Why it's too late to stop global warming

[Whitestar]

I read an article on global warming stating that it is way too late to stop global warming, too late by far. Here is the link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL

Despite the fact that I consider myself to be an eternal optimist, I personally think it's way too late to stop global warming. Nonetheless, we can at the very least reduce it by carpooling, recycling waste, and planting trees. While all this good and fine, it still will not stop or reverse it. Therefore, I think it's equally important to reinvest in the space program because we will reach a point where the Earth will become as hot as Venus, there will at least be a 10 to 20 degree raise before it levels off. We will see island nations like Japan and England literally dissappear under the waves, most likely what will be left will be the major mountain region which will become islands. Places like planes and coast will be gone, almost 80% of present land mass. I would imagine that those who wish to remain on Earth will eventually have to use genetic engineering and gene therapy, thereby speeding up their evolutionary process and eventually evolving into a new species. They will be tall and thin in order to adapt to high temperature and permit better cooling. Plus they would have larger lung capacity due to less oxygen and would perhaps make them capable of surviving in water for long periods of time.


Thoughts anyone?

Whitestar

 

[dav2008]

My thought is that you improperly copied the article URL.

 

[Pengwuino]

Uhm... most of what you said sounds insane. I mean Venus is around 700K... 80% of the present land mass going under is absurd... we'll most likely be hit by a celestrial object that whipes out mankind because that kind of thing happens. Also, Earth is pretty difficult to control but it's more likely that we'll able to conduct terraforming and atmospheric manipulation before we're able to force evolution on ourselves.

Your link also doesn't work.

On the subject, most scientists agree that it is infact, still reversable to a point and that carpooling and recycling isn't going to do the trick.

 

[Whitestar]

Okay, I found the proper link, just click above.

Whitestar

 

[Pengwuino]

WHOA this article is old...

I got to say... i saw "San Francisco" and i thought this would be a apocolyptic sensationalized view of global warming by someone who over-reacted. Ironically enough, i think you are the one who is over-reacting over this article. Although I have some objections to the heatwave incident and the california mudslide thing, the article is pretty level-headed and actually talks about the preperations, technical problems, and a few other things most global warming articles never seem to care about.

 

[Whitestar]

WHOA this article is old...

I got to say... i saw "San Francisco" and i thought this would be a apocolyptic sensationalized view of global warming by someone who over-reacted. Ironically enough, i think you are the one who is over-reacting over this article.

Well, I may be over-reacting but this is a very serious issue, one that must be dealt with accordingly. Even if we stop burning fossil fuel and take part in cleaning up our enivironment, the CO2 emissions will still be in the Earth's atmosphere for at least 100,000 years from now. Plus, scientists are now saying that methane could be far worse than carbon dioxide. Check out this link:

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sep...ne_could_be_far_worse_than_carbon_dioxide.htm

Whitestar

 

[Amp1]

It was probably too late five or ten years ago. What many scientists are waiting for now is a threshold to be met then exceeded which may spell trouble for the human race. GW could drastically increase. When I heard that last week they were issuing tornado warnings in Cali I started thing about the film 'the day after' I don't imagine things will get that bad that fast butr I don't really know what will happen.

 

[Mk]

Plus, scientists are now saying that methane could be far worse than carbon dioxide. Check out this link:

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...on_dioxide.htm

Scientists have been saying methane is "far worse" than carbon dioxide. Just know you have heard of it. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas that contributes to the effect. Water vapour is the largest contributer to the greenhouse effect.

The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/016.htm due to human activities, such as carbon dioxide, and methane, but climatologists are still not sure how strongly the raise in concentration affects the Earth's climate.

 

[Andre]

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=464&posts=53&start=1

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1026418#post1026418

 

[quantumcarl]

I read an article on global warming stating that it is way too late to stop global warming, too late by far. Here is the link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL

Despite the fact that I consider myself to be an eternal optimist, I personally think it's way too late to stop global warming. Nonetheless, we can at the very least reduce it by carpooling, recycling waste, and planting trees. While all this good and fine, it still will not stop or reverse it. Therefore, I think it's equally important to reinvest in the space program because we will reach a point where the Earth will become as hot as Venus, there will at least be a 10 to 20 degree raise before it levels off. We will see island nations like Japan and England literally dissappear under the waves, most likely what will be left will be the major mountain region which will become islands. Places like planes and coast will be gone, almost 80% of present land mass. I would imagine that those who wish to remain on Earth will eventually have to use genetic engineering and gene therapy, thereby speeding up their evolutionary process and eventually evolving into a new species. They will be tall and thin in order to adapt to high temperature and permit better cooling. Plus they would have larger lung capacity due to less oxygen and would perhaps make them capable of surviving in water for long periods of time.


Thoughts anyone?

Whitestar

Change is the only constant in this universe, home-dawg.

But, I remain convinced that Global Warming is a North American myopic description of what is actually "Regional Warming".

Here's a quote from a report on Antartica's dramatic rise in temperature and how it could result in a 57 meter rise in sea levels.eek

"It's the largest regional warming on Earth at this level," said Dr John Turner of BAS, one of the authors of the paper.

However a question remains over what is causing the change.

"There are arguments for and against this temperature rise being caused by greenhouse gases," Dr Turner told the BBC News website.

"The problem is trying to differentiate between what is happening naturally and what is happening because of man's activities".

Climate models

To try to resolve the conundrum, the BAS team compared the data with 20 simulations of the climate over the last century.

The models simulate rising levels of greenhouse gases and are used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to replicate past climates and make predictions for the future.

The team found that in all cases, the models failed to simulate the rise.


The models do not match the data
Dr Turner believes this could mean the temperature rise is a result of a natural fluctuation in Antarctica's climate or that current models are inadequate.

Read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4857832.stm

 

[Mk]

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=464&posts=53&start=1

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1026418#post1026418

The ftp://ftp.giss.nasa.gov/outgoing/JEH/bams_29mar20062_all.pdf[/URL] link doesn't work anymore, there is no bams_29mar20062_all.pdf file in the JEH folder. Do you have a copy at a different location?

 

[Arian]

The article is interesting but you forget that if it does level off at 10 or 20 more degrees it won't reach the hundreds in degrees. Second, realize that it is more then easy to stop GW. All you have to do it build a giant "carbon killer." It would simply react CO2 into something else.

 

[Mk]

Second, realize that it is more then easy to stop GW. All you have to do it build a giant "carbon killer." It would simply react CO2 into something else.

Messing with the environment is like going back in time and messing around—you don't know what the complications will be with the future. Things will change, for better or for worse on all scales. For better or for worse for different things.

If you could significantly alter the Earth's climate, well, its not a thing to go experimenting about with.

 

[Saker]

The article is interesting but you forget that if it does level off at 10 or 20 more degrees it won't reach the hundreds in degrees. Second, realize that it is more then easy to stop GW. All you have to do it build a giant "carbon killer." It would simply react CO2 into something else.

Well, that may be true, but you shouldn't forget that just as you need a huge amount of CO2 to warm up the climate a few degrees, you're going to have to take out the same amount to reverse it. If I'm not mistaken, we've already released about 100 billion tons of it into the atmosphere, making the average temperature about .6 °C higher. If you were to reverse what we did with a chemical reaction, you'll need around the same mass of another reactant to use it up. Take for instance, the chemical reaction used to take CO2 out of the air inside of spaceships:

2LiOH + CO2 ----> Li2CO3 + H2O

If you know a bit of stoichiometry, you'll see that to use up the 100 billion tons, you'll need about 109 billion tons of lithium hydroxide. I don't think that there is that much of it on the Earth. :uhh:

 

[dand5]

You shouldn't forget that there are some pretty potent sinks for co2:
1) oceans
2) soils
3) plants/biosphere - which tend to increase uptake as the concentration increases

 

[Saker]

Yes, that's true too. I think we underestimate our planet's capability to minimize changes and the adaptability of life. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about what's happening, but its good to know that all we have to do is give the Earth a little help

 

[PaulD]

I missed this thread ! One mustn't forget there are two vastly different opinions on GW a) that it is man made and b) that it is part of the historical cycle that has gone on over the evolution of the earth. You will find references to both sides abound and they tend to be rather polar. i am one of the few who sit on the fence here and believe that there is data to support global warming but insufficient data to prove the cause !
This forum has already been posted by Andre http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=30
but if you are interested and sift through the threads you will find fairly convincing arguements from both sides.
BUT I do believe that we should be taking steps to assume that it maybe AGW...it's too big a gamble not too.
Regards
Paul D

 

[Mk]

It is also a big gamble to do. http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

And that is only a very small measure taken in advance.

 

[Skyhunter]

Forget global warming - think boiling oceans

According to James Lovelock, the scientist famed for his Gaia hypothesis of Earth science it is too late.

"Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable," warns Lovelock in today's Independent newspaper.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/revenge_of_gaia/

 

[quantumcarl]

According to James Lovelock, the scientist famed for his Gaia hypothesis of Earth science it is too late.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/revenge_of_gaia/

Apparently, life is a fatal condition... no matter how much you try to avoid the fact. All we can hope is that we miss a massive demonstration of the evidence of this fact. Unless you like that sort of mayhem.

 

[silkworm]

I think whether or not it's too late is moot. Greenhouse gases are not the only thing going on here. There's an increase in solar radiation and decrease in the Earth's magnetic field. If we weren't here, it appears likely to me that the Earth would still be warming up, however I do think that our activities have sped it up.

 

[Mk]

I'm not sure what the geomagnetic field has to do with it. Although I agree that there are way too many variables going in, and way too many that we don't know about. We can't be sure of the weather on Saturday, how can we know the climate a hundred or a thousand years from now?

 

[Skyhunter]

I think whether or not it's too late is moot. Greenhouse gases are not the only thing going on here. There's an increase in solar radiation and decrease in the Earth's magnetic field. If we weren't here, it appears likely to me that the Earth would still be warming up, however I do think that our activities have sped it up.

I agree, that there are many variables not accounted for however the greenhouse effect is real.

The most compelling evidence is ironically that which Michael Crichton, in his book "State of Fear" referenced as evidence that the Earth is cooling down. Satellite measurements of the stratosphere show a decrease in temperature. Since the stratosphere is outside or above the greenhouse gases that trap the heat, it would only stand to reason that less heat escaping to the stratosphere would result in lower temperature readings.

 

[Mk]

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
Although the claim in this article has been completely disproved (ironically in the same way it claims "key argument for global warming evaporates"), it suggests that the troposphere is cooling while the surface is heating.

What about this article from Los Alamos? It also suggests that to troposphere is cooling.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&story_id=2030

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Oh man, this topic really gets me revved up...

First and foremost, ALL of the supposed "data" that "proves" global warming is cherry-picked like crazy, and there are most likely equal amounts of data that refute GW theories. The fact is that we do not currently have the capabilities to understand the infinite number of nonlinearities in the atmoshphere, or the Earth as an eco-system, etc. We can barely "predict" weather a week in advance, and most of the time it is only mildly accurate. How can we possibly even claim to think we might know what the world will look like in one thousand years? A hundred years? Ten years? Even one year?! The data is NOT there for any such claims on any level. Looking at a five-year set of data might show warming, while the same data set going ten or twenty years back will show a flat curve fit or even a cooling trend! This is in my opinion the most commonly used tactic by the environmentalists, choosing data scheme such that it "proves" their claims. Additionally, how you decide to put a linear line-fit through a wildly varying set of data can determine whether the same set of data looks as if it is increasing, decreasing, or neither...

There are also many factors that must be taken into effect for temperature probing stations around urban areas that were once just forest... What about the heat-island effect? Trees tend to make an area cooler while a city makes it warmer, does this really count as the global warming every one is describing in such fantastic terms? What about changes in equipment and more accurate measurements? Possible measurement errors? Data corruptions (not necessarily of the computer kind)? How accurate is temperature data from 1875?! I mean, we only have data from a few dozen years, that just might be accurate enough, but this is a single scalar measurment of one variable, in millions?! How can that predict ANYTHING?! "We don't truly know" is the short (and long) answer...

By the way, the supposed "documentary" coming out with Al Gore called "An Inconvenient Truth" is just a huge load of scary pictures, cherry-picked data, and propoganda. It is not real science, it is instead a huge implementation of scare tactics. I am going to laugh my a** off when 10 years from now rolls around and nothing happens. You watch, ten years from now (I say ten years because that is the time frame he has set before the "end of the world"), this documentary will be completely forgotten, and "major storm" frequency will be statistically identical. Just watch, it'll happen, I guarantee it.

Actually, one of the most enlightening things I have read on this subject is Michael Chrighton's book "State of Fear" (props to Skyhunter btw). I highly recommend it to anyone looking to get a good amount of insight into the politics of global warming, and the environmental movement in general. Although the book is fiction, it incorporates a very large amount of actual data, along with up-to-date references for the actual scientific journals or articles where they can be found. The characters are well-implemented metaphors for political groups in real-life, from the poorly informed celebrities, to the wild environmentalists, to the well-informed skeptics. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Seriously. You need to go buy it right now. Seriously. Plus it's a pretty good story, but the science is the most important part of the book.

In my experience, the most common argument any lame-person has "for" global warming is "everyone
knows about global warming, I mean, it's global warming! How can you argue about global
warming?! EVERYONE knows about it!"

That's not an argument, that's falling for mindless propoganda without looking for any kind of scientific data backing it up, and more importantly, seeing if there is any data that refutes the claims! Don't just look at Al Gore's stupid movie and think that he's done ALL of the research for you. You need to decide for yourself! Read articles, look at the actual data (temperature data is relatively easy to understand). Once you have taken in the facts and seen the data yourself, then make a conclusion. Odds are, it won't be what the wackos are preaching.

And that's just scratching the surface, let the games really begin now!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Oh, and Whitestar:

Don't worry, this planet isn't turning into Venus within any forseeable time period, unless Venus drops out of orbit and crashes into Earth, making a new planetary body... :rofl:

 

[vanesch]

Climate changes. It often did, and it is difficult to find out what exactly causes it, but it does change, and this affects the biosphere strongly.

During the Permian, it got very hot and also very cold:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/climate.html

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Climate changes. It often did, and it is difficult to find out what exactly causes it, but it does change, and this affects the biosphere strongly.

During the Permian, it got very hot and also very cold:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/climate.html

And, might I note, the massive climate changes had nothing to do with us!

Additionally, they occurred over a geologic time-scale, which is to say, on the order of millions of years. NOT 10 years like Al Gore is trying to say. The only thing that could change the climate within the space of ten years would be a catastrophic event like world-wide volcanic eruptions or a massive meteor impact.

 

[vanesch]

And, might I note, the massive climate changes had nothing to do with us!

Yes, but I didn't cite this to "prove" that climate change is not related to human activities, only that "runaway" scenarios are probably exaggerated (in that Earth has known much hotter and much colder periods). The CO2 content as well as, say, the oxygen content, has fluctuated very strongly too.

Also, life survived (al be it in different forms). So we shouldn't "take care" of the climate of the Earth for some or other "higher ecological goal" but just for our own sake.

Additionally, they occurred over a geologic time-scale, which is to say, on the order of millions of years.

Well, it can be much shorter too, like the last ice ages. I don't know what is the shortest "time constant" of the climatic system, but I could figure, say, that if we replace in one week time, 10% of N2 by CO2 (don't ask me how, it is just a gedanken experiment), and keep that then for years this way, that the response wouldn't take millions, or even thousands of years. The climate changes induced by geological changes (like continental motion, mountain forming and so on) will of course occur over geological times. Climate changes induced by changes in solar flux will occur with time scales associated with the solar flux change time scale. This is because the "system" (climatic system) has faster time constants than the driving force in this case.
But the time constants of the "impulse response" might be much smaller.

NOT 10 years like Al Gore is trying to say. The only thing that could change the climate within the space of ten years would be a catastrophic event like world-wide volcanic eruptions or a massive meteor impact.

Not necessarily: it could also be a rapid change in one of the determining parameters, like, say, atmospheric composition, or land occupation (with changing albedo and vegetation). You'd then get a response with a time scale of the order of the time constants of the impulse response of the system. I have to say that I have no idea, but 10s of years doesn't seem all out of the question.
The problem will be more to get the signal out of the statistical noise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The bit of information that has most surprised me is how a relatively small average global temp change is sufficient for a mass extinction - as reported, 10 degrees centigrade.

 

[PaulD]

I virtually agree with your lengthy post above Mech Engineer. But the arguements go deeper. you refer to the UHI effect, this has been taken into account in a lot of calculations but the argument goes on if the adjustments are correct...who knows, as you say records are comapritively extremely recent. One can interpolate 10 year, 500 year and much longer cycles from available graphs if they are to be believed, we will not know if GW is happening for at least another 30 years unless it is AGW and man has had such a significant impact that the figures will run off the scale.
The other point about GW and politics is that is very PC to be seen to "stand up and save the Earth"! This is where the logical arguements become top heavy as the media tends to follow the politicians who are making these bold statements, it is also much more newsworthy to say "Holland, London, Southern States etc WILL be flooded ! Nothing worth reporting in that the above areas will not be flooded until enough people believe they will
Regards
Paul D

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I am not convinced by the adjustments being made to measurments being taken next to ecosystems that have changed (whether by a city or a forest fire, the list goes on and on...) since it is more of a guess than hard data as to how much it must be adjusted. Too small an adjustment might artificially show heating, while too large an adjustment will show cooling...

Additionally, the heat island adjustments are based solely on population rather than other important factors such as population density, landscaping, nearby water sources, industrial facilities, etc. We don't really have any reliable way to accurately know how much skyscrapers affect the net temperature vs. a sprawling suburb. This is another case where a single variable is being used to predict a system of thousands of degrees of freedom.

It would seem that the only reliable temperature measurements are the ones that don't need a bunch of "fudge factors." Of course, these sets of data are few and far between, making it difficult to even come up with long-term pure data. It's difficult to have a weather station far from developed areas, especially back near the turn of the century (1900, not 2000). So what we have are a bunch of weather stations that were on the outskirts of a town, and are now in the middle of a metropolis... The overall correction for each city is calculated differently, and as such some cities might show heating, some might show cooling, but all data is suspect because it might be beacuse of world-wide climate change, or it might be because of improperly calculated corrections.



I'm being a little bit devils advocate, and a little of the opposite I suppose...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Also:

There are several problems in showing that GW is due to carbon dioxide emissions:

Global temperature changes seem to be largely INdependent of atmospheric CO2. There are examples of the temperature rising with no change in CO2 (pre-1940), and examples where CO2 levels rise while temperatures go into a cooling trend (1970-1980 I think, I'll look up the sources).

I feel like a broken record here, but it is obvious that CO2 is only one in a million variables that must be looked at. We have even discussed some of them, such as the fact that the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is in fact WATER, not CO2. I'm guessing that interviewing 100 people on the street would reveal that they all cite CO2 as the major contributor to the greenhouse effect and GW (due to propoganda, not scientific journals). Shall we now begin reducing our H2O emissions? What about methane emissions from cattle ranches? Cork off a few volcanoes?

There's all sorts of stuff we can spend trillions on and still have no lasting effect. BUT, if some law takes effect and it happens to coincide with a decrease in warming rates, it must be the culprit, right?

 

[Mk]

Wow, this thread got some airtime since yesterday!

Earth has known much hotter and much colder periods

What periods, namely?

The bit of information that has most surprised me is how a relatively small average global temp change is sufficient for a mass extinction - as reported, 10 degrees centigrade.

Its not the change, its how fast it changes.

I'm guessing that interviewing 100 people on the street would reveal that they all cite CO2 as the major contributor to the greenhouse effect and GW (due to propoganda, not scientific journals). Shall we now begin reducing our H2O emissions? What about methane emissions from cattle ranches? Cork off a few volcanoes?

Mech Assault! Anyway, if you interviewed a hundred people they would all say CO2 is the CAUSE of the FACT of a anthropogenic global warming happening RIGHT NOW.

Propoganda? It is probably mostly the news media. A few of the more knowledgeable environmentalists say we should stop harvesting cows.

The real problem is excessive scaremongering in a delicate unbalanced human society, where people seem to have a great need for recognition and a need for safety but face the fear of the unknown. Those of the world, searching for recognition, admiration, and power, are more than happy to create an image of great danger, threatening the world and humanity. The media are happy to exagerate that message a little because because that's what the people want to hear and they want their share of recognition. Good news is no news and we thrive on bad news. So the governments, that want to govern in peace, give the people what the people want, because happy people are prepared to pay the taxes required to stop the horror, so they support the scaremongers who are happy to comply and produce even more scare. This a powerful positive feedback system that tends to go out of control, regardless of the scare of the moment.

Read it and weep, I too believe this is what is happening, and has been happening.

Collective hysteria, and moral panic, this is what it is.

This way we have seen (chronological order) female hysteria, spring heeled jack, the eugenics scare, comic books, backmasking, day care sex abuse, "rock 'n' roll" music, anti-semitism, mutual assured destruction, nuclear waste, nuclear meltdown scenarios, the coming ice age, the population bomb, the asteroid collision, the clash of the civilizations, radon, microwaves and power lines, cell phones, Y2K, and now it's called global warming with all it's infinite extremities.

Notice in each situation, it is always some threat to everybody, whether it be America, the world, or all life. It is always an inevitable threat, and cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, and you don't know when it'll hit.

Usually and regardless of positive proof pro or con, those hypes fade slowly when signs stay out. The next hype may be clathrate destabilization disasters when it finally becomes clear that those have been responsible for the spikes that we see in the ice cores and oceanic foram cores.

 

[Skyhunter]

Real science is peer reviewed

All props aside Mech_Engineer, I only mentioned Crichton's book to illustrate the most prominent source of disinformation on the subject. I find it laughable that a bunch of amateurs on a physics forum can speak with such authority.

I must ask. What peer reviewed scientific papers have you read that dispute AGW?

You site the media as hyping GW It is truly just the opposite. The media suggests that there is a disagreement between climate scientists that just does not exist.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[edit] highlights added by me. [/edit]
So if you know of other peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with the consensus position, please reference them and supply links. Otherwise your just blowing hot air and contributing to global warming.