Why is it a rhetorical question when you ask, "Why is one of my cars is an SUV?" Well, why is it? Take some damn responsibility.

"Why is it that noted scholars such as Richard Lentz, John Kristy and Reid Bryson are ignored "

Because they are flaming arseholes.

Next question??

There has been nothing like the problem of climate change in human history. No matter what war or pestilence besieged us, the weather would march onward and there would always be fresh air to breathe. Now it may be that we really are capable of soiling "spacious skies" . The problem requires huge changes done in the abstract for a cause that many simply cannot believe. Expect more equivocation, denial, politicization (only liberal glaciers melt ), as we argue about who sacrifices first.

A quick note for any other Numerical Analysts reading this site.

The Japaneese work uses "leap-frog" to discretize the PDE's. This integration method introduces a wave function into the results which requires extra-heavy-duty smoothing, and therefore their results and conclusions, as disturbing as they are, should be viewed as extremely conservative.

Robert,

Here's a site you will especially enjoy.
Its domestic, from NASA.

It confirms everything I've said.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Here is a direct quote from their site:

Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory

Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

Harm to ocean life

Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.

Changes of habitat

Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.

Weather damage

Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.

Rising sea level

Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.

Threats to human health

Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.

Changes in crop yields

Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

Limited global warming

Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.

Limiting CO2 emissions

Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.

Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.

Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.

Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.

Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.

The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.

Storage in living plants

Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.

Agreement on global warming

Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Emissions targets

Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.

Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.

Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.

Approving the agreement

The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.

In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.

By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.

Analyzing global warming

Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.

Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.

How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.

Robert,

Here's a site you will especially enjoy.
Its domestic, from NASA.

It confirms everything I've said.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Here is a direct quote from their site:

Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory

Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

Harm to ocean life

Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.

Changes of habitat

Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.

Weather damage

Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.

Rising sea level

Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.

Threats to human health

Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.

Changes in crop yields

Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

Limited global warming

Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.

Limiting CO2 emissions

Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.

Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.

Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.

Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.

Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.

The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.

Storage in living plants

Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.

Agreement on global warming

Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Emissions targets

Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.

Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.

Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.

Approving the agreement

The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.

In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.

By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.

Analyzing global warming

Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.

Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.

How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.

Here is a direct quote from the nasa site:

Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory

Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

Harm to ocean life

Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.

Changes of habitat

Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.

Weather damage

Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.

Rising sea level

Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.

Threats to human health

Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.

Changes in crop yields

Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

Limited global warming

Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.

Limiting CO2 emissions

Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.

Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.

Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.

Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.

Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.

The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.

Storage in living plants

Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.

Agreement on global warming

Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Emissions targets

Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.

Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.

Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.

Approving the agreement

The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.

In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.

By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.

Analyzing global warming

Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.

Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.

How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.

Robert,

Here's a site you will especially enjoy.
Its domestic, from NASA.

It confirms everything I've said.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Here is a direct quote from their site:

Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory

Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

Harm to ocean life

Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.

Changes of habitat

Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.

Weather damage

Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.

Rising sea level

Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.

Threats to human health

Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.

Changes in crop yields

Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

Limited global warming

Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.

Limiting CO2 emissions

Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.

Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.

Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.

Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.

Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.

The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.

Storage in living plants

Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.

Agreement on global warming

Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Emissions targets

Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.

Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.

Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.

Approving the agreement

The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.

In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.

By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.

Analyzing global warming

Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.

Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.

How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.

Robert asked for more information.

Here's a site that should answer all his questions:

It's from a very highly respected group in Japan that nobody could accuse of bias, and has very good "movies" of their simulation results.

www.mri-jma.go.jp/Dep/cl/cl4/GW/GW.html

Atten: D. Ignatius. Re; Your column of 12-21-07.
The case has not been made in scientific terms, to convince many, of imminent global warming. The variations in global temperature caused by volcanic action, and other natural events, may
very well be the cause of any discernable warming.
To curtail U.S. manufacturing in order to appease
the apprehensive, could result in severe unemployment and financial disruptions. A better case than the one that has been made, will have to be created to receive more support. The tailpipe of the automobile has created more wealth and convenience than any alleged global warming could offset.
Sincerely: Cyrano

You take us to a publisher's website and point at it to prove what?? That's it!!!!...That's all you have to say??????

Frankly, even the fellow believers in global warming are doubting you are anything but a poseur. You certainly are rude, pointless except to try to induce terror which makes you no different from Osama.

If truly you do deal with numbers, it has divorced you from dealing with the real world except as a platform to spin your fantasies and nightmare.

A couple of real life examples:

What went wrong in the past 2 years in predicting summer hurricane seasons?

Please explain how climate change affects disease vectors. That seems beyond your specialty

Should effort be concentrated on protecting the other side of the equation - CO2 drawdown - the protection of forests, green space and oceans - which might be accomplished by proper urbanization and efficiency of farming?

Can you speak to any of these things? You have NOT but then you have not listed one FACT at all in any of your posts, only assertions.

Robert,

I'm quite real. Ph.D and everything.
Quite good at statistics too, as well as Differential Equations and Numerical Analysis.

You, on the other hand are an idiot.

That's not an ad-hominem argument, its a fact demonstrated by the links you've chosen to post.

For serious readers who are actually interested in climate change reasearch, a good place to start is the "International journal of climatology"

Here's a link to the current issue:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home

Every issue contains peer-reviewed papers giving the details of the effects of CO2 production on Global Warming and on the techniques we use to model climate change.

The clearest ,cleanest job of getting down to essentials has come from the TV sitcom Boston Legal, which weekly takes a current issue and dissects it brilliantly. For global warming catch the program of 12/18 or 12/11.

The clearest ,cleanest job of getting down to essentials has come from the TV sitcom Boston Legal, which weekly takes a current issue and dissects it brilliantly. For global warming catch the program of 12/18 or 12/11.

"Scientist" - do you know what an ad hominem argument is?
"Scientist" do you know what a poseur, what a fraud you are?
Did you check the link? Do you even know how to do statistical analysis? Are you really a scientist?

Why do you want to see me dead? Especially in a "carbon neutral" nuclear reactor.

The market does not solve problems by magic but the 20th century should PROVE even to a pseudo scientist like you that government control of the economy to pursue ideological means on a global basis KILLS millions.

Ya dont need statistical analysis for dead kulaks, for Mao's iron campaign. For the globalist - zero tolerance for genetically enhanced foods STARVES millions just like zero tolerance for DDT doomed millions to preventable diseases.

Robert, you are an idiot.
You're a typical Republican.
You guys are sure you know the answer to everything when you can't even understand the question.
You're sure that "the market" will solve every problem by magic.

You wouldn't know a PDE from a PDA.
You don't have the math or physics background to understand anything about climate research.

Until you've earn a Ph.D and worked in the field like I have for 20 years, shut up.

In the meantime, there's an open pool reactor I'm sure you'd love to have a swim in.

It's got a really pretty blue glow.

Climate scientist, Scientist, Climate Guy, and my favorite, Whydontpostsshowup has yet to share any climate change mathematics or actually discuss any of global warming claims with facts and figures.

I guess we are too dumb or biased to understand him if he tried. But why if he is who he says he is can't he identify himself or at least identify sources and research beyond the error filled and simplistic Inconvenient Truth. Apparently our scientist wants to punish as sub-humans fellow scientists and doctors like Michael Crichton.

A real math scientist I picked randomly by Google
accepts carbon emissions into climate change and criticizes Crichton, but unless I misread the abstract he says we are due for a cyclical DECLINE in temperature that will be only curtailed or muted by increasing carbon emissions. http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf

In the meantime, people are dying from real pollution, war, avertable disease, intolerance, oppression and various economic depradations that will NOT be alleviated by a global warming consensus. Green thru economic development and freedom is the only humane way, everything else is dictatorship of misguided global elitists.

CO2 is to Global Warming what Cigarettes are to Lung Cancer. The link is direct cause and effect. There appear to be two groups that actively work to muddy thiis link. The first group is mearly ignorant and misguided, driven an inability to understand the facts or simply unable to accept the need to change their behavior before it kills them. The second group don't even deserve to be called "human". They know the facts but are paid by industry to confuse people who are easily manipulated, knowing full well that they are causing pain, suffering and death on a massive scale. I pitty the first group, and hope that eventually the second group will receive the level of punshment they deserve for their deadly actions.

How can a gas needed by plants for survival be likened to a cancer causing agent? How come no one ever considers to views of these global warming contrarians? See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
It's time for a return to sanity!!

CO2 is to Global Warming what Cigarettes are to Lung Cancer.

As a Scientist working on climate-change related mathematics, I'm amazed to see how much stalling is going on and being tolerated by citizens around the world.

CO2 is to Global Warming what Cigarettes are to Lung Cancer.

The future of humanity is at stake.

Global Warming can wipe out humanity as completely as Global Nuclear War can.

Yet people dawdle, argue about politics, and go on and on about how much they love their SUVs, or bloviate about their right-wing economic theories.

We've waited so long to address the issue that no matter what we do lots of people, world wide, will die because of our inaction, and life will be much more difficult for those who survive.

If we wait too long everyone will die.

That's not alarmist, it's scientific fact.

What part of DIE don't you people understand?

One last bit of "chop logic", whatever that means.
If not growing the world economy to green, then what you left with is a zero sum game. There will be no $ to incentivize and make efficient agriculture, industry and consumption. The barter will instead be on power, and this will be to advantage of third world oligarchies.

Any short term benefits of industrial carbon burden dropping will be shortlived especially if large scale local land devastation and water pollution reduces CO2 drawdown.

JRKs example above is again of "conspicuous consumption" shame and not of common sense. Of course its obvious the humans went to share a holiday with family, Fido was along for the ride - that's a crime?? Do you take the Greyhound (even sans dog - no pun intended greyhound, never mind) with your presents? A plane, maybe, maybe not - it takes 100-150 miles city driving to get from/to airports and might be 2 or 3 small hops in inefficient smaller planes.

But the real kicker - if you leave the pet in Boulder for a couple winter weeks - are you turning off the heat?! NO, but you would if it's empty.

Why doesn't David and a lot of other people stop using SUV's? I'm sure he could afford a Hybrid or a bike. Many people are selling theirs and getting rid of them. It doesn't make any sense he's writing this column and then talking about Harvard, as if it's the only place that gets it, when it's not--then, he still drives his SUV. The problem is, all these people bought into the idea that this is an expression of wealth and respectability. we're all suckers.

Why doesn't David and a lot of other people stop using SUV's? I'm sure he could afford a Hybrid or a bike. Many people are selling theirs and getting rid of them. It doesn't make any sense he's writing this column and then talking about Harvard, as if it's the only place that gets it, when it's not--then, he still drives his SUV. The problem is, all these people bought into the idea that this is an expression of wealth and respectability. we're all suckers.

Yes, Jim, but what economies have surplus income over subsistence that fund environmental concerns over survival needs? What economies create efficiencies of scale in not only distribution and production of goods but recycling and prevention of desertification and deforestation? What economies can afford research and development into energy alternatives, pollution control, data collection? The name of the game is the goose and the golden egg.

If you want fried goose, be ready for the consequences. Ask Haiti about biodiversity and sustainability. Ask Russia why it subsidizes domestic energy and despoils its vast area. Ask China if anything is higher in value than exploiting its resources, material and human, to serve the party's needs.

Jim: "... one branch of the capitalist economy, TV advertising, gives us the message that owning more and bigger things like SUVs is the way to happiness."

Yes Jim: "Whoever dies owning the greatest number of things (in the world) wins!"

What's new and exciting?

When I hear that leaving everything to the market is the solution to all problems, I remind myself that the capitalist economy is a great way to organize production and distribution so that anyone who wants and can afford an SUV can have one, but it doesn't provide any guidance about whether driving an SUV is better than riding a bicycle -- except that one branch of the capitalist economy, TV advertising, gives us the message that owning more and bigger things like SUVs is the way to happiness.

I am not in disdain of "democracy and capitalism", as I said (wrote) no such thing. However, as some have put it, it is either "democracy and capitalism" or "global dictatorship of the proleteriat", nothing in between. That is "rich"! But, whatever the choices (real or perceived), I rather have clean air and water and have to adhere to some "global regime", then to be sufficating to death while I "enjoy my freedoms"... But, there are other choices that may get me the air and water I need without any dictatorship other than that of common sense and responsibility, which would call for "less consumption" and "self sustanence" type of existence, not "profit/GDP maximization".

Think of it as vacation on the beach. How many people are busy exercising political freedoms or maximing wealth while they sit on the beach? Most people would consider this state to be amply superior to the rat-race they endure the rest of their days to serve "capitalism and democracy". Think about that during your next two-choice election.

The reason we are here is that we are forced into two-selection choices, from parties to economic systems.

Several commenters are upfront about their disdain for democracy and capitalism. The rest of you fanatics are in denial that global dictatorship of the proleteriat (by the green vanguard) is what you promote.

"Conspicuous consumption" in the West is at most a source of shame in addition to taxation. In the 30s, it literally doomed millions of "rich kulaks" and a similar number in the 50s of Chinese peasants. "Atavism" above makes the point that it is the poor and dispossessed that pay for the guilt of the satisfied by wrong headed policies and the ultimate heartlessness of one world collectivist vision.

David,

I hope you go after the politicians and use the media to put pressure on them to act. It's very frustrating as a citizen to see nothing happening. Do it for us, David. A lot of people out there don't have voices as heard as yours.

The energy bill is a joke. By the time, it's 2030 there won't be any way to combat climate change, when they decide to make mild changes in mileage standards in the US. Also, by that time, most of us will be dead, and our children mad at us for being so greedy and screwing up the planet for them to deal with.

Ethanol pollutes just as bad. The processes used to make the fuel are not clean. It's not a good solution. I can see why Bush likes it, though, because it will make some people very rich. The energy bill is just sad. It's like a ballon flapping with no air in it. Americans are really pathetic about climate change.

David,

I hope you go after the politicians and use the media to put pressure on them to act. It's very frustrating as a citizen to see nothing happening. Do it for us, David. A lot of people out there don't have voices as heard as yours.

The energy bill is a joke. By the time, it's 2030 there won't be any way to combat climate change, when they decide to make mild changes in mileage standards in the US. Also, by that time, most of us will be dead, and our children mad at us for being so greedy and screwing up the planet for them to deal with.

Ethanol pollutes just as bad. The processes used to make the fuel are not clean. It's not a good solution. I can see why Bush likes it, though, because it will make some people very rich. The energy bill is just sad. It's like a ballon flapping with no air in it. Americans are really pathetic about climate change.

Well, sometimes the proof is to be judged by the action of the professers. Has Gore built an Ark yet anticipating major land masses to be flooded in the next 50 years ? Say I know. Speculating on a shift of shorelines, Ted Turner has bought up all the inland he can find through anticipation of predicted new flood plans.

Not going to worry about GW until the leaves on our property fail to fall of the trees starting sometime in October. I am concerned about certain blights attacking our woods, but then again, I look forward to growing pinapples in a hundred mile range of New York City.

Speaking of the "Unwilling" I am reminded of the Phoenicians or the "Unwilling Empire" some 10,000 years ago. There is nothing new under the Sun so what happened to the prinicples of Commerce without Conquest that seemed to be incorporated into the WTO charter ? I mean the Brits certainly are familiar with Commerce without Conqest through some famous free-thinkers of their history.

Somehow I doubt Illuminati would wage a conventional war against an ideology in the 21st century but that's just me.

In all of the so-called 'democracies' of the world, money rules. Money that has a huge vested interest in continuing the status quo of carbon based energy. Money that moves across international boundaries and can out-bribe new players on the energy legislation field. Until there is a constitutional amendment, in the US and across all democracies, that makes a political contribution to elected legislators no less a bribe than money passed to a judge during a trial, then there will be no movement. Just empty talk.

Sorry, but that is the reality that dooms us all.

I cannot understand how people who profess to be concerned about global warming, like David Ignatius, can still drive an SUV. Just this weekend, I was talking to my colleague, an outspoken environmentalist, who is planning a two week vacation on his 45 foot power boat. My frustration leaves me speechless. If we wait for the politicians to give us a sense of urgency, it will be too late.

When you still have leading politicians questioning whether climate change even exists, you aren't going to get much action.

When you still have leading politicians questioning whether climate change even exists, you aren't going to get much action.

Our descendants, as they deal with the carbon-dioxide overshoot for a hundred years or so, will look back at this debate and see the chop-logic of commenters like Robert -- so sure of themselves and so dismissive of any suggestion that our consumer habits in fact are causing such disruptive climate change because, after all, there is no irrefutable proof and HEY look at how those Africans are creating their own desert! -- and they will revile us. They will understand that we saw what was happening but we were too lazy and too greedy to make the hard choices that would turn things around. The SUV is a symbol of wasteful consumption, of our disproportionate contribution to the pollution of the whole planet. If SUVs start getting 50 mpg and we are doing a lot of other things to improve the climate, they will lose their symbolic significance. But as long as Robert and others like him see the bad conduct of others as a good reason for him not to make any sacrifices, we will fairly earn the opprobrium that our descendants will accord us.

Well, we know NOW why Communism failed: It relied on zero-financing and work ethics.

We will know SOON why Capitalism succeeded and is bound to doom: 0-percent financing and greed.

The problem with capitalistic "success": It means more consumption, but not (necessarily) expanding resources.

We really do not "create" anything, only transform existing things (labor, coal, oil, earth, etc.) into other things (textiles, electric power, plastics, wheat, etc.). So, the more you "produce" the faster you drain everything. Simple as that. If only the Communists knew!?... They would get low-interest financing and convert more coal, steel, labor, etc. into earth- and people-destroying "things" ranging from tanks to polution.

Long live greed; hope humans will survive to see it...

I tend to agree with Basheer: as a tangential aside, please see this article about a couple that drove 1200 miles from Boulder CO to Cleveland Ohio to show their pet dog to their parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/fashion/13pet.html?ex=1355288400&en=788f468513326948&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I was disgusted by (a) the idiocy of these people - who would burn so much gas for such a trifle.

(b) the reporter who felt the need to give them this coverage

(c) MOST OF ALL - read the comments that readers have left behind.

Where in the whole world does this happen? So who pollutes more *productively*? These morons? or some chinese guy burning coal to make bricks?

I tend to agree with Basheer: as a tangential aside, please see this article about a couple that drove 1200 miles from Boulder CO to Cleveland Ohio to show their pet dog to their parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/fashion/13pet.html?ex=1355288400&en=788f468513326948&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I was disgusted by (a) the idiocy of these people - who would burn so much gas for such a trifle.

(b) the reporter who felt the need to give them this coverage

(c) MOST OF ALL - read the comments that readers have left behind.

Where in the whole world does this happen? So who pollutes more *productively*? These morons? or some chinese guy burning coal to make bricks?

Who do you think will survive if we ratchet back our economy? If we stop running trains planes and using oil and we can only manage to feed half of the 6 billion humans which half would survive? I'd bet on the rich.

You ask, "Why is it that every other car on the road in America (including one of my own) is still an SUV?"

Because people wealthy enough to be materially insulated from the bad results of their decisions will generally only posture articulately and pay lip service to the moral claims of those whose howls of agony give genuine voice to suffering resulting from decisions of the wealthy. That's obvious, don't you think?

I drive a Chrysler Intrepid. Once when I was out of town on business, my employer rented a Ford Escape for me, the small SUV. I'm pretty sure the 2006 Escape got better gas mileage than the 2003 Intrepid. I still don't own an SUV, although as a family man, I'm thinking about it. But I used to HATE them. So now I'm saying, just because the vehicle is an SUV type doesn't necessarily mean it's evil. I agree those thyroidal Lincoln Navigators crusted with a couple thousand pounds of bling are approximately the same as pouring gas on the road, but it's not impossible to make an SUV more efficient and economical.

I think if the goal is to get more VEHICLES off the road, money invested on cheap bus passes or breaks at the pump for buses would make more sense. Oh, and make buses more fuel-efficient, while you're at it.

The most direct and immediate way to get action on climate change would be to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove from office an administration that singlehandledly is obstructing global progress against carbon pollution and climate disruption. Of all the odious elements of George W. Bush's shameful legacy, the worst will be the realization that we could have averted the worst -- severe climate impacts -- and did nothing, thanks to him and his radical GOP conservative entourage and regressive worldview. Now, it looks like taking the necessary action to avert the worst will be too late.

Saying global warming is not a crisis, because Congress won't or can't push ahead pro-active legislation, is like saying sweat shops in Viet Nam are a good thing, because no one in government really seems concerned about stopping that either.
We know who butters the bread of politicians, Democrat or Republican. Are those same politicians going to push legislation that is unpopular with the nation's most powerful industries and financial contributors? Are we no better than a third world country beset by corruption and influence peddling, where money and its influence rules?
Is it denial? No, I don't think so. It is more like "as long as I can afford to do and have what I want, who cares about future repercussions down the road?" "Who cares about the people and countries which will be most adversely affected?" "I don't plan on visiting those places anytime in my lifetime, so WHY should I care?"
It is all about ME.
The writer of this opinion piece uses a Sophistic line of argument that seems to hold water, but in fact is a shallow comment on what he perceives as reality.

It's sad that this is still an area of controversy. It's clear from scientific analysis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, most of which is the result of carbon dioxide emissions from developed countries over the past quarter century. Even the Bush regime admits this. This is not an insoluble or incomprehensible problem, it is well within the scope of political action. The conservatives natter on as if environmental problems were somehow fabricated by some conspiracy of liberal media, But the economic reality of global warming is a transfer of wealth to polluters from everyone else, and the value that is being transferred is the inherent collective value of our air. Assigning the air a value of zero is a market failure, and that's where government action is required, and that's what the Kyoto Protocol was created for and why it has market mechanisms to encourage countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a positive and efficient way.

David,

Your response to Bashir is an emotional one. The better point of attack lies in his concept of “Western dominance” as applied to this issue. Bashir will have to narrow his field of “Westerners” in this case to the Euroweenies and the target of “dominance” to Bush’s arrogant USA.

Unfortunately, this whole matter has been hopelessly politicized. The Bush administration has set new standards for bending the official scientific message to the needs of policy, while the Gore operation has set new standards for bending the scientific message against official policy. Nor does it help that the scientific subject itself lacks well-developed and tested models, stable over long periods of time. Think about it. I just heard it quoted on the news that the last time Mother Earth was this hot was some 600,000 years ago. Really? You mean this is not really uncharted territory we are entering? We have been through this before?

I remember a time when DDT was sold in grocery stores, in containers like salt shakers for general use around the house. Then came Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. It still took years to get DDT off of the market. Then came florocarbons, the Freon family of refrigerants. Alas, they didn’t mix too well with ozone in the stratosphere. That took some years too. Tetraethylead in gasoline was a good one. More recently we have the MTBE affair. On the other side we should note the Alar crisis with apples, which turned out to be a wholly false alarm. In all of these cases there has been a period during which the science included conflicting conclusions and special interests clustered around the ones they liked. It always takes time and this one will be no different.

Not too long ago I read a scientific article that reported that jet contrails (ice crystals) in the sky reflect 15% of the sun’s energy back into space, i.e. without them we would already be in the soup. The first thought is why didn’t this show up in these climate models everyone seems so sure of. The second thought was hmmmm, maybe we can raise that to 20% or 25% and compensate for the greenhouse effect that way.

The problem at Bali, at the UN, in your column, is the transformation of a physics problem into a problem of morality in politics, as though this were not an oxymoron. In truth, were we truly concerned about our children we would seek to drastically REDUCE our life expectancy in order to ease the burden we are placing on this poor Earth; but no, we just keep greedily consuming everything in sight like a swarm of locusts in Somalia.

No JRLR you are wrong on both counts.
Victims in the millions include desertification of sub Sahara, draining of Iraqi marshes, Aral Sea, Chernobyl, etc. Human causes, but not ephemeral culmination of SUV emissions, but overfarming and war and regular good old real pollution and despoiliation and toxic accidents...Has this caused GREEN regime change?, of course not.

Oh you poor pitiful one-worlder. Needing to ponder the world's end in order to have your dreams come true. Yet cascading environmental crises would likely break existing international cooperation and interdependency by economic devastation and political instability.

Another thing..."Those who resist the WORLD ...will beg the WORLD". What kind of WORLD government do you want? Based on China: hah beside the obvious if you're a Falun Gong, Christian or for that matter anyone who speaks their mind, WHO has been building a coal mine a week and deforesting Tibet? Based on a UN writ gargantuan - hah? On a record of corruption and bureaucracy you remake a greener world??!

Lets get realistic, bush is insane and as long as he's in the Oval Office, nothing will be done that will cut the corporate bottom line.

Q1. "What would it take to move this issue from easy talk to painful action?"

A1. I believe nothing will, short of the perceived, direct threat of extinction, the signs of which will be given by a series of major, cataclysmic catastrophes (with victims in the millions), the like of which the world will have never seen throughout the history of mankind.

Meanwhile, alas, in the media, people will continue to write as though they still wondered "IF this is truly a planetary emergency"...

Q2. "...how will (the world) enforce its political will?"

A2. Those who resist the world unilaterally, today, and who have undermined or literally destroyed every "instrument or pathway that could make this real", will ultimately beg the world to let them help enforce its political will. That will happen only once the scenario depicted in A1 has unfolded.

Meanwhile, alas, in the media, people will keep on writing flippantly about "the RHETORIC of Bali"... while each and everyone of them will be driving one's SUV, only "one of one's own" motor vehicles.

Clearly the evolutionary experiment by Mother for the species, Homo Saps, is a failure! The affects on bio-diversity alone of this parasitic species is condemning. Now they appear to be headed to Global extinction that may take several billion years to remedy. There is a particular virulent form in most of North America that has spread to all corners of the planet. This group is responsible for the quantum acceleration of the species extinction time line and there appears to be no methodology to contain the affects of this infection that is rapidly infecting most of the species members. The host planet is rapidly approaching numerous critical thresholds where the inflammation will be self perpetuating leading to a complete collapse of species environmental niche. The current generations of this species may very well be the last!

Bali was a photo op.

I generally agree with David Ignatius, but I am compelled to ask the simple question why he doesn't lead by example and trade in his SUV?

As a scientist deeply familiar with the mathematics behind models of global warming, and the numerical methods used to solve such mathematical models, I'm concerned that the risk we face may be significantly higher than has been reported in the press.

Without boring everyone with the details, when you write a computer code to solve these kind of systems, almost universally these codes contain "limiting", "dampening", and "smoothing" algorithms, that can mask extreme or extremely quickly changing behavior. Without such techniques, the programs would not converge to a solution or would take forever to run.

The upshot of all this is that when you have something as "non-linear" and "stiff" as climate change, its very easy to underestimate how quickly things can go bad.

If anything, global warming is more dangerous than has been reported, not less, and we probably have less time to respond to it than is commonly believed, not more.

Terrorism is the current planetary emergency as was Communism several decades ago. There is no evidence that man made activity is causing the current warming trend. Why is it that noted scholars such as Richard Lentz, John Kristy and Reid Bryson are ignored when they question the current global warming consensus? The climate is always changing and always will. Perhaps the goals of the global warming alarmists are to control the behaviors of others just like terrorists and Communists attempt to do.

After we got thru a century where command economies have been proven ineffective in growth, in meeting needs, or in environmental quality, you argue for a command “environmental” matrix at the national and international level as if it that if implemented wouldn’t not cause MORE instead of less global pain of the world’s poor.

Russia’s prior and continuing destruction of the Aral Sea and Siberia, China’s deforestation of Tibet and destructive industrial patterns on the land, sea, and air are beyond a mayors’ conference or corporate regulation or an NGO aid program

And GEE, they also concern actual DESPOILATION of the environment and direct effects on HEALTH not just measurement of CO2. But would anyone impose regime change to impose a GREEN government???

And yet, supply and demand in the terms of high oil prices and the attractiveness of alternatives will change the energy equation. And market incentives to create more and more efficient technologies and recycle the resources involved will do MORE than curb carbon emissions, they will make people’s lives better and save lives from REAL-TIME health problems and scarcity of resources.

But how to put the best and latest efficiencies broadly in the global economy??????? ---- ONLY entrepreneurial growth and free trade will do the trick, not global government!!!

You are so right,Mr. Dauenhauer

The secular religion of global warming needs a "religous test", a litmus test. If the people cannot handle its own affairs democratically and the courts are constrained by petty inconveniences
like the constitutional protection of property, then its up to the bishops of the media to excommunicate the leading political sinners.

David Ignatius is right to be incensed by the lack of discussion of climate change by the presidential candidates. Why should any reputable news organization, press or television station, put up with this silence. Just announce plainly that no more statements from a candidate will be published or aired until the candidate has held a press conference to discuss climate change. I'll be that would exert real pressure.

Come now. Perhaps global climate is a contributing factor. But desertification even the aridification (i.e. drought and dust storms) comes from LOCAL land misuse due to poverty and violence.

A little American history
Was the Oklahoma dustbowl due to a Siberian meteorite or an Asian volcano? No, lucky us, it was overfarming and bad water planning

....Environmental problems have LOCAL causes, to deny that, discounts the crying need for political change at the national and regional level and puts in all on SUVs and lightbulbs. This got Gore his prize but your parroting of simplistic thinking doesn't win any prizes here.

Come now. Perhaps global climate is a contributing factor. But desertification even the aridification (i.e.) comes from LOCAL land misuse due to poverty and violence. Was the Oklahoma dustbowl due to a Siberian meteorite or an Asian volcano? No, lucky us, it was overfarming and bad water planning....Environmental problems have LOCAL causes, to deny that, discounts the crying need for political change at the national and regional level and puts in all on SUVs and lightbulbs. This got Gore his prize but your parroting of simplistic thinking doesn't win any prizes here.