Amazing! No one has "hugged" a tree in the thread yet.

One additional note to the whole "we have observed a short period and know everything" line of reasoning: We have only been able to observe the ozone layer for an even shorter time than we have recorded temperatures. We don't know what it has done historically. In fact, scientists have discovered evidence in Antarctica that may show that there have been fluctuations in the size of the hole in the ozone layer going back centuries.

Of course, facts like that disagree with the theory, so they must be discarded.

I've read your detractors' statements time and time again, and figured they were really overreacting, but this post proves their point, I'm afraid. You really are a dangerous man, Paul. You have, in no uncertain terms, said something now that shows just how vile and evil you really are.

You've gone and injected logic and common sense into a scientific debate.

How dare you!

(tongue now extracted from cheek)

This, like evolution, is a scientific theory that has been sheltered from the long-standing rules of scientific research. To prove a hypothesis, you must both state supporting evidence, and then test against the hypothesis. If it can be supported by data and cannot be disproven by testing, only then should that hypothesis advance to "theory" status. At that point extensive data collection and testing, both supportive and antagonistic to the theory will either lend credibility to the theory or debunk it entirely.

On the two aforementioned topics, however, the scientific community has relied solely on supportive data, totally ignoring any alternative explanations or antagonistic data, and for the most part have elevated both ideas to the level of scientific law with virtually no testing.

Of course an overhaul in scientific opinion on global warming would require a much more extensive overhaul of the EPA and its similar groups. I am afraid there's entirely too much money being made by those groups to expect much of a change in the near future.

Any grade schooler can do an experiment to disprove the "THE ICE CAPS WILL MELT AND FLOOD THE EARTH - WOE!" myth.
Take a large glass. Fill with ice then fill to top edge with water. Wait several hours. Measure the water that flows over the top as the ice melts. There will be NONE.

(((((tree)))))

Meezer, I'm a Global Warming skeptic at least as much as Paul, but your ice cap experiment overlooks one thing: although the Arctic ice cap is floating, the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are not. They each lie atop a landmass, and if melted would indeed result in a rise in sea level.

The question is whether (1) global climate change is occurring, (2) whether humanity is the cause and therefore can avert it, and (3) that it would be a bad thing. I still have yet to see anything from a source I would rely upon, that proves any of these is the case.

Thanks Julie.. I knew there would be at least one.

BTW Paul these people seem to agree with you: Humans 'may have saved world from ice age'.

"HUMANS may have unwittingly saved themselves from a looming ice age by interfering with the Earth's climate, according to a new study."

"The findings from a team of American climate experts suggest that were it not for greenhouse gases produced by humans, the world would be well on the way to a frozen Armageddon."

Like all utopian movements the enviormentlist whackos would move (or remove) humanity to accomadate a pristine and primitive (pre-human) echosystem. I guess the few of us that would survive this progrom would live in tee pees (unheated of course). Except for the elite who could of course study it all.
The problem with global warming is that nothing has occurred yet outside the norm already contained in the geologic record (i.e. core samples from glaciers and polar regions).
I have no doubt that human activity affects the enviornment. Our cities as you said cause locally warmer temperatures. All the pavement we have laid in this country results in a tremendous amount of direct runoff for rainwater that was not present even 60 years ago. Our sewer systems and water sheds indicate a need to clean up after ourselves. It dosn't mean signing something like Kyoto and strangeling ourselves to death.

I don't feel saved. Currently 16 degrees in NH. It will not be over freezing until this weekend (hopefully) I am running out of fire wood. I wish this global warming thing would hurry up.

OK, let a newbie to this blog cast the first stone.

The fundamental question about global warming is to what extent man's activities are accelerating or retarding the Earth's temperature swings. From this question flows two other questions: what harm could come from any acceleration or retardation; and what can, or should, be done to address that harm.

My problem with Paul's post is that it ignores the debate and focuses on the easy target of smacking granola-eating Earth-Firsters around. Now I grant you, this is as much fun, and as difficult as killing baby seals. But it hardly advances the conservative side in this debate.

Paul sets himself up for an easy rebuke by focusing on ozone depletion and ignores the "blanket" effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases; an effect that plays a larger role than ozone depletion in impacting global temperature swings.

In fact, his example of heating being caused by the generation of power, and the heating of homes supports the "tree huggers" argument, since it is this activity that generates the greenhouse gases that are warming the Earth...and underlies most of their proposed solutions of increased regulation and government intervention.

Instead of proving the "theory of global warming" to be fatally flawed, Paul has only succeeded in lobbing a few nerf balls. Conservative argument, I believe, works best when it demands that a debate come down from 30,000 feet and deal with the practical issues of resolving problems.

Grant the tree-huggers the basis of their argument: the Earth's temperature does vary, Mankind (as part of nature) has some impact on that variation through his actions and inactions. And then challenge them by saying "So what?"

Challenge them to be specific about any harms (what are the harms, who will be harmed, when will it occur, how much harm will be done).

Ask the tree-huggers what their solutions are; what do they cost in human, political and economic terms; ask them to quantify the benefits of taking action and the harm of not taking action. In essence, engage in the real implications of policy, and not in some academic pissing contest about what is and isn't a "theory".

It's when conservatives force the debate away from the touchy-feely level (that neither side can ever prove or disprove) and onto the concrete realm of specific action, that fuzzy-headed liberals are best exposed and debates won.

And if that doesn't provide enough fun, just remind the tree huggers that conservatives are deeply concerned about global warming...since it's much easier to club baby seals on pack ice, than in the open water.

Scott said:

The fundamental question about global warming is to what extent man's activities are accelerating or retarding the Earth's temperature swings.

Wrong. The fundamental question about global warming is whether it's happening or not. How can you go to causality when you have not established is even happening?

(remember when I said)
-----
Especially since I'm doing this (again) in as few words as possible, I'm sure someone will have a problem with the way I say something.
-----

Without typing 10,000 words I can not be immune to the "Well you didn't mention XXXXX compliant.

I DID NOT ignore the heating blanket theory. (look very close, it was small) I specifically said I was glossing over #2.

But you can't prove to me GW is in fact happening so debating the 'whys' is just silly.

P

Paul,

You are waaay too uninformed about basic atmospheric chemistry to make a serious argument and you conflate two different phenomena.

First, "global warming" and the ozone hole are not two parts of one problem. The ozone hole over Antarctica and the thinning of the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming. The consequences of a thinner ozone layer is exposing the Earth's surface to more ultraviolet radiation, not global warming. The ban on CFCs introduced by the Montreal Protocol in the 70s is in the process of solving the problem (since CFCs take about 100 years or so to break down in the atmosphere).

Second, ozone (O3, an unstable molecule) in the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere is caused by solar radiation interacting with oxygen molecules in a regular cycle of creation and destruction (there is NO lightning at that altitude). CFCs at that level cause significant interference in that cycle. Ozone at the earth's surface is caused by pollution and breaks down quickly enough that CFCs do not play much of a role in that cycle. If there were no humans on earth, there would still be an ozone layer in the upper atmosphere (again, to reinforce the point, NOT caused by lightning) and only a little on the Earth's surface (caused by lightning and natural combustion).

I've been a sceptic of the wild claims about the consequences of global warming ever since I did PhD work in it several years ago, but arguments that you are making Paul are emotional, lacking in a basic grounding in the science, and simply not credible. Ironically, much like the environmentalists that you heap scorn upon for the same flaws.

I tell you what Scott, (I know how this game is played)

I know how you are going to do this. You are going to mention 1000 things outside of the scope of my post and then say unless I reply to all 1000 points, my post is wrong.

I'm not going to play that game again.

Let's do this. You prove for me that global warming is happening and I'll continue the discussion and answer any questions you ask.

Until you can prove that global warming is happening, you have nothing to talk about but conjecture.

Paul, what Scott was attempting to talk about was the fact that air pollution has two sources, natural causes and man-made cuases. I made the argument a while ago in a comment that the natural causes of air pollution produced far more in the history of the planet than man can ever produce.

My argument basically puts forth that the earth was bombarded with all sorts of "natural" shit that she has put up with so far. How are we a threat?

Paul,
The problem here is that you are guilty of blasphemy against the religion of “Science” with your statements against one of its most cherished tenets. The religion of “Science” ignores all data that does not support their preconceived ideas on how things work. They will occasionally conduct experiments to prove their point, but only when they can be absolutely assured that the outcome will support their pet theory.

Real science conducts unbiased research to see if a theory has merit. The religion of “Science” stacks the deck in their research so that the theory they support will always appear as a near certain fact. The media no longer gives credence to real science, and adherence to the dictates of the religion of “Science” has long been the foundation of much of the far Left’s philosophy. But there are now a growing number in the conservative camp who grew up being taught this pseuoscience in school that have joined their liberal brethren in the pews of this new church. This does not bode well for those of us who want real evidence of a problem before we start dismantling our civilization in order to save mankind.

Two of the most cherished commandments of the religion of “Science” are:
1) Thou shalt not disparage the law of evolution.
2) Thou shalt not question the environmentalists’ prophecies of doom.

I have a few things to add, if that's okay. Mt St Helen's, Chernoble, Desert testing, bombs and other destructible things that goes on naturally all over the world have something to do with global warming. The size of our planet has changed from a globe flattening at the top and bottom plumping at the middle. I don't think that we as a people personally with our vehicles, et al, caused global warming.

et al

Cindy

You are waaay too uninformed about basic atmospheric chemistry to make a serious argument

Can you forward me a copy of your resume'? Any work you've done on it?

You say, "The consequences of a thinner ozone layer is exposing the Earth's surface to more ultraviolet radiation, not global warming.

OH so we banned CFCs for what reason exactly?

I love you goofballs. You claim you have such vast superior knowledge they you say something stupid.

I said:We release nasty things like CFCs and CO2 in to the atmosphere. This causes a hole in the ozone layer (and/or acts as a thermal blanket) allowing more radiant energy from the sun to hit the earth causing the earth to warm

If you disagree with the fact that more UV radiation will warm what it hits you are a loon.

Thank you playing.

I agree with Dave that the ozone thing is a separate issue entirely from global warming.

But Paul, I also think you left out two other facts.

1)The fossil record shows that the Earths climate fluctuates widely over time. They also show that the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years, at least, and possibly 20,000 years. If you believe the fossils support evolution, you must accept that they support that the Earth has been warming for a very long time. So there should be no doubt or arguing over whether the Earth is warming. But this particular warming trend started thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

2) The Krakatoa eruption in 1883 was a once in a millennia event that most certainly had a global climactic effect for years afterward. It could be argued that it dwarfed any effect that man has had. At a minimum, it skewed data for the next 20-30 years.

Jmater I left out 1000 facts. It's a blog post not a book!

Poor Paul! He was crucified for our environmental sins.

Paul --

So I'm no tree-hugger (skeptical about GW, etc), but our understanding of ozone science is pretty well-developed, and not nearly as uncertain as climate change. A number of the things you present as facts are simply not right. A couple points:

- GW and ozone depletion are coupled, but they're different issues. While some scientists may say one contributes to the other, I'm not aware of anyone saying one is the main cause of the other. Sure UV light can heat up the atmosphere, but the main concern -- and the reason we banned CFC's -- was the direct damage UV can do to living tissue.

- Lighning makes ozone, but it's not the main source in the atmosphere -- light's the main source. If the ozone layer were to be destroyed, replenishment of the ozone layer would take ~50 yrs. So that girl was wrong that it won't come back...but it takes a while.

- Ozone's been measured for more than 20 years (though still on a timescale small compared to the age of the earth). Global Nimbus data started in 1970; local monitoring goes back to at least 1926.

- No one's ever claimed a "magical electron stripping potential" of CFC's. The CFC's don't destroy ozone directly -- free radicals do. When exposed to light in the far UV, CFC's fall apart to free radicals. There's no far UV at sea level, so there CFC's are inert; there's plenty in the upper atmosphere, so there CFC's lead to ozone destruction.

In any case, none of this affects legitimate skepticism of GW. Just thought I'd pass it on.

Official Notice Anyone says "Well, you didn't talk about XXXX will be deleted.

I know damn good and well what I wrote and what I didn't. (I'll say it for the 10th time...) This is blog post not a freaking book! There is no human way to post every nuance of the whole debate. THAT'S WHY I FOCUSED ON ONE PART!

If you have evidence to contradict something that I said, I'm all ears.

If you can prove global warming is happing, lemme know.

If you want to talk about something that I did not, I suggest you get your own blog.

Well, I like your heaters theory. But you forget that one of the reasons cities are so much warmer is the concentration of smog from the auto exhaust (increased density in the urban area) and ambient heat in the (extra) pavement.

Here's something freaky: In Portland, it rains in the city more on the weekends in the spring & summer. When I asked why, an enviro friend of mine told me that it was because the extra heat in the city during the work week affects the weather fronts in a way that it pushes them back from the city (all that hot air rising?); but when everyone goes home for the weekend the weather fronts come through naturally. I don't know if that's true or not but it's an interesting side-note.

It seems to me that the evidence as to whether or not global warming exists should be apparent from the polar ice caps: if global warming exists, the ice caps should be growing. Even the most extreme global warming claims are only a few degrees - not enough to melt the ice caps, but certain to cause increased evaporation from the oceans. Much of that moisture should find its way to the ice caps.

Anyway, if global warming exists, there should be non-temperature empirical evidence to demonstrate that fact.

Jesse nothing you have said contradicts anything I've said --- well other than that it's been 30 whole years we've monitored ozone and not 20. Woopie!

(I'm old it seemed like only 20 years to me. ;-)

Can you make the case that 10 years of data is statistically valid on a planet 4.5 billion years old?

NO?

Then you didn't really add to the discussion, you played word games. Thanks.

First let me make a small point. One reason for the disparity between urban and rural temperature for the same region might have to do with thermal mass. All of the concrete that is laid on the ground and in buildings will retain more heat than the uncovered rural grounds.

I ran across this new republic article a few weeks ago and it makes some very valid points.

As Glenn says... read the whole thing :¬)

Just wanted to add something to what you stated Paul.

We have to remember that while we have been compiling those 200 years of (likely) accurate data, our cities have been growing up around the measuring stations. For instance, here in Dallas/Fort Worth the official station is at the D/FW Airport, which is smack in the middle of the metroplex. Where I live, 45 miles away from Dallas, the temperature is typically 3-5 degrees cooler than the official numbers. While the station remains the same, the environment surrounding the station does not. 30 years ago it was nothing but a field at a small airport, but now it is surrounded by houses, freeways, and tons of concrete and asphalt. This alone will skew the temperature numbers up a degree or two due to the urban heat island effect.

Also, I have one comment with regards to more extreme weather, especially tornadoes. Maybe it isn't so much that weather is becoming more extreme as it is we are better able to track it and quantify it. 50 years ago if a tornado dropped in the middle of eastern Kansas and nobody saw it, according to official documents it never existed. Our population now is spread out so much and our technology is advanced to the point that we can more accurately define where these event occur.

Just my $0.02. Good writing Paul.

Paul, the problem with your post is not that you left stuff out, but that the stuff you wrote was wrong. For example, the cause of anthropogenic global warming is not ozone depletion, but an increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere that cuts down the quantity of heat that escapes into space.

You also don't seem to understand sampling. You seem to think that the size of the sample relative to the size of the population is what matters, when it is actually just the size of the sample. For example, to predict national vote percentages you need the sample size (say, 1000) as you do to predict the the vore breakdown in one state.

Paul --

"Word games"? What do you mean I didn't contradict anything you said?!? I directly contradicted:

(1) your statement that CFC's "magically hold there electron stripping potential til they get to a higher altitude" (I'll add to that: CFC's, or specifically the free radicals from CFC's, don't "strip electrons off ozone", as you say. They strip oxygen atoms: Cl+O3-> ClO+O2)

(2) your argument that lightning is the main source of ozone. (By the way, there are no lightning storms in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is located.)

If you're not willing to listen to real science, and admit you may be wrong once and a while, how are you any better than wacko environmentalists?

I didn't at first, but now I'm starting to agree with DaveW: "You are waaay too uninformed about basic atmospheric chemistry to make a serious argument."

Paul,

I hate environmentalists. Global warming is crap. But you have just ignorantly and arrogantly brushed off two legitimate posters on the chemistry of atmospheric ozone. It's chemistry dude. It's not opinion. Now the impacts from an ozone "hole" are purely speculative, but damnit man, the chemistry isn't. That's not a fucking word game.

You are acting like an ass.

Global warmiong doesn't matter because it doesn't exist. Ask any greenie about global cooling, why dontcha? That was the rage in the 1970s. Now it's global warming. There are quotes all over the internet from scientists about how they have to scare the public to keep grants coming in. Bottom line is that global warming can't be proven because the advocates are disingenuous interested parties.

Furthemore, how much CO2 was in the atmoshpere during the Jurrasic?, the Precambrian? At some point, CO2 levels were much higher now and the earth managed to survive just fine. It, and we, will continue to do so.

Since DaveW and Jesse have showed pretty well that Paul is quite uninformed when it comes to, well, science in general, I'll just add one point. If you seriously think that a single election is an apt analogy to analysis of global climate over billions of years, you really need to go back to classes, or at least read a book. Global climate is quite complex and more importantly is continually happening. An election is one day, and if we are to believe your analogy, we must assume that all work that has been done on climate change has completely ignored the history of climate on this planet beyond the last 20 years, of which we know a good deal more than you seem to think.

DaveW--

Since you appear to have the technical background to provide guidance, can