) of CO2 increase.

Final-Fan said: I am not trying to use the CO2 argument as a platform to say "I'm right on this small issue so I'm right on the entire GW debate". I'm trying to argue that the recent dramatic increase in CO2 levels is in all likelihood due to human causes. If you don't want to restrict yourself to this small area, that's fine, but don't accuse me of things I'm not attempting.

I'm not saying you were, I'm saying that this smaller debate is meaningless if C02 is not a driver.  There is more to my reasons but I will explain further below.

 

Final-Fan said: Now, on to your counterpoints: First the second graph is better but still not to the point in time that the rates and temperatures were at there highest, which again is the data that is needed for meaningful comparison. You can't make the claim that the current situation is abnormal and not look at the other periods this situation has happened in. It would be like trying to find a cure for a disease without examining any samples of that disease...it makes no sense. Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you believe the rate of change of CO2 was greater in these earlier periods? We have no data AFAIK capable of that kind of accuracy going back further than the ice cores, which go back less than 1 million years, which is far less than you want. If we have something that says, "BOOM CO2 went up 1,000 points in 10,000 years" (and that would certainly be an extreme increase!) that's a geological eyeblink but averages out to 0.1 points per year, while the period 1832 to 2007 has seen a rate of 0.57 and 1960-2006 it's been closer to 1.67! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere )

I was referring to temperature shifts, I don't think the C02 debate is meaningful outside of the GW debate by itself.  We can discuss the man-made increases of peanut butter production also but if it doesn't have a larger importance why should we?  Thats what I am trying to say here, not trying to sound condescending but thats just the way I see this.  I hope you pause and try to see what I am getting at because this is not meant as an attack.

 

Final-Fan said: Now, looking at the first graph if we assume the starting point lines up correctly, we still have the issue that the increase in C02 is quite steep initially, actually it is a comparably steep incline to the portion of the graph representing the late 1800's and early 1900s. So unless you and pro-GW scientist want to fight historians about exactly how quickly industrialization occured in the late 1700's and mid 1800s you must concede that they do not fit properly. That's a good point, but you may notice that one temperature jump in particular looks like an outlier. Other than that one dot, it's almost a straight-line increase to the late 1800s. Or, if we assume it is accurate, there is indeed an oddity where CO2 rate-of-increase jumped towards the end of the 18th century but slackened off in the early-mid 19th before skyrocketing. [edit: slight correction to timeline] Hell, maybe the 1700s increase isn't primarily human-caused after all. But that doesn't explain the rest.

I agree there should be a reasonable explanation for the increases in that graph, what I don't agree about is that its meaningful to this debate. More on the explanations below...

 

Final-Fan said: Is there a connection? There is probably a case to be made there, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causation. This is not a new concept in science or logic, and has been accepted for some time. Correlations are justification for further research not confirmation of theory. And certainly not the basis of an argument. If there's one potential cause that correlates very strongly to a result and the others do not, I'd call that sound basis for an argument. I have asked you for alternative hypotheses for the massive increase at the end of the measurement which you have been unable to provide.

Perhaps I wasn't precisely clear before, but let me attempt to be this time.  When I said that it was justification for research I meant that its worth looking into.  When I said that its not the basis for an argument I meant that its not a valid way to further an argument when you can't even be sure if there is a valid connection in the first place.  An argument is about facts (should be) and a correlation is not a fact. Myself and any self-respecting scientist will refuse any point presented as a fact if it is merely supported by correlation.  It is an interesting note I agree but again I call into question its applicability in this discussion and I feel I have provided facts that do so and as such I don't see the point in continuing this discussion when the larger point has been called into question. But again I will attempt to answer below.

 

Final-Fan said: Responding to your final paragraph. This entire post was basically telling me what data to use, what portions of the graph to look at and in general you are trying to take all of the thought out of it and say "here look at it exactly like I want you to and then tell me what you think". Ah, no. It is a fact that the graph ends in 1978 at about 337 ppm; that the present total has increased about (correction) 40 ppm from that time to 2004 according to this source; that such a time period would be not more than "a few millimeters". I asked you to consider the amended data and provide me a hypothesis other than human industry that might explain it. I don't see how asking you to look at DATA is asking you to "look at it exactly like I want you to". If I sounded condescending or haughty, it was completely inadvertent, I assure you.

The problem you don't see is that I don't buy into much of the data you presented... yet I try to address it anyways.  You call my data into question so I find new data.  So when you insist that I respond to this data and the data is phrased into this time period and you want me to answer for a specific shape in the graph and you ask that we only focus on this point and nothing else you are absolutely shaping the debate.  Whether your intentions are pure or corrupt is not of consequence, the effect is the same.  And I was fine with everything but restricting the debate..but I will get to that later on.

To be fair the earlier portions of the debate are my fault, I felt my argument was extremely strong and so I tried to fight on your terms so that you would see the argument that much stronger supported by facts you already trusted. Its very hard to get someone to see your point when they vehemently disagree so you have to start with something they trust. In some situations it backfires in some it doesn't.  I'm not sure what kind of situation this is yet. 

 

Final-Fan said: To be honest I don't think that the C02 increase is independant of man-kind's influence, and never said it was, I just don't think the C02 increase means a damn thing on the larger scale when put in context with larger climate drivers. Which is why I have a hard time sitting here letting you phrase the debate to your liking only. At the risk of beating a dead horse, THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BUT ABOUT CO2 AND WHETHER MOST OF ITS INCREASE FROM ~280 PPM TO ~380 PPM IN A MATTER OF TWO CENTURIES IS DUE TO MANKIND OR NOT.

Finally we reach this point. First of all let me say that there is FAR to little information to go on.  This graph only shows a correlation and utterly fails to break down or label major influences such as volcanic eruptions.  There are an enormous amount of contributors and without a proper study I fail to see how I am supposed to account for this or with any degree of certainty say what caused it.

What I will however say is that I have no doubt mankind has contributed to the increase.  The amount is what is in question.  And using your graph if I take all of the C02 increase in ppm from 1750 until 1978 (the latest number on that graph) and attribute ALL OF IT to mankind I end up with 19.3% of the C02 in the atmosphere being due to human activity and then if I use realclimate's percentages I showed that it accounts for 6.755% of ALL warming due to greenhouse effect. 

All of that information is valid to this debate and while I understand your position you need to understand mine as well.  I feel like I have been extremely accomodating in using whatever data you would like and making my points in spite of that.  I feel like you have for the most part decided which topics we would discuss and I was fine with that and continued to make my points as each topic was discussed.  But I will not participate in the discussion that does not deal with the larger issue, the issue I care about.  I am glad to discuss other topics as well but when we remove the larger issue I take exception.

That doesn't mean I hate you or dislike you, it just means I draw the line there and the debate is over.  To be honest I did appreciate you retracting your hasty judgments early in the thread and I do respect you (but not just for that).  But I will not compromise my position for respect only and as I have said, fundamental to my position is that the GW debate lacks overall context. I feel it compromises my position to participate when to do so goes against the very position I attempt to defend.

If we are being honest this is probably for the best anyways, these things go in circles and get old.  So lets just call it quits now and agree to disagree while we still respect each other =)

Fair enough?  Can we agree to disagree?

PS - Feel free to have the last word to wrap up anything you feel is important, but I'd prefer if you not pose questions as it only encourages that we prolong this. 

 

 

OK. So you don't want to pursue CO2 increases and not global warming. That's completely fine, but I would have preferred that you said so as soon as I said "let's talk about CO2 increases and not global warming".

(The rest is secondary.)

I only remember calling your data into question in that it was totally misleading as far as human contributions to greenhouse gases. For instance, it claims that humans contribute less than 4% of CO2 production. I had a hard time believing that number, since I didn't know the source for it, but Wikipedia agrees. Yet at the same time Wikipedia explains how that number is totally misleading as far as contributions to total atmospheric levels are concerned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere

So it's like there's a reservoir that gets a million gallons of inflow every day, and drains a million gallons a day, and then somebody diverts another 40,000 gallons a day into it. Not much in comparison, but it has all the credit for increasing the reservoir level. Things like "This graph only shows a correlation and utterly fails to break down or label major influences such as volcanic eruptions" aren't significant to this analogy, or the discussion, because we have certainly not seen a massive increase in volcanic activity in the last 50 years, nor, AFAIK, have we seen natural increases on the necessary scale anywhere else (or natural decreases in carbon sinks). Equal activity = equal CO2 levels.



BUT IT'S YOUR DATA. I got it from the same source your website got the stuff you quoted from. Didn't you know that? [edit: I can't blame you too much, as I didn't tell you.] As for wanting to discuss the massive spike in the last 200 years, well, isn't that natural? The rest of the the graph is relatively boring. [well, the ice age cycles in the longer graph aren't boring...] I specifically divorced this discussion from the GW debate and if you didn't want to follow me there ... well, don't.

The earth is warming, and that's a fact. The "inconvenient truth", is no matter how we lived our lives in the last 20 years, or how we live it in the next 50, has had very little impact. The Human effect to the earths temp was caused (at whatever level) before we knew we had any effect. Long before Mr BS himself Gore was born.

A lot of it we didn't cause, some of it we might have caused. But nothing we do will reverse it, and very little that we do will slow it down.

So in my opinion, the debate over how to combat it is moot. Additionally, all resources we put into trying to stop it is money lost. What we should be researching, is how to live in a world that's getting warmer.

On a side note, one major volcano exploding will release more carbon dioxide into the air then humans have ever produced. Luckily we have not had one go off like that in the last few thousand years, but it could happen today, tomorrow, next year. It would suck to spend trillions of dollars and totally change our way of lives to reduce our pollution expenditure, only to have it reversed in a day.

Well we are going through a natural warming cycle ANY way (there have been numerous warming/cooling cycles in the earth's history, that is unless you are a strict biblical interpreter and think the world is 7000 years old lol)

However, There has been a human contribution as well. The real problem right now isn't the Americas, Europe, or Japan, but in particular China and India.

These 2 countries combined have about 38% of the earth's population, and traditionally the vast majority of the population there didn't drive cars. This is changing however and the environmental impact is going to be something awful.

Infact, and Indian car company is release an extremely cheap car in India (something like $1500 new) to bring automobiles to a huge population that couldn't afford a car previously.

Though the fact that the US is the ONLY country in the world that signed but declined ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is very troubling. Sometimes I want to kick our government right in their collective crotches.