ToniF58 said: I would say these ceo are politically astute(no one want to be a big bad polluter )

So you can read the minds and motives of these CEO's or is this just more hand waving in an attempt to create doubt?

ToniF58 said: Given the industrial revolution didn't really start until the 1900's,how do you account for the increase in co2 levels since the 1850's.

Britannica: In the period 1760 to 1830 the Industrial Revolution was largely confined to Britain. The technological changes included the following: (1) the use of new basic materials, chiefly iron and steel, (2) the use of new energy sources, including both fuels and motive power, such as coal, the steam engine, electricity, petroleum, and the internal-combustion engine, ...

Regarding deforestation, if you had read my posts and journal you would have noted that part of the excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to deforestation. By destroying a sink, human activity caused an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

ToniF58 said: ... superfunds and landfills is that there are ways to mitigate the effects of polution while working with nature.(the cleanup for the exxon valdez used microbes to clean up that spill and since then I am sure science has come up with more remediation methods)

Of course, most superfund sites still pose a threat because few have been neutralized and none have been returned to their natural state. Additionally, the cost of prevention is normally much less than the cost of remediation. Scientists are working on fixing the damage we have caused but none would assert that success will be complete. The cost of prevention is likely to be less than the cost of adaptation when you consider the possiblity of large migrations of people away from sea coasts, lowland, new deserts, new swamps, etc. The uncertainty associated with the possible changes is so great that only fools would gamble or ignore the possible consequences.

Toni58 said: Here is a thought for you though,how many folks do you think would die because they can't afford the heat in the winter or a/c in the summer in parts of the country. There is little doubt that that cap and trade would hurt the less wealthy and a great deal of doubt that cap and trade could have any effect on reducing emmissions.

You present a false choice, assuming that the most vulnerable in our society must pay for the excesses of corporations and the wealthy. That is like asking the most vulnerable in our society to pay for cleaning up toxic waste sites that produced profits and wealth for stockholders and executives of corporations that caused the damage but no longer exist. Those stockholders and executives retained the profits they realized but were not assessed the cost of the cleanups. Those costs are being paid by everyone, another way that wealth has been transferred  to the richest five percent of the population.

There is a lot we can do that will not be onerous, the principle approach being conservation. There will be increased costs at the beginning, but those can be absorbed by the segments of the population who can afford those costs.

ToniF58 said: The reality is because of our near complete destuction of our industrial base,the US has cut emmissions deeply already. Have you seen any evidence of that in your data?(it has been 30 years since we started loosing our industrial base) I would guess not.

Sorry Toni, wrong again.

US emissions beginning with 2007 are growing at 1% per year. Additionally, 30% of the emissions in China are the result of producing goods for export, many to the US. If you include that allocation, we would still lead China in emissions.

Further reading so you can post facts rather than faulty opinions.
http://www.aarp.org/community/edsilha/journals/Climate_Science/2183172?cn=STREAM_edsilha_journals_large_PAGE1

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/faq/
------
A. ... Chevron believes that taking prudent steps now to lower Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions is the right thing to do, which is why we acted in 2001 to implement our Climate Change Action Plan.
... we look to the scientific community to provide consensus on the issue of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ... which brought scientists from around the world together on the subject of climate change, released its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 ... "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level."  ... "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years." ... "The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [95% certainty - IPCC meaning] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
--------

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/greenhouse_gas.cfm
Because greenhouse gases trap radiation (heat) from the sun and warm the planet's surface, a certain amount of these gases is beneficial (see "Did You Know?"). But as concentrations of these gases increase due to human activity, more warming occurs than would happen naturally.

I would say these ceo are politically astute(no one want to be a big bad polluter ) Think about this thogh. Given the industrial revolution didn't really start until the 1900's,how do you account for the increase in co2 levels since the 1850's. At that time the only thing that was seriously changing is deforestation and population growth.(we are doubling the earth's population what every 20 years now. One of the things I learned from my own experiances with superfunds and landfills is that there are ways to mitigate the effects of polution while working with nature.(the cleanup for the exxon valdez used microbes to clean up that spill and since then I am sure science has come up with more remediation methods)Here is a thought for you though,how many folks do you think would die because they can't afford the heat in the winter or a/c in the summer in parts of the country. There is little doubt that that cap and trade would hurt the less wealthy and a great deal of doubt that cap and trade could have any effect on reducing emmissions. The reality is because of our near complete destuction of our industrial base,the US has cut emmissions deeply already. Have you seen any evidence of that in your data?(it has been 30 years since we started loosing our industrial base) I would guess not . Toni

ToniF58 said: Possible is the operative word.

You picked one statement out of my post and seemed to ignore the rest.

To talk intelligently about climate change, you need to understand the science. Read my journal at

http://www.aarp.org/community/edsilha/journals/Climate_Science/2183172?cn=STREAM_edsilha_journals_large_PAGE1

The following are a couple of sections of that journal.

Note that carbon dioxide levels stayed below 310 ppm until after the beginning of the industrial revolution.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php

 Before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric carbon budget was in equilibrium. When human activity began dumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the biosphere was not able to absorb all the additional carbon dioxide. Today, only 45 percent of our emissions are absorbed by the biosphere with the rest being deposited in the atmosphere, increasing the carbon dioxide concentrations to the highest level in at least 800,000 years (more than in any of the four past ice ages). Furthermore, the amount being absorbed by oceans is decreasing due to changes in ocean chemistry.
 

Note that the temperature did not start increasing until aftere 1910 or later even though carbon dioxide concentrations had been increasing since the 1850's or earlier.
 

All the major national and international science organizations are on record that human activity is most likely causing climate change (a declaration of most likely for a scientist means a 95 percent certainty). You may hope that the 5 percent probability is true, but how often would you bet on a 5 percent probability when the gains are small and the consequences of being wrong are huge?

Four of the Republican candidates last fall asserted that we must do something about climate change.
http://www.us-cap.org/
USCAP Members Include:
AES, Alcoa, Alstom, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Conoco Phillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors Corporation, NRG Energy, PepsiCo, PG&E Corporation, Shell, Siemens Corporation, and others.

Most of the loss of forests occurs in other countries (e.g., Brazil). In the past 200 year we have deforested 80 % of our country. Europe has also deforested their continent but it has been over a 5 or6 hundred year period. Brazil and other South American countries have been deforesting like maybe in the last hundred but most has been done in my lifetime

 it is possible that the effect could be intensified by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere . Possible is the operative word. Should we be hurting economies and people based on a theory? I am sorry but we need more data in my opinion. Thanks for the info  that you have. I would rather spend money addressing some of the issues than penalize  folks for emmisions. I beleive that the issues realted to global warming if we decide there is enough evidence to suport such action the best method of attach is to work with nature rather than supress economic activity.( I have been really impressed with the way they are converting methane gas from landfills into energy. These are the types of intervention I would support if they eventually decide global warming is indeed real and intervention needed. The natural solutions are more cost effective and actually improve the quality of life for humans. I look forward to the days when the kinks of hydrogen cars are worked out. That would make a real improvement in our air quality. Thanks for the discussion. Most interesting Toni

ToniF58 said: From what I understand if they go to the north pole,they can figure out just what kind of cycles the earth goes through.(the ice has been there for billions)

The oldest ice that exists is in Antarctica. Although the Vostok core reached a depth of 3623 m the usable climatic information does not extend down this far. The usual data sources give proxy information down to a depth of 3310 m or 414,000 years. The graph show the temperature (inferred from oxygen isotopes), carbon dioxide, and dust. Arctic (North Pole) ice is much thinner (5 meters sheets and 20 meter ridges) and therefore much younger.

[carbon dioxide pictures]
    

Note that current carbon dioxide levels are about 30 percent higher than anytime in the last 400,000 years.

ToniF58 said: In Our own lifetime we have seen some of the partial cycles of earth
 

Solar cycles affect global temperatures and are some 22 years long. To measure a global temperature trend, measurements must be made across the globe and extend across many solar cycles. Personal observations are useless as a measure. Even measurements taken over an extended period of time at one location are not useful in that changes in the climate are not uniform (e.g., cooling at one location might causes warming at another).

ToniF58 said: 10 years ago you simply counld't find anyone who disagreed with the global warming theory. (No one)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html
A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

ToniF58 said: google global warming
Many of the web sites you will find are funded by Exxon and other energy companies. You can find any opinion you wish on the web. The challenge is to find facts.

As you point out, destroying forests adds to the problem because forests are a sink for carbon dioxide. Removing them removes a sink and the carbon dioxide the forest had been absorbing then collects in the atmosphere. Most of the loss of forests occurs in other countries (e.g., Brazil).

Methane sources include livestock, decaying organic matter, oil production, and melting permafrost. It is also a danger in that the greenhouse effects of methane are much greater than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/245233/85040/The-greenhouse-effect-on-Earth-Some-incoming-sunlight-is-reflected
[greenhouse effect figure]

A similar picture is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_green_house_effect.svg

Encyclopediae Britannica topic - Greenhouse Gases (Atmospheric)
-----------------
The atmosphere allows most of the visible light from the Sun to pass through and reach the Earth’s surface. As the Earth’s surface is heated by sunlight, it radiates part of this energy back toward space as infrared radiation. This radiation, unlike visible light, tends to be absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, raising its temperature. The heated atmosphere in turn radiates infrared radiation back toward the Earth’s surface. (Despite its name, the greenhouse effect is different from the warming in a greenhouse, where panes of glass transmit visible sunlight but hold heat inside the building by trapping warmed air.)

Without the heating caused by the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be only about −18 °C (0 °F). On Venus the very high concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an extreme greenhouse effect resulting in surface temperatures as high as 450 °C (840 °F).

Although the greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it is possible that the effect could be intensified by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the result of human activity. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through the end of the 20th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased 30 percent and the amount of methane more than doubled. A number of scientists have predicted that human-related increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could lead to an increase in the global average temperature of 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4 °F) by the end of the 21st century. This global warming could alter the Earth’s climates and thereby produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall and possibly disrupt food production in certain regions.
--------------
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas  (and various other Wikipedia pages)
The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone
Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33°C (59°F) colder than at present.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
 

Fourier is also credited with the discovery in 1824 that gases in the atmosphere might increase the surface temperature of the Earth. This was the effect that would later be called the greenhouse effect. He described the phenomenon in 1824 and then again in a very similar paper in 1827 whereby an atmosphere serves to warm a planet.[7] This established the basis fo rthe greenhouse effect.

Regards,
Ed

Temps from 1880 that is just slightly more than 100years. How could anyone establish the normal rythum of earth in such a short period. From what I understand if they go to the north pole,they can figure out just what kind of cycles the earth goes through.(the ice has been there for billions) Why are they so afraid to seek out the info that could either prove or disprove their theory. It is certainly cheaper than cap and trade. In Our own lifetime we have seen some of the partial cycles of earth Having grown up in NH I remember 25 ft snow banks. They were gone since the 70 but now NH is starting to get the snowbanks that we saw when I was a kid(course in the 70's they thought we were going into an ice age. Both of us have been around enough to know that initial conclutions don't hold up over time.(Remember when pluto was a planet?) 10 years ago you simply counld't find anyone who disagreed with the global warming theory. (No one) Now if you want to find someone who disagrees with global warming,it is fairly easy.(google global warming) I beleive what I hear against global warming because my own training supports the non beleivers. Please look at your co2 levels( the one I feel is the greatist risk to small and old humans) Just how many tree do you think we removed not only in our  country but also around the world. Cutting down trees were very much part of the industrial revolution. Given back in 1880 there were probally more trees than people,what do you think the effect of cutting a whole bunch of trees was on co2 levels.(methane is a productivt of living mamals and landfills. Can Be used as an energy source. They are doing some real interesting things to retrive methane from landfills and use for energy. Cremation is probally one way to control the methane release from dead mammals. Sorry but I am more like an info gatherer but if you really want the info ,I can try to go back and gather info.(My thought process has been a lenghty one as it first started about12 years ago. (It took me more than 10 years to make up my mind what I beleive.(I know colorado is one place to start as was a senate discussion maybe 3 or 4 years ago .Will try to find info for you if it is that important. I didn't worry to much about resources because it was for my own purposes. Toni

ToniF58 says --- The point being that they are starting to back off of the theory.---

Who and how many? Any real facts to support your claims?

ToniF58 says --- The point you also seem to keep missing is that they have yet to determine if this is part of the normal cycle of earth vs human cause. ---

Any facts to support your claim?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061104084951.htm
After water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the three most prevalent greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere respectively. Greenhouse gases are some of the major drivers behind global warming and climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases

Notice that global temperatures show a high coorelation with greenhouse gas concentrations and the coorelation is explained by the equations of thermodynamics and atmospheric science.

You have a right to your opinion, however an inform opinion supported by facts instead of ideology is much more convincing. Have you any facts to offer to support your opinion?

The point being that they are starting to back off of the theory. The point you also seem to keep missing is that  they have yet to determine if this is part of the normal cycle of earth vs human cause. A sampling of a few hundred years is too small of a sampling to determine if there is a real change when you consider the fact that man has been walking the earth for such a long time.Earth has been around for billions of years. 1000 years is not enough of a sampling to determine earth's cycle. They can determine temps from long ago but thus far no one has been willing to do a reasonable sampling. Were you aware that GB used to be warm enough to grow grapes? We don't have enough history of earth's temps to separate effect vs cycles. Every scientist worth his /her salt understands that for any study to have validity your sampling has to be large enough to compensate for natural variations. Given the eath has been around for billions of years 1000 or 2000 years is not enough of a sampling to make a determination. Toni Foley

PS Given that we have rising sea levels and shortages of fresh water,it would seem like a practical solution to start building alot of desalination plants for farm water use. I hear the saudi's have alot of expertise in that area.