How's your ol' cistern?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Don't worry, Mark. The chances of any legislation coming into existence that does fuck-all about climate change is probably less likely than Yellowstone blowing up.

Thank god you're right about this. China and India are not going to jeopardize their ascent into a modern economy with such legislation, when the science behind it has been handled so badly.

Also, as a sort-of-ecologist, I don't share your optimism on how well we're likely to be able to adapt to the stuff coming down the pike.

As a sort-of-geologist, I remember The Altithermal -- the Holocene Climatic Optimum -- during which the growing season expanded northward, thus enabling more people to feed themselves. And which occurred in the complete absence of anyone to blame.

[Barry Charles]

I assert that that the field of climatology only exists because the climate is interesting. That is to say it is dynamic and these changes over time have relevancy for humans. Ben Franklin wrote about the changing gulf stream, long before cars were invented.

Changing the "concern" from global warming (man-made) to climate change (man-made) is a conjurers trick. This may go down as one of the greatest diversion of resources and political energy of all time.

[Mark E. Hurling]

This may go down as one of the greatest diversion of resources and political energy of all time.

I dunno about that. After all, the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids at Giza actually got built and are still around.

This political movement, like populism has a natural life span. When most of us Boomers who drank this particular flavor of kool aid pass from the scene and aren't around to help fund it, so will much of the concern over.

Kind of like the aphorism in the aerospace industry, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

[trapntan]

We're all gonna die.
In sweet, sweet comfort.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...medium=twitter

[Stump]

This political movement...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07...cience_degrees

[Mark E. Hurling]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07...cience_degrees

Those two will be lucky if they don't get added to the annual Guy Fawkes bonfire.

[Onsager]

Yes, I do. because that gas is not nearly as significant a factor as the Sun. And there have been many times in geologic history where that gas was much higher, and it has no direct effect on the temperature outside the influence of the Sun. It is a lagging indicator, if it is an indicator at all. And there has been no measurable direct relationship within recent times between that gas and the temperature. Worry away if it makes you feel more liberal, but if the place gets a little warmer -- and it may, 50 years from now -- it was going to anyway, and we'll cope just fine. Like we did last time it got warm. Or cold.

CO2 absorbs light in the 600-800 wavenumber range - an energy range where water is not strongly absorptative. This also happens to be very near the max of blackbody radiation for a 280-320K object (Earth). These two facts are incontrovertible. CO2 probably reduces the flux of energy leaving the earth - this is a rational position based on physics concepts. CO2 doesn't do much for the flux of energy entering the earth (based on the absorption spectrum of CO2 in the UV/Vis region), and correlating it in a 1:1 fashion to global warming is so daunting of a task that it can probably never be proven, even if it is true.

[tertius]

CO2 absorbs light in the 600-800 wavenumber range - an energy range where water is not strongly absorptative. This also happens to be very near the max of blackbody radiation for a 280-320K object (Earth). These two facts are incontrovertible. CO2 probably reduces the flux of energy leaving the earth - this is a rational position based on physics concepts. CO2 doesn't do much for the flux of energy entering the earth (based on the absorption spectrum of CO2 in the UV/Vis region), and correlating it in a 1:1 fashion to global warming is so daunting of a task that it can probably never be proven, even if it is true.

Very nicely said.

The only real room for debate and skepticism on the issue is in how the balance of positive and negative feedback mechanisms within the climate system respond to the change in the earth's emissivity due to increased CO2.