Comment from jean
January 15th, 2010 at 8:06 am

we have deer being blamed exclusively for the condition of the few acres of forest we have in heavily industrialized nj. i believe the effects on our forests are much more extensive in affecting vegetation growth such as climate change, acid rain, mercury, migratory birds. can you list for me what influences affect new vegetation growth in nj forests besides thsose listed?

Jean — Thanks for your question. THE VERY LARGE INCREASES IN DEER POPULATIONS in the Mid-Atlantic states has had very negative impacts on the health of forests in the region, in many cases there no leaves below the deer browse line. There are certainly negative impacts of elevated levels of ground level ozone and other forms of air pollution, though those impacts will vary widely across the region depending on local conditions.

Comment from Linda Karr
January 15th, 2010 at 8:20 am

Black Carbon (soot) (particulates) is the 2nd leading cause of global warming, and stopping production of particulates is the quickest way to slow climate change. If someone asks you what an indivdual could do, please reply "Don't heat with wood." There are little to no regulations on residential wood burning emissions of particulates nationwide. Even EPA certified wood stoves contribute to particulate pollution. The American Lung Association, when speaking of wood burning, first simply says, "Don't burn wood.", as do many State EPA departments now. In the State of Maine particulates from wood burning stoves surpass those from auto emissions. Montreal has banned use of wood stoves in the city. Outdoor wood boilers are banned in the State of Washington, and if at least six other states enforced similar laws to Washington's OWBs would also be banend there. Connecticut is reopening the effort to make wood smoke a nuisance statewide. Pennsylvania is in the late stages of approving a Statewide regulation of OWBs. Fairbanks Alaska is in the process of deciding how to regulate or ban wood stoves in order to reduce it's bad air produced primarily by wood stoves. The Bay Area of California has "Spare the Air" days in the winter where use of wood burning is prohibited, and similar efforts are in effect in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and other western states.
The emissions from wood burning can be cleaned by catalytic converters on residential size wood burners, but industrial-type scrubbers are not ususually feasible on that size of burner. To confuse the issue, Outdoor Wood Boilers are widely advertized as "wood gasification". WOOD GASIFICATION at a high enough level to make a difference against pollution WOULD PRODUCE NO SMOKE. Wood gasification industrial plants may operate differently that OWBs and if legislation loopholes are eliminated they may have controls of pollution similar or better than those of coal-fired plants, but wood gasifications has often been referred to as "not yet achieved", just has clean coal has not yet been achieved. 1% and other low levels of wood gasification occur in nature, butwood gasification is treated the same in OWB advertizing whether it is 1% or 99%. Manure gasification plants may be a cleaner technology to produce energy, which also eliminates field runoff of manure into lakes and streams. A project for manure gasification has started in Dane County, Wisconsin, where I live. Another suggestion if people ask what they can do individually, would be to say, convert your home heating to natural gas as a bridge to the cleaner residential heating alternatives of residential solar, wind and geothermal energy. Support your local utilities' use of wind, solar and geothermal for generation of their energy. By making these suggestions to the general public, you can educate them about this air pollution issue and make them feel they can make a real, not just token, difference today. They won't just feel good about changing a lightbulb, they'll know they have stopped contributing to particulate pollution, which causes heart and lung problems, cataracts, asthma and early, preventable death.

Comment from Joe
January 15th, 2010 at 8:39 am

We need to address the growing population that is the main cause of global warming, which requires more of everything. We can put in regulations on manufacturing, energy reduction and what ever goes along with it. But until we stop the main source of population growth, we are wasting our efforts because population growth keeps ahead (with additonal needs)of our efforts at reduction of polutionin every aspect. Place the blame where it origionates!!

Joe — Thanks for your comments. EDF does not work on poplulation issues. Many other groups do. If we tried to work on every problem, we would solve none. We try to focus our work on issues we think we can play a unique and transformational role.

Comment from Spencer
January 15th, 2010 at 8:53 am

I have been attempting to send a check to your organization. Unfortunetely, all my ball point pens are too cold to dispense the ink..Please advise how I can warm them up..Spencer in Iowa..Brrrrr

Spencer — You are aware that we take gifts online with credit or debit cards. JK. If you're not convinced that climate change is a serious threat, you might be interested to know that more than 30 national academies of sciences around the world, including America's, affirm the science and support urgent action to cut global emissions to avoid runaway global warming.

Comment from Mary Calese
January 15th, 2010 at 9:00 am

As the evidence piles up supporting MMGW, the public becomes more skeptical and less concerned about it. A cold snap in Florida and the pundits and public ask whatever happened to global warming? Unfortunately, the US has a scientifically challanged population, as comparative surveys always show.

The scientists may do a good job at compiling evidence, but they have done a very poor job of selling it to the general public. Environmental issues as a whole appear very low, if at all, on the public's concern list.

Politicians react to public opinion. If the public is not fully behind radical policy changes to address global warming, it will not happen.

How can the environmental community do a better job of educating the public? I would suggest more environmentally oriented advertising on the wide variety of mediums available, not just costly TV. I remember the ad depicting the crying Indian beside the polluted stream from years ago. It was schmaltzy, but effective. There needs to be a saturation of such ads, or environmental friendly legislation is in danger of going down the drain during these hard economic times.

True believers spend money to attend conferences reinforcing each other.
Wouldn't some of that money be better spent educating those who are not true believers?

Mary — This is an excellent point and EDF has spent a tremendous amount of time and money to reach new audiences on the urgent need to cut our global warming emissions. In fact, we lauched a series of ads (TV, print, online) last year focused on how climate action will put Americans back to work building out our domestic clean energy resources (http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=38455). We have also reached out to many non-environmental groups, including faith-based groups, students, small businesses, Fortune 500 companies, hunters, anglers, and more. It's just a really difficult task to break through. That said, the fact that a significant majority of Americans support climate action even in a down economy suggests we're getting through with most Americans.

Comment from mark may
January 15th, 2010 at 9:01 am

THE TRUTH ABOUT ETHANOL
Turn on the television news on any given day and it seems that you can’t help but hear another news snippet concerning peak oil, climate change or the economic melt down. The causes for the woes as well as the solutions to positively address these major concerns are many, and seem daunting if not impossible to fix.

Ethanol, with both of it’s black eyes must be picked back up, dusted off and reintroduced to the world in the positive light that it so richly deserves. In fact let’s look at ethanol as a savior. If we could dispel all of the lies and myths that have been created to keep big oil in the driver seat of our energy choices, we will see that ethanol truly could be the savior that will deliver us from this trifecta of horrors which is climate change, unemployment and dependence on foreign oil.

One of the biggest myths is “Ethanol will harm your engine” Contrary to all of the oil industries’ time honored myths and lies, ethanol should be the fuel of choice for every internal combustion engine in the world. After all, when internal combustion engines were invented gas stations didn’t exist. These new engines ran on ethanol. And when Henry Ford invented the Models A and T, he introduced to the world the first flex fuel cars that could run on ethanol or gasoline. That’s because at that time gas stations were few and far between, especially when traveling in the country. But in those early days Ford new that most farming communities had stills to produce their own energy and light. And that if low on gas a traveler could buy some ethanol from a farmer and get back on the road. If the early model Ford engines could run on any combination of gasoline and farmer’s hootch, why should we believe big oil’s claim that burning ethanol in your car will destroy your engine?

For more proof fast forward to today. All one has to do is visit IndyCar.com. Here you can read about the IndyCar series’ ground breaking use of 100% fuel-grade ethanol in it’s Honda V-8 engines. Here is a direct quote gleaned from the ethanol fuel program page posted on their official web site. “ The long term message is clear: If 650 horse power IndyCar series cars that cover the length of a football field in one second can run safely and effectively on 100 percent fuel-grade ethanol, so can your vehicle”.
In 2007 the U.S. Department of Energy, along with the American Coalition for Ethanol concluded studies that found mid range ethanol blends (fuel mixes with more ethanol then E10 but less then E85) can in some cases provide better fuel economy then regular unleaded gasoline even in standard NON-FLEX FUEL VEHICLES. Please notice that here the debate isn’t whether ethanol will screw up your engine, it’s deciding the extent of ethanol’s superiority over gasoline!

Finally we can not ignore the living example of Brazil. After the OPEC oil embargo that caused world wide gas shortages in the 1970’s, Brazil’s military dictatorship of the era ordered the major manufacturers of cars in Brazil to produce dedicated alcohol-fueled vehicles, and ordered sugar producers to shift away from table sugar to fuel production. In 1980, less then six months after the car companies told the government it was impossible to make a car run on ethanol, 60% of all cars coming off Brazilian assembly lines were specialized alcohol only vehicles. After some minor engine modifications proved the cars ran fine, by 1984 94.4% of all cars produced ran on Ethanol. Today 85% of the cars in Brazil run on 100% alcohol (available at the pump.) All the rest of the gasoline cars (so old they are not fuel injected) there run on 24% alcohol and have for DECADES.

Other classic myths are “You get poorer gas milage with ethanol” and “There isn’t enough land to grow crops for both food and fuel” and “Ethanol is a ecological nightmare” and “Ethanol doesn’t substantially improve global warming” and the ever popular -drum roll please- “It takes more energy to produce ethanol then you get out of it” Oh the hits just keep on coming!!! All of this B.S. is what has been shoved down our throats for decades by those with a vested interest in the oil industry, even our own auto industry. It can safely be said that any, and I mean ANY negative view that ANYBODY has about ethanol and it’s proven positive effects on the internal combustion engine has been influenced and backed by junk science. This science is cooked up and brought to you by crack pot scientists employed by big oil who would rather line their pockets with cash rather then tell the truth about ethanol. And sad to say, armed with such misinformation, money, power, and influence we find our own lawmakers residing in the hip pockets of those with incredibly deep pockets. They in turn make policy that forces the rest of us lemmings run our cars on a substance that is extremely harmful to us and the entire planet.

So what are we going to do? It’s obvious that if we wait for the right decisions to come down from Chevron, Mobil, BP and their subsidiaries the U.S. Congress and Senate, we’ll be waiting for a long long time. ( O.K. here’s where you start humming the Mighty-mouse cartoon theme song –Here I come to save the day–)
Alcohol fuel pioneer Dave Blume taught his first ecology class in 1970. After majoring in Ecological Biology and Biosystematics at San Francisco State University, he worked on experimental projects, first for NASA, and then as a member of the Mother Earth News Eco Village alternative building and alternative energy teams. When the energy crisis of 1978-79 struck, Dave started the American Homegrown Fuel Co., an educational organization that taught upwards of 7000 people how to produce and use low-cost alcohol fuel at home or on the farm and how to convert their vehicles and equipment to use it. At least 97 fuel-making cooperatives formed out of his workshops. He is the executive director of The International Institute For Ecological Agriculture, and has consulted for a wide array of clients, including governments, farmers, and companies interested in turning waste into valuable and profitable products. In 2007 he published his book Alcohol Can Be A Gas. Twenty five years in the making, this book is a practical roadmap for supplying all of our energy needs without drilling, strip mining, and or depleting the soil. In fact, following Blume’s model, soil fertility would actually increase worldwide; energy production would not only be sustainable, but democratic and highly profitable on a small scale.
In his book he debunks all of the above myths and explains the truth backed by scientific research and scientific evidence.
Before reading Daves book, I was one of the millions us convinced of ethanol’s problems as a fuel choice. I didn’t realize how many myths there were about the stuff, but I’d heard a couple of them–and unknowingly, like most of us believed them for lack of proof otherwise. Since reading the book I’ve joined the 192 million people of Brazil and have been splash blending E85 with gas, running a 50/50 blend in my non-flex fueled car (2003 P.T. Cruiser) for a year and a half now. The car runs just fine with no engine damage or lost mpg. And E85 sells for twenty to twenty five cents per gallon less then gasoline.

Researchers estimated that if all of our fuel injected cars–and thats almost all of them since the late 1980’s–ran on just 40% ethanol, we probably wouldn’t need any foreign oil. That is, we can be energy independent with current technology–and simultaneously be slashing co2 output–if we just start producing alcohol. No massive multimillion dollar research project would be necessary just to get the cars running, as is the case of hydrogen. Just make the alcohol, put it in the cars we have on the road right now, and stop the cause for much of the conflict in the Middle East. End of discussion.

So where is the key to sustainabiltiy? Where is the key to avoid climate change? And what about the key to solve unemployment, and our insane dependence on foreign oil? The key to all of these answers is in our pockets and it starts our cars. Every time we use E85 we unleash the savior one gallon at a time.
As you can see getting the word out and telling the truth about ethanol is daunting when you look at the gauntlet laid down by the oil industry. Competing against their money and influence in Washington has proven to be a waste of time. The most powerful way to stand up to them is to not give them any of our money.
100% of the alcohol in every gallon of E85 ethanol is produced here in the U.S.A.. Your money for that fuel pays our farmers, and related ethanol industry workers for their efforts. That money stays here, and is spent locally. It’s not sent via the oil conglomerates to some sheik who wants to add another private jet to his collection. Using ethanol will give the power back to the people where it belongs.

Comment from paul
January 15th, 2010 at 9:32 am

What about climategate?

Paul — Thanks for the question. There are many angles to this story, but here are the three things you need to know:

1) There is no evidence that CRU altered any of the data in their database or in publications.

2) There are temperature trends produced by independent research groups that show the same patterns as those produced by CRU.

3) There are many other sources of data, other than surface temperature that indicate that the planet is warming: Satellite temperature measurements, rates of melting of land and sea ice around the world, rising sea level, shifts in species distributions and lifecycle timing, melting of permafrost, etc.

Here is a blog post we published on our Climate 411 blog that goes into more detail: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/12/18/on-hackergate-what-the-stolen-emails-say-about-climate-science/

Comment from Brock
January 15th, 2010 at 9:47 am

Is there any real objective evidence that man made CO2 has caused any changes in the world's climate?

Brock — Thanks for the question. Scientists understand a great deal about the natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) factors that affect climate. Only greenhouse gas levels have changed in ways that are consistent with recent, rapid global warming. The other factors (solar energy, volcanoes, Earth's reflectivity, and ocean heat content) cannot account for the temperature and other changes scientists have documented around the world.

Dr. Bill Chameides did a basic series about this on Climate411; the take-home is part 5 of that series. The U.S. Global Change Research Program has a nice brochure about climate literacy. Another fantastic resource is the IPCC report. The Summary for Policymakers is a good place to start.

Comment from Rhoda
January 15th, 2010 at 9:57 am

Hydrogen technology has come a long way and I believe could be the answer to solving global warming. Have any studies been done on the impact of just changing over road transportation to hydrogen power?

Toyota released 600 test hydrogen cars in LA area in 2008, and the technology has been deemed safe and efficient. So what is the hold up? Why aren't more environmental organizations promoting this technology? Why aren't investors approached to set up a hydrogen distribution system so the rest of us can have hydrogen vehicles?

Thanks.

Comment from Antonio,Portugal
January 15th, 2010 at 9:58 am

When do you pressurise all car constructers to:
#1-Reduce de engine power,and
#2-Install a device on the cars to not let the speed's cars be higer than 120 Km/h?

Antonio — Excellent question. We have worked for a long time to improve auto fuel efficiency here in the U.S. In fact, our efforts to support a automobile carbon emissions standard in California contributed to last year's announcement by the Obama administration to improve fuel economy to 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Comment from Jan
January 15th, 2010 at 10:28 am

Where are the answers to the questions above about climategate and climate change deniers. I know many of them and would like to find a few definitive sources to send them to. They obviously do not believe Gore, or groups like the EDF and see such sources as biased.

I was hoping I could read the answers to the above questions but I don't see them here.

Thank you

Jan — Thanks for the question. We just posted an answer to the climategate question above. Here is a blot post in Climate 411 that goes into some of the details: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/12/18/on-hackergate-what-the-stolen-emails-say-about-climate-science/

Comment from vineeta kumar
January 15th, 2010 at 10:30 am

Taj mahal in india is live example that is being converting from white to greyish colour.

Comment from michael peck
January 15th, 2010 at 10:31 am

Now that man made global warming has been completely discredited by the CRU hacks and thier shocking e-mails, why are you people still spouting off this drivel? propaganda is all it is,Fact:the earth has been cooling since 1998, north polar cap has been increasing dramatically since 2007, the south pole never was in decline.warmest year on record is 1934 according to NASA, al gore is being sued by father of weather channel john coleman because its the only way he can geta fair debate is in court. these corrupted scientists and global cap&trade tax conspirators belong in jail, they have hi-jacked the whole enviromental movement and have destroyed the movement, lets get to real enviromental issues, like depleted uranium ammo pollution, dumping garbage in ocean,destruction of our seed base by monsanto by genetic engineering,military spraying barium and aluminum in our skies, i can go on and on, but the new worlders want thier global tax and have no concern for real pollution..NEWSFLASH! MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM!

Michael — Not a big surprise, but we beg to differ. More than 30 national academies of sciences around the world, including America's, agree that global warming is a threat and that we need to act quickly to cut our ghg emissions. As we answered above, the hackergate scandal certainly generated a lot of media pundit smoke, but there is no fire. Here is our response on Climate 411: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/12/18/on-hackergate-what-the-stolen-emails-say-about-climate-science/.

But the beauty is you don't have to agree with the overwhelming science on global warming to support climate action. As Thomas Friedman points out in this excellent op-ed, China is a rising power and they are betting big on green energy: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10friedman.html. The 21st century will be a green energy century and America can either lead or get left behind.

Comment from Bruce
January 15th, 2010 at 10:33 am

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THE DAUNTING TASKS PERTAINING TO SAVING MANKIND IS TO HAVE COORDINATED INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS. THE ONLY FORUM THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR THIS IS THE UNITED NATIONS. HOW CAN THE MEMBER COUNTRIES BE PERSUADED THAT HAVING THIS AS THEIR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS IMPERATIVE?

THANK YOU

Bruce — Great question. Climate change is absolutely a global problem and will require a global solution. While many people hoped for more out of the Copenhagen climate summit, the fact that China and other developing countries have for the first time pledged to reduce their emissions growth is an important step forward.

The biggest step we can take is to get the U.S. Senate to pass a strong climate and energy bill this year to cap and reduce our emissions and unleash our clean energy future. That is our primary focus.

One thing is clear whether you agree with the overwhelming evidence on global warming or not, the 21st century will be a clean energy century. China just committed $440 billion to develop clean energy technologies. If the U.S. doesn't get serious about this, we will fall behind and lose the race to unleash our clean energy future.

Comment from Martin Silberberg
January 15th, 2010 at 10:50 am

Are there some detailed molecular data and/or web sources concerning how the CO2 molecule absorbs IR radiation and warms surrounding air?

Comment from Rick Hartman
January 15th, 2010 at 11:19 am

I was wondering how much the CO2 emitted by the 6 billion humans on the planet contributes to global warming? How much worse will the situation be if the population expands to 10 billion people by 2050, as predicted? Why doesn't anyone seem to be talking about population control, since overpopulation is the root cause of global warming?

Comment from Blair
January 15th, 2010 at 11:28 am

Of course, we're all primarily concerned with good science to help inform policy. I saw this recent press release concerning a study of CFCs and cosmic rays published Dec. 3, 2009 in Physics Reports from a physics and astronomy professor in Canada (http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5152). From my layman's perspective, it appears his research is contrary to some of the current modeling on CO2 and global warming. How does this study fit in to current views?

Comment from Kevin Tuerff
January 15th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Can you clarify and respond the news reports about a potential 15- or 30-year "pause" in global warming?

Kevin — Thanks for the question. Not sure about a 15-30 year pause. Some have claimed, erroneously, that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 10 years. The truth is that the decade of 2000-2009 was by far the warmest decade on record and Climate Progress is reporting that 2009 will tie for the second warmest year in recorded history. And the U.K.'s Met Office predicts that 2010 could set a new record.

Part of the confusion is that the earth's climate is a complicated system with many variables. For example, the El Nino cycle plays a very important role in the planet's climate. We have not had a strong El Nino since 1998, which set a record for global temperatures. However, the long-term trends are clear — we are warming at a very clear and disturbing rate.

Here's a relevant post from Climate Progress worth reading: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/14/2009-hottest-year-on-record-in-southern-hemisphere-nasa-giss/

Comment from Earl Lemberger
January 15th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

I am bombarded occasionally by "anti-CO2" believers who send me pronouncements such as this from TV-weatherman John Coleman at http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a. How would you recommend responding to the points he raises, especially to those friends who are undecided or skeptical of each side of this argument?

Earl — Thanks for the question. First of all, with all due respect to John Coleman, that video is pathetic. First, he dismisses CO2 as a trace element in the atmosphere. That's akin to saying that cyanide was a trace element in someone's bloodstream in his autopsy report. CO2 is a natural gas, that's true. But so is uranium and I think we can agree that uranium can be dangerous.

The ebb and flow of warmer and cooler cycles is well known and well documented. But it has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on now.

Here are three facts you need to know:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Scientists have known this since the 1700s. Look at Venus if you doubt it.
2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than at any time in at least the last 2.1 million years. There are other climate variables, but this fact is not in dispute.
3. We are already seeing warming that is unprecedented in the known climate record. And we are seeing record ice melt and other climate impacts that reinforce the findings that we are warming.

We could go on, but it might be more efficient to point you to our Climate 411 blog where many of these questions are addressed. Check out our "Basic Science" section.

Comment from kimberly nealis
January 15th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Global Warming this is an effect from from the ozone being riped apart from plantX?
I'm sure you know they say this global warming is steming from the future disaster in 2012.. Some scientist say they can fix this and other's say it cannot be done?

Kimberly — Thanks for the post. The ozone problem is not directly related to global warming. Here is an excellent post from the Union of Concerned Scientists on this point: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#Is_global_warming_connected_to_the_hole_

As for the 2012 disaster, we'll let Hollywood deal with that one.

Comment from Joan
January 15th, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Yes where I live we have deer,fox, raccoons and birds of prey. What is wrong with people? Don't they like nature in NJ well I do. We just had a hunt on a golf course near me. It was around the holidays and it was to close to the homes they even had to tell the teachers at the public school near the golf course don't let the children out for recess. I was born and raise in Jersey City. I use to have to see deer either in Sussex or Sullivan County. When I see these animals around here I feel very peaceful. I watch Animal Planet we are the ones that are driving the wildlife away. Oh yes there is birth control for the deer.

Comment from Fred Welty
January 15th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

The release of methane from the tundra and other sources is a concern. Is this release being monitored currently? If so, what is the trend? Extrapolating on this trend, at when will this feedback loop become so serious that it constitutes a runaway situation?

Hi Fred — Thanks for the question. Yes indeed, methane is a huge part of the global warming problem. Pound for pound, it is up to 33-times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But it is not nearly as prevalent in the atmosphere and doesn't last as long. While carbon dioxide can last in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, methane breaks down in about 7. Still, methane accounts for more human-caused warming than all the other non-CO2 greenhouse gases combined.

Methane emissions are being tracked and a recent study by NASA suggests that methane may be even more potent than previously thought due to its interaction with airborne particles called aerosols.

The feedback loop problem is a tipping point we may well be on the verge of reaching. A report out last week suggests methane emissions from melting permafrost in the Arctic increased by about one-third from 2003-2007. It is a very serious problem and only serves to underscore the urgent need to cut our global warming emissions now.

Comment from Michelle McLinden
January 15th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Responses to the legitimacy of climate change include sea level rise and CO2. For example, some believe that sea levels will not rise and then give the analogy of ice in a glass of water – displacement. How would you respond to this? Also, can you please explain how ancient stores of carbon are measured in the environment. Some people deny that scientists can account for global temperatures before the advent of thermometers. Thank you.

Hi Michelle — Thank you for your questions.

The displacement issue you raise is a valid point, if all the ice on the planet was floating on water, melting the ice wouldn't raise sea levels. However, there are massive amounts of land-based ice stored in glaciers that are melting very rapidly in places like Greenland, Antarctica and the Himalayas. As this ice melts, the run off eventually makes its way to the oceans and will raise sea levels. Oceans can also expand as they get hotter, and that expansion contributes to sea level rise.

As for how scientists estimate temperatures from before the advent of the thermometer and the rigorous global temperature record keeping that began in the 1800s. It's a good question with a somewhat messy answer. Scientists use proxies like tree rings and ice cores in nature to estimate global temperatures going back in time. Here's a rough explanation from Climate 411 on how this works: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/

Comment from Frank Spaeth
January 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm

The majority of scientist agree CO2 is the cause of global warming. How do I counter politicians and friends who are convinced that the Pacific and Atlantic "multi-decadal oscillations," MDOs, are the real cause and that these deep ocean temperatures are decreasing? The US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado reported a 26% increase in Arctic summer sea ice since 2007. I want create as much enthusiasm about protecting our planet as possible, but there as still many, including some scientists, that refute the theory that CO2 is causing warming and actually say we are beginning a cooling trend.

Hi Frank — Thanks for the question. Yes, the El Nino and La Nina cycle has a very significant impact on the short term global temperature trends. In general, El Ninos cause warmer global temperatures and La Ninas cause colder global temperatures. We haven't had a strong El Nino since 1998, a year that spiked the average global temperatures and is one of the hottest years on record.

Global warming is a longer term trend. It's a bit like wearing a coat that is gradually adding more down feathers. The coat keeps getting warmer and warmer. If you wear it on a cold day (a La Nina year), the increase in the down feathers make it not quite so cold. On warmer days (El Ninos), you start to get warmer and warmer.

People who say we've entered a cooling trend are playing games. If you look at a graph of the temperature in 1998 and compared it with 2008, there wasn't much difference. In fact, 2008 was a colder year than 1998. But, that's because 1998 (an El Nino year) was a very hot year and 2008 (a La Nina year) was the coldest year of the decade.

But, if you look at the 10-year trend, the graph trends upward. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record and NASA and the UK Met Office both predict that 2010 will likely set a new record thanks to this being an El Nino year.

Comment from Pam Hall
January 15th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

How do your scientists feel about the solar inactivity causing a mini Ice Age? Please see this site:

http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/140110.php

It has me very confused about what location to try and become sustainable in! Will northern locations in America become too cold to grow food? How will the elevation be impacted, ie. snowed in at 4,000', with a shorter summer? Will the mini Ice Age offset global warming, and for how long? If you are trying to buy land with good water to grow food, where would you go? Thanks so much for responding!

Hi Pam — Interesting question. Short answer is no, we are not worried about global cooling. In fact, in spite of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century, 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on its way to setting a new record.

Comment from julie
January 15th, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Global warming is a joke….I'm sure u know about the 5,000 emails put on a server in Russia that exposes the hoax that's been going on for 20 yrs. We don't buy it…stop trying to tax us to pay to the rich Climategaters! The earth is cooling and the sun has everything to do with the temp of the earth not Co2! Stop the lies to make trillions of profits!

Hi Julie — You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. There is more CO2 in our atmosphere than at anytime in at least the last 2.1 million years. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. 2010 is projected to set a new record. Polar ice and glaciers are melting and receding at record rates. More than 30 national academies of sciences, including America's, have affirmed the basic threat of global warming and have urged their governments to cut emissions. Not sure how much more evidence you need, but you're on the wrong side of history on this one.

Comment from John Buck
January 15th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

For some reason you continue to pass over the main cause of Global Climate change & most other world problems – TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Without work on OVERPOPULATION, anything else is just something to make you feel good for not working at the real problem.

Hi John — In a comment above, we explained that we don't work on popluation issues because there are many other groups doing that work and it does not fit our core mission. If we took on every challenge facing the planet, we would never get anything done. We, like every organization and company, have to set priorities and work on issues we think we can have an impact.

Comment from julie
January 15th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

STOP the propaganda about global warming..we know the truth! The SUN causes the earth to warm NOT CO2. The Climategate emails proves you have been lying for 20 years and altering your data to say the earth is warming when it's been cooling the last 8 yrs.

You just want to get rich by taxing all of us on CO2 and put it in your pockets. WE won't stand for your lies any longer. We don't want to hear your lies. For lying to us for all these years you owe the people the money that you plan on stealing from us and taxing us over 80% in the near future. We won't accept Carbon police running our lives in every aspect! You need to stop the lies and pay us for lying.

Hi Julie — please see comment above to similar post. You have every right to disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming. It's a free country. But, we agree with the vast majority of climate scientists who warn that we have very little time to solve this crisis.

Comment from Elizabeth
January 15th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

I am curious what EDF thinks of the proposition that 350 ppm CO2 is the safe upper limit. I know at least some of those aligned with 350.org are saying that two degrees (Celsius) of warming is too much, so when I saw the scientists' panel talking about holding warming to two degrees, I was curious.

Of course I know it will be very difficult politically to hold the warming to even two degrees.

Hi Elizabeth – Thanks for writing in. The impacts that we are seeing today at the current concentration level – extreme droughts, more extreme hurricanes, unprecedented species loss, unprecedented polar and glacial melting are only the beginning signs of global warming induced change. The amount of additional warming that is already built into the system means that we will likely only see these problems get worse. We can, and should, do all we can to avoid these outcomes. That means beginning to reduce emissions now as fast as we can, as much as we can, and continuing until we get this problem under control.

That leads us to conclude that while we fight to achieve the best system and the deepest, fastest reductions, we should not lose sight of the essential need to get started now. Any political process will require give and take, and no complex political task – and this one is complex – is easily reducible to a binary choice. But, while we will continue to work for and favor the side of deeper reductions sooner, our judgment is that to put off getting started for fear of not getting everything right would be the bigger mistake. In other words, we're already above 350 ppm CO2, but the more quickly we can stop the growth of global emissions, the more quickly we can bring concentrations back down toward 350 ppm and avoid dangerous climate tipping points.

Comment from KJ
January 15th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

What would be the long term effect of replanting our burned and dead forests?

Instead of just defending the environment, could you take a more pro-active position and start creating a new and better environment by creating project such as this? If this is not in your 'mission statement', shouldn't it be?

Hi KJ – EDF does support carbon offset projects that replant forests as long as they are rigorously monitored and verified. There are complicated issues involved in verifying that planted forests will actually increase long-term storage of carbon on land, but EDF believes they can potentially be overcome.

Forests often regrow naturally after disturbance, so protecting forest land from destructive practices will also allow forests to grow up on deforested land.

Comment from Stephen Friedberg
January 16th, 2010 at 1:10 am

1. Has any studies been done on which plants have the greatest conversion ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen. If there are some plants better than others in this respect, shouldn't more plantings of them be done.
2. Can reflective particles be put in orbit around the earth to limit the solar radiation reaching the surface, cancelling out the effects of greenhouse gases.
3. Are studies presently being done on changes in ocean currents due to global warming. These changes can have immediate catastrophic effects on various countries.
4. Have there been any changes in the tilt of the earth's axis due to the masses of ice at the polar regions melting?

Hi Stephen –
1. Some plants grow faster than others, but that doesn't necessarily mean that planting them would be a good idea. For example, if they're annual plants that decompose every year, the net carbon storage will be very small. And then there's the question of what to plant where. Not all plants will grow in all places, and some that do well in an area could do too well, outcompeting native species and causing biodiversity loss. One thing that is a good idea is to protect ecosystems that already store carbon and continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That's why EDF is working hard to protect tropical rainforests, and providing incentives for ecosystem restoration.
2. Yes, this is an example of "geoengineering" and it comes with a lot of risks. For more, see this blog post: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/10/08/sulfate_geoengineering/
3. You're right that there is a concern that global warming could change ocean currents, for example by slowing or shutting down the "ocean conveyor belt" in the Atlantic. If that happened, it could affect regional temperatures in northern Europe, but contrary to what you may have heard, it would NOT trigger a mini ice age. It's also important to note that changes in ocean currents could also hurt fisheries by changing the amount of nutrients that is brought up from the deep ocean by upwelling currents. So far, oceanographers don't have any solid evidence that the currents are changing. Further work is needed, and the recent installation of a permanent monitoring array will bring in valuable data.
4. No, there hasn't been any change in the tilt of the earth's axis.
Thanks for writing in!

Comment from Nina
January 16th, 2010 at 4:30 am

besides littly prideful decisions, why cant we move polar to the south pole in the near future? or can we?

Hi Nina — If you are asking whether humans can move away from areas impacted by climate change, the answer is a very complicated one. Yes, some people in low-lying areas along the coasts and in other marginal regions will have to migrate to survive. But, the longer term answer is much more disturbing. As global warming brings about climate change, all of human civilization will be threatened. Think about this: billions of people around the world depend on melt water from mountain glaciers to supply drinking water and for irrigation. As these glaciers recede, what happens? These people will have find other ways to survive. Migrating tens of thousands of people or even hundreds of thousands is manageable. But, how do you migrate a billion people? Where will they go?

Comment from amelie
January 16th, 2010 at 9:00 am

I have heard that animal farming is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as deforestation and wasting gallons of water. Is this true? If it is true, shouldn't action be taken in this regard? And shouldn't authorities look into placing restrictions on the meat industry and animal farming? More expensive meat and fewer animal products in our diets seem a small price to pay, especially as people's health can only benefit from it.

Hi Nina – The percentage actually isn't nearly that high, but livestock production and deforestation are both important services of greenhouse gases (in fact, the two are linked since tropical forests are often cleared to create pastures). EDF's former chief scientist Bill Chameides provides some useful numbers over at his Green Grok blog: http://nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/recc. EDF is working to address both these issues, for example by improving manure management (which decreases emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas) and reducing tropical deforestation. As for water use and diet, you're right that both affect climate. Here's more on dietary choices: http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=6604. And here are examples of how water and energy are linked: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/07/water_and_energy/

Comment from Charlie
January 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am

How do you explane that the globle temperature has been going down for the past five years ?

Hi Charlie — This is a very common question. If you look at the chart of average global temperatures over the last 40 years, from year to year, temperatures may go up or down. But the longterm trend is obvious — the temperature is going up.

The only reason recent temperature graphs appear to show some cooling is that 2008, which was a cooler La Nina year, happened to be the coldest year of the hottest decade on record. If you take 2008 out of the chart, we haven't been cooling over the last 5 or 10 years. In fact, we've been setting new temperature records nearly every year. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on its way to setting a new record.

Comment from Gail
January 16th, 2010 at 11:51 am

Jean in New Jersey! I hope you find this. I have been posting photographs and links to research about NJ vegetative decline at http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com. Please visit and leave a comment I would very much like to compare notes because yes, there IS rapidly accelerating damage to our trees, shrubs and other plants from atmospheric toxins!

Comment from Grace Mulei
January 16th, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Dear Environment Deference Friends.

It is true climate change resulting from global warming, attribute mostly by human activities is real. The nations are suffering the consequences diversely.

The future generation is already informed about the global warming warming human attributes. How possible is it to impose realistic. climate change policies.

In Kenya tree cutting is illegal. But 75% of the population depend on wood for cooking. How possible is it to introduce environment friendly policies that promote community policy and governance as regards renewable energy. Some leaders believe that high technology in energy development is crucial.How unsafe, is alternative energy, so that communities cannot be entrusted in training to develop their own renewable/ alternative energy?

During torrential rains that come along with strong winds, many old trees fall, destroy houses and loss of life experienced. What is the tree life cycle, and what is the value of decaying trees? How can the tree cutting policy be improved?

Schools can do a great job in environment protect, such as Botanic Gardens, Water harvesting and environment conservation, any possibility for partnership and financial support for such projects?.

Grace Mulei.

Comment from David Wojick Ph.D.
January 16th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Part of the problem is that skeptics and warmers look at the same evidence and see different things, just like a hung jury. I am reminded of a scene in “Patterns of Discovery” by Norwood Russell Hanson, which has Tycho Brahe and Copernicus sitting on a hill watching the sunrise. Tycho sees the sun moving but Copernicus sees the earth moving. The data is the same for both, but each interprets it differently, based on their theoretical beliefs.

For example, the surface temperature record for the last 70 years shows a 20 year period of warming, from roughly 1978 to 1998. For the remaining 50 years the temperature is steady to cooling, both before and after this period of warming. CO2 levels rise steadily during the entire 70 year period. That is the data.

Skeptics see little evidence for CO2 induced warming in this record. Warmers have responded by constructing elaborate computer models, to try to show why the warming that should have occurred as CO2 levels rose, was masked by other factors. Skeptics are skeptical of these models, especially since they disagree with one another. Some of the models project extreme warming in the future, which skeptics see as a weakness in the models and warmers see as a warning. And so it goes.

The point is that this is not a failure of communication; rather it is a difference of opinion. Rational people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposing views. Warmers and skeptics know the science equally well; they just see it differently.

Comment from Gail
January 16th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

David Wojjick, that is just demonstrably false, it is not a difference of opinion – the science is clear that we have been warming since 1998. Here is just one graph among so many other debunkings of that tired canard. http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/16/hansen-global-warming-cooling-nasa-gisstemp/

Comment from David Wojick Ph.D.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Gail, the graph you reference shows 5 year and 11 year running means. Both mask recent trends, especially the 11 year mean, which takes a long time to respond. The 5 year mean is already showing the non-warming that began after the 1998-2000 ENSO cycle; note the hook on the end. Note too that the GISS estimate is the hottest of the three surface measures. The other two estimates, as well as the satellite readings, show no warming after the 1998-2000 cycle. Temperatures are clearly steady, not rising.

It gets even more interesting if one argues that these surface temperature estimates are inferior to the satellite readings. The surface estimate is based on a large number of poorly maintained stations, with sparse, unrepresentative global coverage. What is interesting is that the only warming in the satellite record is a step-up during the ENSO cycle. That is, temperatures are steady from 1978-1997, and steady again after 2000, but at a higher level. Looked at this way, the only warming in the last 70 years occurred during the 1998-2000 ENSO cycle. There is then no evidence whatever of GHG warming.

You may not accept the skeptics' arguments, but they are very real. The evidence cuts both ways, depending on how you look at it.

Comment from Gail
January 17th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Wrong, David. That's about as sophisticated as claiming the evidence cuts both ways on the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, or evolution.

Try this one on for size: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/17/petersinclair-on-cold-weather-vs-global-warming/

Furthermore, lets just look at this without considering skeptics arguments or physics or chemistry. Let's just look at it from the point of view of people who are not scientists – cause I'm not, and you're not, either, right?

So what should we do? Probably, listen to what the experts are saying. If a neurosurgeon told you that you had a tumor in your brain that had to be removed, would you keep shopping around for opinions until you found some chiropractor who was going to treat your chronic dizziness with homeopathic remedies? Oops I didn't think so.

So, in the case of diagnosing what is wrong with the planet, I think we should listen to the people who know something about it, don't you? And what do they tell us?

Simply put, ALL major science organizations and academies agree that humans are causing global warming that will lead to an uninhabitable climate if we don't stop pouring fuel emissions into the atmosphere, and soon. See this letter to the US Senate, endorsed by the following:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

here’s the link to the letter: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

which says, among other things:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”

and

“For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”

and

“If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

And that is just a list of organizations from the US. Every international scientific group also endorses reducing emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change.

It's comparable to the situation where every reputable medical authority advises that smoking is dangerous to your health, and a few corrupt charlatans, funded by the tobacco industry, testified that the link is too uncertain for government regulation, thus sowing confusion amongst the pubic and legislators, delaying action and causing untold illness and death. But of course that didn't happen, did it? Oh, wait…

Now, can you come up with a list of scientific organizations that claim the jury is out on climate change. How about ONE? And the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't count…

I thought not.

Comment from richardpauli
January 17th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

To Julie (above)
Yeah well you stop robbing my future with carbon emissions.
And it is time to cut out your childish paranoia. Everybody is not after YOUR money and YOUR freedom. But your attitude is killing the world. And the future of everybody on the globe, trumps your individual "right" to kill us all with CO2. You cannot smoke in the elevator, no matter what your libertarian politics dictate.

If you don't want carbon police, then police yourself. If you want to save your money, then you had better act now, because you missed the chance to act a few decades ago when it was easier and cheaper. And if you insist on maintaining a delusional fantasy of ignoring the problem then the cost and the pain and the lack of freedom will be much, much greater. That is not a political promise, it is a scientific one.

Comment from richardpauli
January 17th, 2010 at 7:13 pm

mark may – regarding the "Truth about Ethanol" (above) Very nicely written. Was there a question there? Did you mean to discuss something? Because it appears so well composed, well, it could have been authored by a PR agency for ethanol. Is it possible that you just cut and pasted it here!?!?

Because you seem to overlook the very serious toxic effects of ethanol combustion… it is really shortsighted to leave that out of your discussion, Mark. Was your goal to discuss and idea or propagate one? Do you work for an agency or entity connected with ethanol?

The Union of Concerned Scientists have concerns http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/biofuels/the-truth-about-ethanol.html

And RollingStone called it the Ethanol Scam
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/ethanol_scam_ethanol_hurts_the_environment_and_is_one_of_americas_biggest_political_boondoggles

Comment from George Davis
January 17th, 2010 at 8:03 pm

I have seen very little about the effect that the standard American diet has on global warming. Americans following this diet consume large quantities of meat, eggs and dairy products. The more than 10 billion animals needed to satisfy the demand for these products produce an enormous amount of solid, liquid and gaseous waste products. From these wastes methane gas is released into the atmosphere in laege amounts. I have read that methane is just as much a contributor to global warming as CO2. In fact I heard on TV a few days ago that one the the greatest fears of climate scientists is that rising temperatures will cause a melting of the permafrost which will release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere thus accelerating the rate global warming. If this is true it seems to make sense that we should focus a lot of attention on persuading Americans to substantially reduce their consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products. This would have the beneficial side effect of reducing cases of heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obeseity.

George — This is a very good point. Many smaller groups have emerged to work on the importance of eating better and promoting locally grown food. We actually promoted Barbara Kingsolver's recent book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle on how she and her family spent a year eating only food they grew and/or could buy from/trade with local growers.

It's not just monitoring your diet. You can also reduce your carbon footprint by walking and biking more and/or taking public transportation. Here again, you can reduce your carbon burden and get fit — win/win.

Comment from John G. Gibbs
January 17th, 2010 at 8:29 pm

Some people do not think there can be global warming when we have very low temperatures. Is it accurate to say that with global warming we have deeper barometric Lows and higher barometric Highs, both of which are more powerful than previous "norms"? Both barometric systems have more power to bring colder temperatures down from the Arctic in winter, and up from the Gulf of Mexico in summer. That circumstance would combine global warming with temperature departures from previous norms, would it not?

Comment from Jane Simpson
January 17th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

Question: Is it true that the amount of h2o in the world is constant? If that is true how can there be predictions of greater drought? Or is it that the h2o moves
around so that an area like the American west that once had more water is now facing great drought and an area that was dry is getting wetter?

Hi Jane – You've got it right. The total amount of water on Earth is constant, but its distribution is changing. For example, here is a recent report about the likely effects of climate change on water resources in the US: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/climate-change-impacts-by-sector/water-resources

Comment from ANDY APPAN
January 17th, 2010 at 11:57 pm

GLOBAL OXYGEN DEPLETION
36 MnT/Yr By COAL, OIL
REDUCE to 12 MnT/Yr by ANDY TECH
.
FUEL……..COAL……OIL .
USED………9.0……..12.0. MnT/Day
OXYGEN…12.0……..24.0. MnT/Day
CO2e……..12.52…….12.52 BnT/Yr
.
By ANDY TECHNOLOGY 1/3 FUEL/HP
.
FUEL……..COAL……OIL .
USED………3.0……..4.0.. MnT/Day
OXYGEN…..4.0……..8.0.. MnT/Day
CO2e……….8.33…….8.33 BnT/Yr
.
INV 690Bn$ RET 5400Bn$ VC 15Mn$
M A APPAN M E 45 Yrs EXPERT

Comment from jedidiahkrauss
January 21st, 2010 at 3:37 pm

I believe that stopping our emissions is very likely not to happen in timeso I am looking at the other end of the equation. Therefore, I'd like to know, in some quantitative form that individuals can use to calculate offsetting their carbon footprint,how much CO2 is sequestered by sunflowers, switch grass and trees. I realize that there are a lot of variables with trees, old growth versus new etc… so if you could just tell me where to get the information I'd be gratefull.

Thank you,

Jedidiah Krauss

Comment from David Dow
January 24th, 2010 at 1:03 am

I continue to be frustrated by my conservative friends who say, “Yes, it may be warming, but its all part of a natural cycle.” What do you tell these people? If you just say no it’s not, that doesn’t convince them. And they are convinced it is all a “fraud perpetrated by liberal politicians and their scientific acolytes who want more control over our lives.”
Items:
1) Cal Thomas 2/15/08 “GISS Director James Hansen asserted the 10 warmest years occurred since 1995, with 1998 the warmest”. When challenged by Climate Audit, NASA now says 4 of the top 10 years of high temperature are from the 1930’s, and several previously selected “warm” years—2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004, fell behind 1900. “The warmest year was 1934.”
2) John Coleman of Weather Channel, 6/18/08: “There was natural warming in the 1980’s and 90’s from sunspots and flares. That ended in 1998, . . . and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost 10 straight years.”
Yet EDF article says “The World Meterological Organization reported that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record with 8 of the hottest 10 years having occurred since 2000”.

Who are we to believe, indeed?

Comment from Jim Knight
January 24th, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Science should always lead the way in any discussion on global warming. I just ran across an article that stated water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide). Of those remaining 40%, man made CO2 represents less than 1%. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany has stated “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. “ Aside from temperature, solar activity affects the amounts of water vapor in our atmoshpere.
In light of this, I am trying to understand what is the relationship of man-made GHG to natural GHG. Could you point me in the right direction? Thank you

Comment from paul
January 26th, 2010 at 6:16 am

I see that you have a climategate section that you no longer care to comment on. Perhaps you should now include a Glaciergate one as well! It seems the IPCC is seriously lacking in its mandate, and that its secretary general has some serious confilcts of interest issues! My oh my the tangled weave we web.

Comment from paul
January 26th, 2010 at 6:23 am

I went over to the Climategatethread and tried to make a comment and received a java script and cookie error, however I was able to comment here at the same time no problem. So you are obviously having a problem over on your climategate section. Someone paranoid like me might think god forbid that it was on purpose to stop debate! I know that you warmer mongers would never stoop so low as to deny debate or ummm a fair peer review process as some of the CRU emails suggest! So perhaps you should do your site a favor and fix the posting problem over on the climategate thread.

Comment from Stewart Pravda
February 7th, 2010 at 12:41 am

How does the same amount of a gas such as methane have a more potent effect as a greenhouse gas than another, say CO2? I understand that some chemical gases are vastly more potent than CO2 in blocking infrared rays but do not know how that works. Kindly explain, thank you.

Comment from Dr. James Singmaster
February 9th, 2010 at 1:54 am

A simple question; Can we do anything to get control of global warming without action that removes some of the overloads of GHGs, carbon dioxide mainly although problems with other chemicals beyond methane are developing, and of heat energy as that is what causes melting? No one making noise about the climate crisis seems aware of the Law of Conservation of Energy in a closed system such as our biosphere. Dr. E. Chaisson has a paper titled "Long-Term Global Warming from Energy Usage" in EOS, Trans> Amer. Geophys. Union, V. 89, No. 28, Pgs 253-4, (2008) explaining this warming that means we need to forget development of fossil and nuclear fuels asap and get to renewable fuels. We need to get much better use of the sun's energy instead of having soot converting it to useless heat energy. We can not be deflecting it away or plants will be getting less energy to incorporate CO2 and give us less food. We could be using pyrolysis on the massive ever-expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage solids to form charcoal meaning biocarbon in the messes is stopped from biodegrading to reemit CO2. In the process about 50% of the biocarbon converts to charcoal with other 50% being expelled from pyrolysis chamber in a mix of organic chemicals plus water and some other gases that can be refined like a light crude oil mix to give a renewable fuel supply. I have detailed this in numerous comments on EDF blog postings as well as to Krupp and other staff by direct e-mails.
We can not get control of climate change already underway by just slowing the emitting of more GHGs that keep adding to the overloads. The same applies using trapped energy source to release more heat energy to its overload. Does anyone at EDF understand that we have to be subtracting from those overloads to get some control of what is becoming really a climate crisis that will be worsening with what EDF espouses as solutions. Have EDF leaders proposed any steps that can actually remove some CO2 and/or heat energy from their overloads already in the biosphere? Dr. J. Singmaster

Comment from Dr. James Singmaster
February 16th, 2010 at 1:50 am

I note that none of the experts tried to answer my question on Feb. 9. That sounds like they don't really understand how to get control of the climate crisis. It is becoming a crisis because no one seems to understand the basics involved.
Fortunately, a major breakthrough on getting hydrogen by splitting water using a catalyst and sunlight has just been reported by scientists at U. East Anglia. Efficiency is many fold above previous reports so we are now entering the hydrogen age and should stop wasting money on "Clean Coal & CCS", biofuelishness and nuclear energy including hoped for fusion. But we may have a possibly fatal hangover from our over dosing on fossil and nuclear energies that are leaving behind overloads of heat energy and CO2 in the biosphere. As I mentioned in Feb. 9 comment, we can be reducing those overloads by pyrolysis of our organic waste messes that are getting out of hand to the point of EPA's getting ready to set limits on several drugs showing up in drink water.
Again I ask the question I led off with and now ask further: Does or does not EDF have any experts, who can answer this question? Dr. J. Singmaster PS You may want to check my comment #9 on Feb. 15, NYTimes Dotearth Blog of A. Revkin on "What Matters Most"

Comment from Leland Gilliam
February 25th, 2010 at 9:54 am

Thanks for writing a post about this. You've got a lot of really good information here on your web site. I'm impressed! I try to keep a couple blogs somewhat ongoing myself however it is a struggle sometimes. You have done a good job with this one. How do you do it?

Comment from Eusebio Cantwell
March 1st, 2010 at 2:29 am

Thank You for This Good Post!! I have found out My Free Credit Report is definitely a great website to get my credit report and see the score for free. Anyone else used it?