global warming is a hoax!

I realize I am not a big brain, but if you are comparing Co2 levels should you be comparing samles from a permafost location an active volcano location. Would it not make sence to do them in the same location?

Mauna Loa is not an active volcano!!! It is a dormant if not extinct volcanic mountain. In addition to the CO2 monitoring it is also home to two of the largest optical telescopes in the world, the Keck optical interferometer. Astronomers are smart enough to not build very expensive equipment on an active volcano. It seems climate deniers are also ignorant of realities of geography.

I'm not sure I trust this study as any reading for current day weather trends. I think there are to many unknowns still in our weather system that may not be accurately modeled.

These are estimations. CO2 might have been at higher levels "650,000" years ago. C02 seeps out. How can they accurately predict seepage? Higher CO2 levels in the past would be more in line with plant fossil evidence. It would explain the size of a healthy planet past, where large foliage and plant materials have been discovered from anartica to siberia. There was a much more robust plant and animal life.

If anything, it is lack of C02 that is the real scare.
If not for adequate CO2 levels, large trees, fauna and the total amount of life on this planet cannot flourish. Just not sure I trust this type of historical readings. OR that they fully understand or know how the feedback system works for this planet now, much less millions of years ago.

My questions are...
Did temperatures match the CO2 levels? If not, why such a discrepency between then and now? And why wouldn't that hurt the study? Are they claiming the temperatures were 40% lower along with CO2 levels? If not, why not? If CO2 levels match temperature trends. Then they must have matched fully then. What was life like back then?

Recent temps do not correlate with temperature increase. We've run flat since 98. And there has been a recent downward trend showing a cooling pattern just this last year. Plus NASA readjusted the temps for a year 2000 glitch downward. This dropped what was the highest recent temps out of the top ten. I believe what was 6 in top ten down to 1 or 2?

I'm not convinced it is CO2 that is the major problem that would cause any large variances outside the norm temperatures of clouds and precipitation which contributes or more accurately provides the feedback loop of over 90% to natural warming and cooling patterns in the temperatures we see today. What percentage is CO2?

I support all the latest technology for energy efficiency and independence from foreign oil.

But, I'd rather our nation focus more effort on energy efficiency than on CO2. If vehicle transportation cuts fuel usage in half, that roughtly cuts by half CO2 production. You can accomplish CO2 reduction by efficiency first.

There needs to be some practical tradeoffs and some priorities. To not stymie production with over regulation based on possible models of climate that may be found wrong in the future.

I realize I'll probably get hammered here for these views. But I just hope progress in energy independence is not held back for the wrong reason. Spending time, money and resources on cleantech, that can be a second priority. Plesse note that I'm addressing only CO2, not any other pollutants.

Aym, I am not a climate denier. The nature of earths climate is to change anyone who has a brain knows this. The question is can we and should we try to do any thing about it. Mother Earth has a pretty good if sometimes violent way of restoring balance. If the exact location is not active I know their is one near by. Not to mention Ocean life an plant life would skew the results. It only makes sence if your using core samples from one location that you would take samples from the same location. I am amazed by the willinness of people to believe what ever they here. What everhappend to Questioning Authority?

Michael:

You probably won't believe it, but according to many in depth studies, there is a close relationship between CO² levels and temperatures.

During the last 400 000 years, everytime (5 times) CO² level reached about 300 ppm, temperatures went up by +3ºC above average. When CO² progressively fell to about 200 ppm, temperatures went down by about -8ºC below average. The total temperature swings between CO² level of 200 and 300 ppm were about 11º C.

With a possible all time high CO² of 500+ ppm by 2100, temperatures may go even higher.

Granted, there are most probably other contributing factors, but CO² seems to be a major one. Since the cycles are about 75000 to 100 000 years long, we will certainly not be around long enough to see a complete one. However, if you are very young, you may witness some of the effects of the current warming up cycle. If not, your children and grand children will.

According to the USGS "Mauna Loa is among Earth's most active volcanoes." Google "Mauna Loa" for links.

The Keck observatory is actually on Mauna Kea, and the USGS says "Mauna Kea is presently a dormant volcano."

The most active volcano on the Big Island is Kilauea, which has been continuously active since 1983.

Harvey:

Reconstructions of atmosphere temperatures and CO2 concentrations derived from ice cores unanimously indicate that CO2 rises were trailing temperature increases by 500-1000 years. This fact was well known at the time of creation of Inconvenient Truth, so Al Gore graph presentation was clear fraud.

CO2 lag does not mean that CO2 is not a contributor to warming, but it does mean that it is not major contributor.

As for witnessing of climatic changes, we all were observers of 1977-2000 warming due to positive phase of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Google or Wiki PDO), and currently are witnessing beginning of cooling (last 16 months) 30-years phase. Lets hope that cooling will be shallow. US Department of Agriculture predicts 10% reduction in US corn harvest this year due to late, wet, and cold spring and incoming cool summer (mostly due to cold La Nina).

I think we need the full picture from the Hadley Centre before we consign AGW to the history books, Sulleny:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080429.html

"In future, we will continue to see global temperatures rise and fall year-on-year. This does not mean that global warming has stopped; only that the continuing rise in temperatures due to man made emissions of greenhouse gases is being temporarily masked."

The present pause in *atmospheric* warming is a trap for the unwary and gullible. Global warming is roaring right along as before, but the trapped heat is going into the deep ocean: in other words it's warming sea water. When La Nina and the Pacific oscillation circulations end that heat will resume warming the atmosphere.

Harvey,

Thanks for civil response. And others. I'm trying to stay open minded, but remain skeptical. Reading all sides of the debate.

For my part the debate is over for energy dependence on foreign oil. That much is obvious and the most important issue. I have different thoughts of compromise for how to move towards energy independence faster. Favoring a broader approach to utilize all our resources until clean tech saturates our markets.

I do not doubt most studies show a correlation with temp and CO2. I do doubt they're correct. As George pointed out it appears now to be "as a result" of increased temperatures.

One study shows current climate models do not accurately predict long term events from a historical perspective. They conclude future modeling results therefore to be incorrect.

Quotes from the study, page 20 conclusions:

"• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model
predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.
• This makes future climate projections not credible."

Here is a link to the study:
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

I quoted from the PDF presentation link.

info: National Technical University of Athens.
signatures: Koutsoyiannis, D., N. Mamassis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and S.M. Papalexiou title: Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,
presented to: European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 10, Vienna, 09074, European Geosciences Union, 2008.

Predictions made last year were wrong and had to be scaled back for hurricanes. This year they're predicting a larger hurricane season. They may well be right. But then, that would make their predictions 50/50 in short term, annual climate change. I could flip a coin and possibly match our climatologist.

Thus, with observations of new studies I remain skeptical of long term predictions. Especially when even short term predictiosn are 50/50.

What I do support is full steam ahead priority based shift to more efficient energy use. I support all the alt energy pathways from solar to battery, wind and biofuels(that do not effect food supply).

Our nation and world leaders panicked. As a result, food supply and prices are disrupted around the world. Even Europe recognized this folly. So I favor a more balanced approach. One that recognizes priorities.

Miles EV site promote one of their vehicles cuts 13,000lbs of CO2. I think that is great and I also think it is practical. It will do both priorities at cost efficient methods. It will help eliminate oil dependency and cut CO2. I favor such approaches.

But I question CO2 sequestration techniques that reduce efficiency. And spending billions that may not be necessary for mandates based on faulty climate models. The less oil our nation uses obviously the better and that alone cuts CO2 levels. But there may be a certain amount of acceptable levels until we reduce oil dependency, then proceed full bore on clean tech.

There are many good advances coming online in 2010. We reached the tipping point for a new paradigm in transportation. So I think we are finally on the right path to a more clean environment and moving off oil.

But I still doubt correlation of CO2 and temperature as is being pushed by IPCC and Gore. I think correlations are as stated by George, a cause and effect reversal. Temperature proceeds CO2 levels. And we have not yet adequately included other variables for long term models predictions.

News just in: Scientists don't know everything yet!

I'm confused though, first post you were saying the "AGW war", whatever that is, is over. Now you're saying it's not.

That research is fascinating but let's see what happens when the data's plugged into climate models before triumphantly announcing the death of global warming.

Deniers fight tooth & nail, every tick of the rising numbers....387 parts per million can't be right. & it isn't. 387ppm is the volume measure. 584ppm is the mass measure, the actual 'weight' measure. By the year 2050, carbon dioxide by weight will be 700ppm.

Deniers like to write carbon dioxide atmospheric quantity as 0.035%. They like to use older data too. That is why they are so vociferous about this new number, 0.0387%. Then they say, its so small....just a tick. & man can't be the causative factor because man is so...small. But remember...carbon dioxide is really 0.0584%, by mass...by 2050, 0.0700%.

Some decades after 2050, carbon dioxide will be 0.1000%. Whoa! Now that is a different number. 0.1% is actually 1 tenth of 1 percent. People intuitively know that 1 tenth of 1 percent CAN affect things. So even the way deniers want to write carbon dioxide...people know.

Man dumps 19 billion TONS(2000 times more than pounds) into the atmosphere per year. At current rates, in 52 years, 1 trillion tons(2000 million million pounds) of carbon dioxide is dumped into the air. Now people really know what's going on, what is going into the air we breathe, which affects us so..so much.