Serious Question about Global Warming

Ah, here is my favorite Webpage on this subject:

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

Read through it and pretty much it lines out how little we acutally know about the main factors that control our climate. Jim Hansen (the Director of the NOAA) is so politically bias he should be locked up for passing his computer models off as science. I've read several of his Climate Model Reports (70+ pages each), and he has to "guess" a number for a lot of the variable in the model, then "surprise!" he tweaks the model variables that don't have good scientific control until the result is "Global Warming". Did you know Jim Hansen popularized the term "Global Warming" in the 1980's when prior it was more acurately referred to as "Climate Change"? Those old enough might recall the "scare" of the inevitable cooling of the Earth that was news worthy in the 1970's and even before.

The IPCC panel just recently admitted (anyone read the melting of the Hymalian Glaciers scandal reports from a month or so ago?) that a large part of their report that "proved man is causing" global warming is based on NON-Peered reviewed papers!! Basically means if the paper agreed with them then it was considered fact and included in the report. A completely wrong way to report something as scientific fact, since accepted professional science standards require peer-review. The IPCC guy that is quoted as saying a lot of the report is based on Non-Peered Review papers also said he didn't think it was a big deal, but I beg to differ and would imagine any scientist worth his salt would also disagree.

This topic always riles me up since I'm a geologist and see so many mis-represented facts. And to be clear, I completely believe the Earth is warming up since the end of the last Ice Age, and if it follows the cycle of the last few million years it'll start cooling down again in 10,000-12,000 years. I just don't buy the Human Caused component.

Talk of CO2 as evidence is easily debatable because it has never be proven if the concentrations in the atmosphere are causitive or corraletive. Meaning which happened first: The CO2 increased then Temps, or did Temps increase then CO2 follow? The reason it's debatable is that the amount of dissolved CO2 in water(oceans) is temperature dependant, warmer water holds less CO2 than cold water. So IF the temps of the oceans warm up it will expell CO2 into the atmosphere, IF the ocean temps get colder it will absorb CO2 (standard chemistry solutions test). So the spikes of CO2 during warm periods and drop in cold periods can be attributed to this effect. If there was any kind of proof the CO2 came first then the warm up, the deal would be sealed, problem is due to fossil fuel burning we have a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that historically should suggest we should be several degrees warmer already. CO2 just doesn't trap enough heat comparatively to other greenhouse gases, namely water which is 1000x more a greenhouse gas and accounts for 90+% of actual surface temperature (hence why temps have less variation on the coast than inland, and why deserts have more variation than humid places). Which further begs the question where and what were the sources of this abundant CO2 historically?

/rant

 

And quickly, given the climate will change, we have the option of cooler or warmer, warmer is definately the one we want. Warmer leads to longer growing seasons, more growing area, more water precipitation. Some areas will get dryer, some areas will get flooded. Colder leads to a smaller growing season, more crop failures and smaller growing area and less water precipitation as water gets locked up as ice. On top of that we do not have the technology or power to stop a mile plus tall glacier from leveling cities. The Earth is dynamic, changes are inevitable, and personally I see warming as the one that does us more favors than harm.

 

I realize how difficult it is to defend an issue that depends on scientific analysis when there is no scientific group to rely upon for your position. I had hoped you might have at least a couple of groups that you could name. When this happens you get all this personal opinion and emotional response instead.

For some at least this editorial may be a more balanced statement about where the real truth lies at least according to the bulk of the world's scientific community.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.11.html

Now that there has been some real debate on the issue this thread may have served its purpose.