Are there such a thing as "cold house" gases?

These would be materials that are transparent in the far IR but opaque in the visible and near IR. Fluorescent dyes and microscopic scattering particles can have this property. There are proposals to seed the upper atmosphere with things like this to compensate at least partially for increased CO2 levels. There could be bad side effects (increased catalysis of ozone destruction on the surface of some kinds of particles), it wouldn't address ocean acidification, and even if you did it the temperature distribution on Earth would change (since the change in effective insolation would not have the same latitude distribution as the greenhouse effect's change on IR radiation to space.) However, it's potentially a way to prevent disaster from spinning completely out of control if other efforts fail, and potentially could be quite inexpensive compared to many alternatives.

Dietz

Energex42:

Further to Andrey's list I'd also recommend reading:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

In the short run there is nothing that can be done because there is nothing that can be done about the crushing needs of india and china both growing much fster then the west and each much bigger then all of the west combined.

Our only real hope is to in the short run come up with tech to allow china and india both massively dependant on coal to burn that coal cleanly and yet still afford to use the coal. In the long run the only option is a combo of bio and non biological sources for fuels that china and india can use. Becaiuse no mnatter how spiffy the tech if it doesnt solve china and indias energy needs it does nthing to stop global warming.

You can add Australia to the top of that hypocrites list Harvey D. (Nicely put, by the way.) I know that the benefits of the Kyoto pact are limited but Australia and the US are showing extraordinary arrogance by refusing to sign up.

Harvey D. -

your logic is flawed on two counts:

a) we did not know about (the seriousness of) global warming until recently. China is just now really ramping up its industrial base, knowing full well how much damage it is causing.

b) we simply cannot afford to let China and other emerging economies to ignore climate change because it will affect us as well.

c) we need to give emerging economies an incentive to avoid repeating what we now know to be our worst mistakes (coal-fired power plants, low-efficiency cars & traffic management, cheap electric motors, excessive packaging etc.) Even if the West was in an ideal position to shame emerging economies regarding CO2 (and we are not), they would still prioritize economic growth over the environment because that's the phase of development that they are in. We would have to pay them in some way to change course.

"The evidences of global warming as the result of human influences are clear". Maybe I'm missing something, but they don't seem clear to me. It was just within the last couple of years (to my knowledge) that any study showed a conclusive increase in global temperature (.1~.2 degrees a decade) which was smaller than models predicted.

Could it not be that a global warming trend is increasing the CO2 levels due to reduced solubility in warmer ocean waters? I'd be interested in how they determine the source of the 35% CO2 increase.

tthoms,
If you have doubt about GW, (not the US President, even he now accepts GW), just go the Artic, and there you will find unprecedented melting of the polar ice cap. The Greenland ice sheet is losing thickness much faster than winter precipitation can build it up.

You don't know for sure where the increase in CO2 level is coming from? Just look at the tail pipe of your car. Each car produces tons of CO2 yearly, and multiply that by 700 millions. Look at the smokestack of coal-fire power generating plant, and of every trucks, farm combines, jets airliner, etc...Our rate of increase in consumption of fossil fuels is accelerating at an unprecedented rate except for a few countries...

Putting all the facts together: CO2 is established as a GHG, CO2 level is rising at an unprecedented rate that correlates with all of human activities (such as fossil energy consumption), the earth is warming rapidly, far more rapidly than in any times in prehistoric geologic history, ...etc...etc...

And you still have doubts?

Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is rising for about 150 years, yet currently slower than in 1970s. Most of the increase – 82% happened between 1960 and present (over 1900 level). It is perfectly correct to suppose that this rise is attributed to human activity – first deforestation and lately to combustion of fossil fuels. Yet there are other possibilities, like release of stored CO2 from ocean, which is by far the major player in global carbon balance. Science has not somehow conclusively decided what is the real reason. Yet during Earth history levels of CO2 in atmosphere varied widely, and at most times during last 3000 years concentration of CO2 in atmosphere was higher then now.

Global temperature varied dramatically during last 3000 years, from 25C at 5 c. bc to 22C at 5 c. ac, then to 24C at 12 c. ac (Medieval Climate Optimum), back to 22C at 16 c. (Little Ice Age), and since then was on slow uptrend to current 23C – about average for past 3000 years. Last 20 years global temperature is slightly decreasing.

Now, all these are scientific facts, proved by numerous researches and direct measurements from ground stations and satellite measurements of both Earth surface and troposphere air temperatures.

Hypothesis of man-made GW appeared based on data of sharp (yet not uncommon in the past) rise of global temperature during 1965-1985, co-incited with sharp rise of CO2 concentration. It was perfectly viable scientific hypothesis. Yet accurate analysis of time period including previous 10 years and from 1985 to present totally dismantled this correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration. The one thing is perfectly clear: CO2 concentration rise could not be the driving force behind moderate trend of warming climate, because it is generally trailing behind increase in global temperature. It is not surprising, because if all CO2 is removed from atmosphere, it will retain about 98% of its GH ability.

Computer models predicting dramatic rise in global temperature failed completely to comply with observed Earth temperatures for last 25 years. Ocean level and thickness of polar ice caps remained unchanged (despite dramatic pictures of falling into the ocean icebergs, which is natural thing for icecaps at any time). Frequency of extreme weather events was slightly reduced, which is typical for slightly warmer climate.

I was trying to stick with real scientific data, not with hot air speculations.

The most comprehensive compilation of climate science findings during last 30 years I can find could be find at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

It has a lot of data and graphs, yet it is readable for non-professional in climate field. Note, however, that this document is supported by 19 000 scientists signed Oregon Petition (including 2600 scientists in the field of climatology, meteorology, and related science) to US government arguing cautious approach to drastic political measures concerning ratification of highly controversial Kyoto protocol. Yet it the best scientific revue of the GW issue, perfectly in line with hundreds of scientific publications I have read on the subject.

Regards, Andrey

Andrey,

After reading this;
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html#cc2

I'm convinced you're either very gullible or a neo-con Trojan horse. The more verbose you are the less credibility you have.

Andrey,
sorry dude, but you lost all credibility with me by simply mentioning OISM.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

And in regards to ocean carbon. Some of the carbon from the gas does get turned into a solid and is stored on the ocean floor for eons. But if it survives as a gas CO2 sucked into the ocean as a gas and then released as a gas cycles all the time and is usually static in terms of isotpes; there is no reason why the gas as a gas would stay put in the oceans for ten thousand plus years. There is nothing that I know of in the oceans which converts solid carbon into CO2 gas. Methane yes, but that is very different. Ice cores, sediments, and tree ring samples all point to the last ten thousand years (at least) as being fairly static in proportion of C13/C12 ratios. until the last 150 years; the same time we see an increase in CO2, the same time we see humans burning huge sums of fossil carbon making CO2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

One plus One has long since added up to equal Two.

there is no reason why the gas as a gas would stay put in the oceans for ten thousand plus years

On the short term, CO2 is absorbed into the ocean surface, acidifying it. On a slightly longer term, the ocean mixes, carrying some of the CO2 down to depth. On a somewhat longer term, the increased acidity is buffered by dissolution of calcium carbonate, increasing the holding capacity still more. On a very long term, new cations are added by weathering of silicates.

The calcium carbonate dissolution process is estimated to take thousands of years, if I understand correctly, and will enable the ocean to contain most of the CO2 we're currently emitting. It might be possible to increase the rate of this process artificially; there's a patent for a scheme that injects a water/powdered limestone/liquid CO2 emulsion under pressure into water more than 500 m deep. The limestone increases the density of the mixture, enabling it to be injected at a shallower depth than liquid CO2 alone.