Climate change . . .

[Tom Archer]

I have previously been a skeptic regarding climate change, partly because history shows that the climate has been capable of sudden changes without human intervention, partly because volcanic activity has been very subdued for the last couple of decades - and the statistics from eruptions like Mt St Helens make human activity look puny by comparison, and partly because I am old enough to remember eminent scientists lining up to affirm that a new ice age was imminent...

But some of the stats regarding CO2 levels strongly suggest that there IS a man-made problem emerging.

But what can we do about it? We have a billion people living in the developed world, and a further 2 billion in developing countries who have serious aspirations toward a similar lifestyle.

How can anyone argue that it's OK for those living in Europe and the US to all have cars, and jet around the world, but it's not OK for those in China and India to do the same?

All we have from western governments are feeble gestures - unless there is the resolve to drastically reduce CO2 emission in the west, the problem will continue to unfold.

The only measure that stands any chance of success would be a global accord to halt the exploitation of tar sands as a source of oil. The limited global resource of liquid petroleum and natural gas would then gradually be exhausted, limiting CO2 emissions.

Will it happen? - Don't hold your breath!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Tom,

I agree with the vast majority of what you said above, but this?

How can anyone argue that it's OK for those living in Europe and the US to all have cars, and jet around the world, but it's not OK for those in China and India to do the same?

Not only shouldn't anybody make such a ridiculous argument, nobody at least here ... actually has. So where is this coming from?

[Alan C.]

Roy,

I may be wrong, but your surprise at Toms comment may be due to the relevant stages of the Climate change discussions that are going on in our respective Countries. Around five years ago, Europeans, as well as many others, decided that Climate change was happening in a way that was directly affected by humans. The speed of that change is still keenly debated. Treaties were signed and laws were passed. 99% of politicians, scientists, journalists and the general public took it on board, although of course some radical thinkers remained (Don't you Derek?).
Now that debate took quite some time, and the agreements more time, but it was eventually all in place. The surprise was the US and a few other countries absented themselves, and their debate still raged, with eminent experts on both sides of the argument. The US recently fell into agreement with the rest of the world, and there is pretty much 100% acknowledgement that we are influencing climate change in a bad way.
At this point, I should add a significant anomaly that will encourage the Derek's of the world. In the last ten years, the average world climate has not risen. This is ironically explained by the complex nature of the factors that are involved, and the fact that it is not an exact science. Not a reason to forget reducing harmful emissions, but a reminder that we scratch the surface of powers beyond Human comprehension. You may say this could be an argument that all will be well in the end. I would counter that you're playing dice with the whole of humanity, why risk it when some tough medicine for a century or two will stop our impact adding to these complex powers.
Anyway, so while the good folk of the US are coming around to its leader’s new position, you will probably have a year or two of further debate in the media, the schools and elsewhere, to consider the consensus opinion. That’s what we certainly did. The radicals will be identified and their numbers will significantly reduce.
Eventually, you will turn to the argument of how to reduce emissions, and we are finally close to Toms point. The first position each selfish and jingoistic country takes up is, 'equal application'. We'll all slow down our expansions. Then we'll reach a plateau in a few decades, and when that is still heading us in the wrong direction, we will all then start to reduce. This initially popular viewpoint was considered tough medicine (if a tad slow) and was surely fair and equitable.
At what point, the developing world 'warmed' up considerably. The likes of China and India, with their huge populations and 'expectations', quite rightly pointed out the flaw. That being that if we all equitably tackle Climate Change, they stay developing nations, who cannot have the massive Industrial revolution they are on the cusp of.
So you get to Toms comment. Why should the average person in China or India have to forgo what the Western World takes for granted? Remember it's the Western World that mostly caused the situation we currently have, and now conveniently, we suggest a Status Quo arrangement.
The majority of Nations are now acknowledging this is a fair argument, but how to work this into the agreements is part of fierce debates.
The US will probably fast track its debate on Climate Change, so it should enter this aspect of the problem shortly. I have no idea how it will react.

So hopefully you will now see that Toms comment, which if you didn't follow this reasoning, may have appeared odd, clumsy, maybe even racist, is actually acknowledging the last major point most of the world agreed on. I'd like to think your new President will be able to shrug off the position of the Bush Administrations self interest, and sloth like decision making. They could then join the world debate and become one of the leaders of new thoughts and actions, as they are in most other aspects of the world, and not trailing behind like some naughty child.

Alan

[Andy Velebil]

I'm taking Derek's side....if there is all this global warming, then how come the "hotest days on record" are still from the late 1800's to early 1900's If there was global warming we would have already surpased those really old records.

Should I mention how much "harmful gasses" are released into the air by wine making and cows (which are natural). These are supposedly damaging the enviroment too. Holy smokes, if you listen to all those scientists everything we do is killing the earth...even breathing and farting.

It all hog wash I say....Derek, I am firing up the private jet now (green house gasses be damned). I will be there in short order, so we can drink and plan how to change these enviro types minds

(disclaimer: not really my personal views, but this thread needed some humor)

[Derek T.]

everything we do is killing the earth...even breathing and farting.

I must remember to stop drinking Guinness

Derek

PS: I know your game Velebil. You're just agreeing with me so that you can get your grubby little paws on my friends F27

[Glenn E.]

Alan,

My understanding is that the United States did not sign the Kyoto treaty specifically because it was not clear on the roles of both Western and developing nations. Kyoto left the emissions of developing nations like China and India basically untouched, and given their size relative to Europe and the US combined it makes no sense to have a treaty that will have no effect.

China and India cannot be allowed to go through industrialization in the same haphazard way that Europe and the United States went through it. They need to be helped through industrialization in a way that is not as potentially damaging to the planet as what our nations did, but Kyoto did nothing to address that. At least that is my understanding.

Meanwhile, back in the good old U. S. of A. we have a new product that can be attached to factories and turns 90% of the carbon dioxide being emitted into... baking soda. Cool stuff.

Skyonic SkyMine article

[Alan C.]

My understanding is that the United States did not sign the Kyoto treaty specifically because it was not clear on the roles of both Western and developing nations. Kyoto left the emissions of developing nations like China and India basically untouched, and given their size relative to Europe and the US combined it makes no sense to have a treaty that will have no effect.

Glenn,

you are quite right. What disappointed the other Nations, was it was the first step. Acknowledging the issue, and setting out a protocol whereby, further issues would be looked into. The PR machines reported either, 1. It was to wishy washy and would achieve little, or 2. The US refuses to acknowledge the obvious and makes no effort to reduce in any other way.
What was clear, whether intentional or not was it lost its place as a natural leader. Similar to our dithering on the Common Market of Europe in the 60's and 70's.

China and India cannot be allowed to go through industrialization in the same haphazard way that Europe and the United States went through it. They need to be helped through industrialization in a way that is not as potentially damaging to the planet as what our nations did, but Kyoto did nothing to address that. At least that is my understanding.

again a fair point, but we also cant ignore their requirement to develop and at the very least, close the gap in standards of living. There are forecasts that China and India will be the 2nd and 3rd largest economies, behind the USA by 2050. They will not have to sit there and be lectured by anyone. On the point of helping them, America has now signed up to Kyoto. They still have no agreement on the developing worlds 'adjustment'. One would have to ask what caused Americas about face, if that was a reason why they wouldn't sign, and then they did.

Meanwhile, back in the good old U. S. of A. we have a new product that can be attached to factories and turns 90% of the carbon dioxide being emitted into... baking soda. Cool stuff.

That sounds superb. I have heard of various schemes, and I hope this isn't one of them, were the way of cutting down emissions, causes similar or more of its own. Many such schemes are proof that solution may be out there, but we haven't got a handle on it quite yet. I hope the baking soda trick is the answer, but if it is, why isn't it spreading like wildfire?

Alan.

[Glenn E.]

It's brand new - the first installation at the Big Brown Steam Electric Station near Fairfield, Texas was I believe only installed last year. And as with any new technology, it's having a few growning pains. Big Brown is a lignite (coal) power plant and it's one of the worst in the nation when it comes to pollution per megawatt hour produced. It tossed 9.9 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2004. SkyMine would turn 90% of that into about 17 million tons of baking soda.

SkyMine also removes most of the heavy metals and sulfur from the emissions, and produces marketable chlorine and hydrogen as side effects. The baking soda it produces is allegedly cleaner than the stuff you use to cook in your kitchen.

Skyonic has plans to install SkyMine on another 500 megawatt power plant in the near future (allegedly during 2009), which should validate the concept.

I hope SkyMine is legit, because if it is then a lot of our problems with CO2 are history.

[Tom Archer]

Not only shouldn't anybody make such a ridiculous argument, nobody at least here ... actually has. So where is this coming from?

The Germans were trying to push the argument for a global accord to keep each nation's level of emissions at it's present level (or lower) implying that countries with very low emissions per capita should not be allowed to catch up, while countries with high emissions need only make a modest effort to reduce - the Chinese were unimpressed!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK102384.htm

Tom

[Bryan Robinson]

Am I the only one who feels that arguing over the causes of global warming is a moot point seeing as it is over?

[Andy Velebil]

I still wonder if there is global warming, then why does my area occassionally break heat records that were set 80-100+ years ago....global warming

[Bryan Robinson]

The biggest part of the whole anthropogenic global warming theory that has me shaking my head is the way popular opinion works. In the late 90’s, when the evidence for it was strongest, the general public really wasn’t on board. Now that the evidence is really doing serious damage to the credibility of the theory, EVERYONE believes the science is all settled and something must be done now.

[Scott Anaya]

Bryan,

That is so NOT the case at all. I mean please indulge us as to all the info which would allow you to conclude this? Most of the reason Global Warming is now such a "hot" topic if you will is the fact that a vast majority of the world's scientists and virtually all climate models have concluded in the last ten years that man has contributed significantly to the earth's rapid warming: Faster than anytime in history with the earth's natural warming/cooling cycles.

Andy.....a day here or there where 100 year old temperature records still stand is not indicative of the fact that this last decade has seen more of the overall "hottest" years on record since man began recording them, and much warmer than the hundreds of thousands of years of Antarctic ice core samples have shown. From GISS: The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.

Pleae take a peek at the uploaded (below, if I did it right) chart of the Global temp change for the last 125 years.

So even though I admit I am a bit left of center in my politics, this is not good for us at all in this world. It should hit really home for those on the conservative sides of the political isle, because this warming accelerated by man is going to cost us trillions and then some. It is already costing us billions in Alaska and costing the US treasurery millions (and thus you US taxpayers too) yearly since the winters up on the North Slope here in Alaska where the oil is drilled is staying frozen several weeks less each winter. That is shortening the ability to explore and drill for oil since the tundra need be frozen for ice roads to allow for exploration. :blah: Add in all the money spent to fix things b/c of melting permafrost- my friends house is tilting in Fairbanks, our roads, biketrails, and other infrastruscture are buckling with melting and warming soils/permafrost. Our coastal villages which have been there for a hundred years (Shishmaref et al) are washing into the ocean b/c there is no sea ice anymore in October and April when storms are strongest. And we, my taxpaying friends are gonna be footing the $100 million dollar bill per village for relocation. Native whaling crews are dying b/c they now have to travel 100 miles from shore to find ice and seal halouts as they are a traditional food. And this is the last 10,000 years of native life in Alaska that is now changing at a pace like no other time inhistory.

So I won't even mention the unthinkable like grape growing regions around the world and the Duoro becomming unsuitable for grape growing , or devastated by the ferocity and increasing frequency of storms with hail and flooding. Of course I may have my other dream realized of growing ice wine grapes all the way up here in Alaska in the next decade or two

Anyways, thanks for indulging me. As you can see i deal with this topic in an indirect way in my life. But soon, we all will be dealing, and unfortunately, paying for this dearly in the very near future. Might as well do it now while it is cheaper AND good for the economy. Easier things now like building greener buildings, doing energy efficiency measures in homes, buildings, and transport, lighting, etc. The economic opportunities global warming provides are great if we look at em the right way and put good ol fashioned human ingenuity to work for common sense and a future we'll be proud to pass down to the grandkids in addition to the three casees of birth year Port

NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010
According to NASA scientists:

Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Niño — La Niña cycle.

… barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.

The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.

And the most warming is far from the urban heat islands of major cities:
… the greatest warming has been in the Arctic.

[Bryan Robinson]

From GISS: The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.

Sorry Scott, sorry but your information is old. NASA got caught altering their algorithm, which made it look like it was getting warmer. They had to restate their data. According to your source, the hottest year on record is 1934. Only 1998 and 2006 even crack the top 5.

1) 1934
2) 1998
3) 1921
4) 2006
5) 1931

source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Seeing as much of your post relied on the old incorrect data, I’m not going to go line by line unless you really want me to.

That is so NOT the case at all. I mean please indulge us as to all the info which would allow you to conclude this? Most of the reason Global Warming is now such a "hot" topic if you will is the fact that a vast majority of the world's scientists and virtually all climate models have concluded in the last ten years that man has contributed significantly to the earth's rapid warming: Faster than anytime in history with the earth's natural warming/cooling cycles.

The interesting thing about this winter is the climate models put together by the greenhouse gas warming theory believers were all wrong. None of them predicted the downturn in temperatures this year. However there is another theory, and another climate model that nailed it.

Here is the quick and dirty version of how the cosmic ray - cloud warming theory works:

The amount of energy radiated from the sun is not static. It changes over time. During periods of high solar activity, two things happen:

1- The increase in radiance has a direct warming effect on the earth’s climate, an effect called solar forcing.

2- The sun’s increased coronal magnetic field, and increased solar wind, has a shielding effect that reduce the amount of cosmic rays that reach earth. It is a well documented inverse relationship. More sun = less cosmic rays / Less sun = more cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays cause clouds. Again, this is well documented and exactly how it works is understood.



Here on Earth, the cosmic rays form low clouds, which have a cooling effect. The cosmic ray – cloud relationship acts as a force multiplier, warming the planet, or cooling the planet more than would be accomplished solar forcing alone.

The level of solar activity can be charted by sunspot counts, and solar cycle length. The more sunspots, and the shorter the solar cycle length, the more active the sun. When solar cycle length, or sunspot count, is plotted on the same graph with global temperatures, the relationship is hard to deny.



The Winter of 2008 and the crumbling of support for the greenhouse gas warming theory:

As of the end of the last Solar Cycle in 2007, the sun was giving off less energy than it was at the end of the previous Solar Cycle in 1996. The amount of energy given off by the sun now seems to be in a downward trend.



Greenhouse gas emission have actually increased. So we had our real test. If the greenhouse gas crowd was right, the temperatures would follow their climate models upward. If the cosmic ray - cloud proponents were right, the temperatures would drop with the lull in solar activity. If you've followed the news, you know what happened this winter. If not, just ask and I'll post links.

Now this is just one year, and I'll be the first to admit the science is not all in, but right now the people who believe the sun, and not the SUV, is the most important factor in the Earth's climate, are making more accurate predictions. If they continue to be right, buy warm clothes.

[Derek T.]

Scott,

I cannot claim to know the science "facts" that you and Bryan are exchanging here but one thing I do know is that 125 years is an irrelevant timespan on which to judge any climate pattern on a planet that is at least 3 billion years old.

This planet has been through rougher times than we are experiencing now and I am sure at some point in the past other species have, in their own way, contemplated why parts of it have become inhospitable to survive in. The difference between those species and us is that they were not arrogant enough to believe that they had a say in the matter, they simply moved to where they felt more comfortable and could find food. The current human condition, providing you are rich enough to care, seems to include an expectation that life on earth will be a constant that can be relied upon. It never has been and it never will.

Like others here I believe we should make an effort to keep this place clean and tidy so that our ever increasing hoard of offspring can enjoy this place for as long as nature permits us to be here. At some point it will become bored and decide a change is in order and the human race will no longer have the upper hand. Whether that is through climate change, comet strike or the sun swallowing up our place in space matters not. The fact is, it will happen eventually.

Humans in the developed world spend far too much time, money and energy worrying about things they cannot hope to influence. If we turned our attention to things we actually can solve the world would be a much better, cleaner and happier place to be - at least for the remaider of our tenancy

Derek

[Scott Anaya]

Derek et al.,

Yeah, i can go back and forth on the science of it all and agree that 125 years is not even a blip, since I do have a geology degree and studied this all at university. But even the data Bryan provides shows that the last 10 to 25 years as being among the warmest of these records, and the last ten have been during the 11 year "cool" cycle of the sun. Drilling down hundreds of thousands of years of ice core samples and one thing is clear, man has introduced an enormous amount of CO2 into this atmosphere at a pace unseen in this amount of time. Things that did introduce this much sulfure, CO, CO2..well they made little things like whole animal species disappear. It is now accepted that mankind is influencing the climate. Remember the earth and nature are a fine delicate balance, and as little and few as our smokestacks and tailpipes seem in the grand scale of the globe, it may just be that straw that breaks the camels back....no need for the comet We have the technology TODAY to drastically reduce our footprint and the know how to do it in a way that makes economies thrive the world over.....see Uncle Tom's standard bottle size idea in the bottle/global warming discussion, why not do it because it is the right way to do buisiness

So I agree the planet has beent through rougher times and yes, we'll all be long gone someday, but that is not to say I am not going to worry about my generations influence in making any natural cycles worse or excascerbated. Especially when I can do easy things and smarter things which make financial sense to us all as well. B/c I do think we can influence things to a degree, especially since we are so easily showing our negative influence so far in polluting the planet like never before over the last 150 Industrial revolution years.

You mentioned that if we turned our attention to things we can actually solve....welI I think climate change and solutions to virtually eliminate man's influence on the climate are readily had with todays technology and affordable...even providing economic boomtimes with new smarter industries. Climate change solutions to me is not even first and foremost about the climate or "saving the planet" to me it means saving oil, thus energy costs, thus product costs, and add your domino here. I mean if we all saved energy and saved money, we could all buy alot more PORT :!:

[Bryan Robinson]

Yeah, i can go back and forth on the science of it all and agree that 125 years is not even a blip, since I do have a geology degree and studied this all at university.

Great! I’m really glad to hear it, because there are a couple things about your whole CO2 climate change theory that doesn’t make sense to me. It isn’t my intention to be pedantic. I am genuinely curious at how those who believe in the greenhouse gas theory deal with what I see as huge logical holes. Seeing as you have a science background, and you believe this theory to be correct, can you please help me out with the scientific support for this end of your theory:

1 – Here is the table from NOAA over the last 10 years that shows the growth of CO2 per year. If human activities are the primary cause of CO2 increase, why does the rate fluctuate so wildly? What happened in 1998 to make it so high, and why did it then drop in 1999? What happened?

year ppm/yr

1997 1.93
1998 3.00
1999 0.88
2000 1.73
2001 1.63
2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.58
2005 2.54
2006 1.72

2 - There are graphs going back a long time showing temperatures going up and down in direct proportion to CO2 levels. There are also charts going back a long time showing temperatures going up and down in direct proportion to solar activity levels. The three measures: temperatures, solar activity, and CO2, go up and down in tandem. If CO2 is the cause, as those who believe in anthropogenic global warming advocate, how do CO2 levels in earth’s atmosphere cause changes in the solar cycle lengths, and sunspot counts? Or does the global warming consensus just pretend the global temperature - solar sunspot relationship doesn't exist so as not to blow their own theory out of the water?

Again, I can’t stress strongly enough that I am not attacking you. I am genuinely curious and very open to your answer. I have just never seen these issues even addressed by the greenhouse gas crowd, which in my humble opinion is not the way science should work.

[Scott Anaya]

Bryan,

Thanks for your want of discussion on this....I wasn't at all taking any of it as an attack on me....just on several thousand (and overwhelming majority) of the world's leading scientist heheheeee

You asked, "If human activities are the primary cause of CO2 increase, why does the rate fluctuate so wildly?" And offer this table: 1 – Here is the table from NOAA over the last 10 years that shows the growth of CO2 per year.

Couple things. First the table is of CO2 GROWTH annually. There in lies one crux, it is increasing and man is a fairly substantial part of that increase in CO2, that is measureable. The debate is wether I think man's contribution upsets any of the earth's delicate balance, whereas I am guessing you aren't convinced?

The reasons are wildly varied from year to year as to why the rates of INCREASE vary year to year. I assume that to be measureable atmospheric CO2? Doesn't matter though. It varies alot depending upon vegetation patterns over large scale swatches of the earth year to year. Meaning a huge drought across the entire southeast US and Europe simultaneous with that of a third of Australia contribute to less greanery and CO2 absorption. So it has alot to do with weather patterns on a grand global scale. An el nino year may see alot of open ocean storms which wash higher amounts of CO2 into the oceans from one year to the next. Speaking of, this is a huge problem as the oceans coral reefs are bleaching b/c of an ever so slight increase in the acidity of the oceans water due to CO2 and other anthropogenic gasses.

One reason the scientific community has been convinced of mans contribution to warming is precisely b/c many of the variables you mention actually have been integrated into all of the climate models, especially when you have data that evens out as constant over hundreds of thousands of years. ALL, every single climate model can be, and has been run with accurate historical data and modern data to show that yes, the earth is warming at a rapid rate like no other. They may and are not likely at all to be the sole cause for the warming. Again, are we tipping the scales though?

The three measures: temperatures, solar activity, and CO2, go up and down in tandem. If CO2 is the cause, as those who believe in anthropogenic global warming advocate, how do CO2 levels in earth’s atmosphere cause changes in the solar cycle lengths, and sunspot counts? Or does the global warming consensus just pretend the global temperature - solar sunspot relationship doesn't exist so as not to blow their own theory out of the water?

So i have only ever read over the assumptions and modelling parameters of one climate modelling program, but that one (and I would imagine all the others) actually account for and have dealt with the sun cycles, sun spot anomalies you mention. It is something not at all ignored by the scientific community.

So if you think that the suns spot flareups and sun's natural cycles impact CO2 levels and thus climate on earth, why would you not think that man's introduction of massive and measureable amounts of CO2 would have none at all? Again, I think we are contributing and causing climate change above and beyond any "natural" cycle the earth is in.

And if we aren't, isn't saving oil, energy, and money worth doing something?

[Luc Gauthier]

I started this topic ( 38 posts ago ) wanting to know If the Port industry was going to attend the Climat conference in Barcelone .
Scott or Bryan or any Portonian for that matter , would you venture a guess as to how the micro-climate of the Douro valley be affected ?

[Bryan Robinson]

So if you think that the suns spot flareups and sun's natural cycles impact CO2 levels and thus climate on earth, why would you not think that man's introduction of massive and measureable amounts of CO2 would have none at all?

Because CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas, and such a trivial component of the earths atmosphere that it can not be capable of creating the warming ascribed to it. The math simply doesn’t work.

I also do NOT believe the sunspots affect climate through generating CO2, but rather though generating low altitude clouds. CO2 is created indirectly by sunspots, but the role it plays is that of the hairs at the very tip of the dog’s tail.

How the sun alters earth’s CO2 levels:

Phytoplankton. It is estimated that 70%-80% of earth’s oxygen comes from marine plants, and phytoplankton make up the vast majority of marine plants. Phytoplankton do not like warm water, which is what makes scuba diving in the Caribbean so nice; no phytoplankton to mess up the visibility.

As the sun warms the earth’s ocean, it reduces that area the phytoplankton will live in, which in turn reduces the ocean’s photosynthetic capacity, and thereby raises CO2 levels. That is why CO2 levels rise and fall in lockstep with sunspot counts and temperature records. It has nothing to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

As for the variability of CO2 numbers in the last 10 years, I think you were right to seize on natural causes. The numbers do map pretty well to ocean temperatures, and 1998 was a strong El Nino, 1999 was not. The year-to-year numbers do not match to anything people are doing with fossil fuels. The CO2 numbers have continued to climb because the ocean has continued to warm.

That leads me to another huge problem I have with greenhouse gas warming theory:

The air temperatures over the recent temperature hump, are not that far off from the air temperatures back in the 20’s and 30’s (0.18 °F difference), however the ocean temperatures are up significantly. If global warming were due to greenhouse gasses, which work by absorbing certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation and then releasing that energy as heat into the atmosphere, that relationship would be reversed.

Now if you have an explanation for that, I would be very interested.

Thanks for your want of discussion on this....I wasn't at all taking any of it as an attack on me....just on several thousand (and overwhelming majority) of the world's leading scientist heheheeee

I’m not too worried about the overwhelming majority, they are often wrong. Besides, science doesn’t need majorities, fads need majorities.

And if we aren't, isn't saving oil, energy, and money worth doing something?

That all depends on the cost.