Well, damn! That is one hell of a thoughtful reply. Are you sure you know where you are? I'll be brief, if that's ok. As far as the 17-year business, I don't see it as being all that important. Even if one limits himself to millenia, 17 years is not even a blip. As to doing something, and what to do, if anything, and when to do it, and how to do it, the problem is not much different from making an U-turn in a floating hotel cruise ship, or an aircraft carrier: by the time it becomes clear that the turn must be made, it's too late to make it. The bet placed by those who want to wait appears to be to do nothing and gather more data in the meantime, much like the doves in the fall of '41. No one is claiming -- or at least I hope no one is claiming -- that we must act by next week because the world is going to hell the week after. However, the rapidity of potential change is underestimated by the deniers, such as in the case for example of a disruption in the Atlantic Conveyor. There is a tipping point, beyond which the rate of change can be stunning. Think avalanche. Of course it's possible that rising temperatures are being caused by something else, but, again, what difference does it make? Does that possibility require us to do nothing about CO2? And if it turns out that temperatures will continue to rise anyway, at least we'll have cleaner air, which is not an inconsequential benefit.
Jem replied, as follows below, to FC. I've added an explanatory note, below Jem's response, that may, or may not, clear up this issue of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's a question that FC apparently wants answered once again, despite its having been answered numerous times before. The property essential to a greenhouse gas is that it be more transparent to wavelengths shorter than infrared then it is to infrared wavelengths. For example, CO2 is transparent to visible light, but absorbs a portion of the infrared region of the emr spectrum. Therefore CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How efficient a greenhouse gas it is is another question entirely. This depends on a. its absorptivity in the infrared region, which varies with wavelength, and its concentration versus altitude profile. The latest data is indicating that, in its greenhouse gas role, CO2 is not very efficient. It has other roles to play however.. It is no surprise that CO2 is not a very good greenhouse gas. It is a relatively stiff molecule and has only one infrared active vibrational mode, an asymmetric stretch. Other molecules, like methane, have more infrared active vibrational modes, and would be better greenhouse gases than CO2 if there were only more of them. Water, on the other hand, is not a great greenhouse gas considering only its absorptivity profile, but there is a lot of it. Where water really "shines" in its temperature mediating role is in its albedo effects and its large heats of fusion and vaporization.
Yes, 17 years is too short a time to base any conclusions on. Way too short! What about, say, five more years, or so, to let this latest stuff play out, and see what comes from it in the scientific community? It may not matter. We are very slow to join other advanced nations anyway. If we don't do anything, I hope I'm wrong about Hansen's hypothesis being wrong.
What I've read -- and I'll be first to admit that I haven't read extensively since I don't think any of it is going to make any difference -- speaks of fifty years, a century, two centuries. Five years is most likely bupkus. Having gone through the sixties, I can understand the emotionalism surrounding this. As it turned out, little of that mattered. This does. But we are almost pathologically short-sighted. So rather than get into a deep discussion about these weighty topics, I'll probably settle in with a grilled cheese sandwich and Life After People.
the back of the box is not going to make any sort of difference here. The experiment is a joke. They don't even tell you how much gas they are using. Nor do they explain how the co2 we have in the atmosphere could be heating up the light based on visible light. Because as I said... for the co2 in that box to heat up the air around it... there would have to be a boatload more co2 than is in our atmosphere. If that experiment were legit... you just proved adding more co2 would cool the earth.
Because it's really very simple. Even after the mini novel of vacuous bs that pie wrote. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas then rising levels of it have to cause temps to rise. Interesting that pie refers to it as "Hansen's Hypothesis" which ad hom's the argument and belittles a bedrock principle of climate science by assigning it to just one man. Brilliant disinformation stuff right there. This guy pie could work for a think tank. He's that good. And it would explain his complete disregard for the science and common sense. Here's the science: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Until that is proven wrong AGW is a fact. The rest of it is just window dressing.
so you still have no science showing man made co2 is warming the earth. your conclusion is not supported by the facts. CO2 levels track but lags ocean temp levels. Here is the system in real life. Oceans warm... they release co2. Air warms... it can hold more water vapor and more co2. Oceans cools and the air cools and the co2 gets released like rain and is swallowed up by the ocean or off gassed into space.