Thanks for the cdiac link spindoc. The page on this site that has interested me in the past is the table of current ghg concentrations and the increased radiative forcing of each over pre-industrial concentrations. When I look at the table I wonder why scientists dont use a CO2 equivalent, as increases in other ghgs contribute a radiative forcing of just over 75% that of the increased CO2.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

What would change my mind? The clincher for me is sea level rise. I see the sea as a thermometer, rising when the earth warms and falling when the earth cools. Should sea level trend become a falling trend I could not justify AGW; should it keep rising at an accelerating rate, I could not justify otherwise. Sea level rise increasing 15 to 30 fold over a rate which has remained stable for three millennia is hard for me to dismiss as noise.

Fester, the oceans are a huge heat sink and their warming is different to that of the “earth”. The ‘inertia’ in the oceans can mean that even if the ‘atmosphere’ cools tomorrow, the response from the oceans can take years. But I agree if sea levels begin to fall (and they aren’t) then you could kiss AGW bye-bye.

I stated in my “what it would take to change my mind”, that I was searching for any uncontested research from original sources. At that time I had only two, one was the global surface temperature findings GW, and the other was the atmospheric carbon concentrations (ACC). Since there is still no correlation between the two, a third issue had to be in play, this turned out to be the total fossil fuel consumed (FFC). In order to remove any misunderstandings, total FFC statistics still do not correlate at all with anything to do with the GW or ACC.

However, it is rather like identifying “black holes”, whilst they cannot be observed or understood, their effects on other “observables” can. We must likewise accept that scientists admit that the complexity of our biosphere is “the single largest factor limiting our understanding”

The third piece of “observable evidence” was the FFC statistics, whilst having no direct scientific correlation with GW or ACC’s, they do point directly to the other observable, that total FFC had increased by 1,280% since 1850. Astonishingly, the residual ACC’s have increased by only 30%. Regardless of any potential negative impact on warming, direct or indirect, the biosphere is clearly now working 12.8 times harder. The only issue we need to address is how to make it even more efficient.

It seems the biggest obstacle to resolving the problem is the global howling of distorted rhetoric from ill informed, over emotional reactionaries, and the consequential politicization of the issues.

Meanwhile, objective scientists have insulated themselves from these phenomena and are working quietly on practical solutions.

Freeman Dyson’s work (CSIRO) concludes that an increase in biomass in soil of just 100th of an inch across the total worldwide arable land would stabilize current ACC’s.

John Martin’s research (NASA, “Dumping Iron”) shows that 1KG of iron produces 5,000 to 20,000 kilo’s of Phyloplankton. He famously commented, “Give me ship load of iron and I’ll give you an ice age.”

ETS remains a dangerous political joke, a Tax that plays with symptoms, and misses causes

I am warmed by your dialogue, Spindoc.

I hope you will be able to pass the pay-wall at Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7229/full/nature07716.html

If not, the following summarises what Pollard et al have found, concerning geo-engineering by iron fertilisation of our oceans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128183744.htm

As to Freeman Dyson ... I'm sitting on the fence :-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

He is a special octogenarian though.

Q&A, I believe our species will continue to apply science and engineering to solve major threats. In mentioning some of the research going on, I have absolutely none of the skills needed to determine if any of these will be part of a solution however; I do wonder why our media, politicians, some scientists and advocacy groups are so easily distracted.

Can’t remember who said it, but I remember the quote, “What we humans seek to avoid, we create” Don’t that just about say it all.

Thanks and catch you on another thread.

qanda

<the oceans are a huge heat sink and their warming is different to that of the “earth”>

Yes, but when you hear about global temperatures, you hear about that minute heat sink, the atmosphere. As such, it is subject to much larger variation.