[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jake

You may want to read more than just the abstract... all they did was use a computer model to simulate the carbon cycle, rather than studying it directly in real life. The only real life data recorded was from one location (Muana Loa). That must have been why there was only about one page of discussion.

Well, if you didn't like that one, there were hundreds of others, at least enough to disprove your sort of weird claim that there are "no studies" about the role of the ocean in atmospheric CO2. In any case, as a marine science major, you probably already know that computer models are pretty much the gold standard for making climate predictions--stands to reason, doesn't it?

I'm not a marine scientist or a climatologist--but when you claimed there were "no studies" of the role of oceans in global warming, I suspected that was an overstatement--and it was. Moving the bar now doesn't help--climate science and computer models go together like peanut butter and jelly, it's a reality of the trade.

As for the economic costs... the graph you provided was for "Global Costs of Extreme Weather Events". First of all proving those events were caused by global warming would be a difficult task. Second, I don't think it should suprise anyone that extreme weather events are costing us more and more... we are populating more areas of the earth and building larger, more expensive things. Also, I'm not sure what their definition is of an extreme weather event.

Take another look--the costs are projected through 2080, and those extreme weather events ARE linked to global warming. This is again only one of dozens of graphs showing data from both computer projections and data collected in the world--along with charts and figures offering both the theory behind global warming science and possible solutions to the problem. One part that may interest you is that they project what they estimate the economic costs of emissions reductions. Take a look--they're significant, but if you're predicting a doomsday scenario, you may be surprised.

However--and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but one thing you said a few posts ago really struck me. Your willingness to label 2500 scientists from around the world as "global warming activists" makes me think that you won't believe anything they say--and that's your prerogative. I am curious, though--are you waiting for 3000? 4000? How many climate scientists have to say that anthropogenic climate change is unequivocally happening before you'll believe them?

I agree that new innovations will spark new sectors to the economy. Thats a given. However I said in another thread about Kyoto that the possible benefit is far outweighed by the cost.

We've already established that this is not a discussion of Kyoto. Look through the thread. Not one person in this thread has advocated Kyoto as a solution to the problem.

I hate what we do to the environment, most of my major interests lie in it (I'm a marine science major), but the situation on global warming is not as clear as some are making it out to be. Why is the climatic cycle argument (which has come up a few times in this thread) not valid? I've seen alot of data that shows a strong relationship between sunspots/temperature, internal heat/temperature, CO2/temperature etc. They all seem to have had a consistent pattern in earths history. Right now we're living in the 4th or 5th (I forget exactly...) glacial period in earths history. Maybe its ending.

The IPCC would disagree. Since you seem to be at least able to read scientific papers, unlike many people who participate in this argument, you might familiarize yourself with their findings. According to them, anthropogenic global warming is definitive and unequivocal. I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm inclined to believe them, based on the pedigree of their members, over a group of loonies like the American Enterprise Institute.

As far as the "celebrities" thing goes, I agree. People need to be having conversations about the science, not about Snoop Dogg. I'm not sure what the answer is, though--if those people want to help, who am I to tell them not to? For me, it's much more valuable to actually educate ourselves about the issue.