CO2 in the Atmosphere is Decreasing - How Will the Global Warming Crowd Explain THAT? UPDATED

Al Gore starts his odyssey on global warming with the Keeling Curve - the chart of steadily increasing CO2 levels measured off the top of Mauna Loa. Very compelling and the cornerstone of the case for anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW). Early this year, however, the annual rate of increase was the lowest measured, and on a monthly basis seemed to be coming to a dead stop - which means after seasonal adjustments would show a down trend. Now it appears there is a down trend in the CO2 levels.  See chart. If this continues it spells the coup de grace for the goofy AGW case.    

The core of the AGW case is industrial CO2 spews out and stays in the atmosphere, accumulating faster than natural processes can handle, and causing ever-increasing warming. Over the past few decades we have been emitting 4 ppm of CO2 per year, and the atmospheric levels have been increasing by 2 ppm. We continue to spew, but if CO2 levels drop, it means something else is going on. 

Problems with CO2

I have discussed some of the problems with the CO2 case previously.  The simplest rebuttal is that the vaunted ice core data that Al Gore touts shows CO2 lags warming.  Also, CO2 is a trace gas, measured in parts per million.  It isn't even the most important greenhouse gas - that honor goes to water vapor, which is 25x more prevalent and is measured in parts per thousand. This is why the theory of AGW has always been a bit goofy.

Another fact that is hard for the AGW theory to explain away is shown in this graphic: the models for the greenhouse effect require warming in the upper atmosphere where the greenhouse effect occurs, but satellite measurements say that isn't happening. Consequently, whatever has been warming the planet since the end of the Little Ice Age 250 years ago is NOT the greenhouse effect.  

Climate Sensitivity

The IPCC climate models have a deep secret that the AGW advocates try to obscure: they do not assume the minute increase in CO2 itself (remember - parts per million) is directly causing the greenhouse effect; instead they add a 'climate sensitivity' to the models to make the CO2 increase fit the actual warming.  A little CO2 goes a long way.  Scarier is that the models have positive feedback so as more CO2 accumulates, the warming effect accelerates.

Here as well the theory is in deep trouble.  This climate sensitivity can be measured, and not merely be a plug in a model to make it work. Prof. Lindzen of MIT has done the measurement, and found that the actual climate sensitivity is much less than in the models.  This chart is a bit complex but the measured sensitivity is about 0.65 rather than 1.2 or higher as assumed by the models.  This means (right axis) that the measured feedback is negative, not positive as in the models. This makes a huge difference - not only is warming less, but it will not become a runaway (positive feedback) process, like a nuclear bomb.  

UPDATE 7/23: Lindzen has issued his analysis in a note, reported by WattsUpWithThat.

Positive feedback is another reason why the AGW theory is goofy.  We have had periods of much higher CO2 in the atmosphere than now, and not turned in a hothouse like Venus.  Some natural process limits the greenhouse effect.  These IPCC models need to assume a runaway feedback in order to take the minute increase in CO2 and make it cause warming.  

Methane

Some AGW advocates have moved beyond CO2 to Methane (CH4) as an even more pernicious greenhouse gas, caused by SUVs, industrial activity and too many cows.  Methane is measured in parts per billion, so is even more of a trace gas than CO2.  Here again the AGW crowd is in trouble with their theory. While spewing of CH4 continues (although in the US at least at a lower rate), atmospheric CH4 has been plateauing.  

Ocean Temperatures

Maybe there is an alternative way to square all this data.  The most ardent AGW advocates, James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of NASA have put a marker down that an ocean temperature alternative could scuttle their theory.  In their words: "Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (p. 1432).  

We have put out sea bouys since 2003 to measure ocean temperatures, and the data is coming in.  The chart makes it clear that sea temperatures are decreasing.

The oceans can explain a lot of the mystery, since the oceans can absorb a huge amount of heat (emphasis added):

For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it!    ...

Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis:  When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.

Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing  ocean heat (1993 to 2003).  This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically.  Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned.  The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate.  

Ocean Degassing of CO2

An overlay of this decrease with the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa suggest that atmospheric CO2 is directly related to ocean temperatures. When oceans warm up,they release CO2.  When they cool off, they absorb CO2. This is not disputed:

The solubility of CO2 in sea water is well established. Warmer waters dissolve less CO2. In fact, as the oceans warm they outgas CO2 to the atmosphere.

Could it all be as simple as, something was warming the planet other than CO2, and as the ocean surface warmed, the oceans outgassd CO2?  This explains why CO2 lags warming. And now, something is cooling the planet off, and CO2 is being re-absorbed into the oceans?

Cooling Trend Since 2001

The recent cooling trend is quite clear in satellite data, but less so in surface station data.  GISS is the NASA surface data, RSS and UAH are satellite data.  The source says: 

"Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century. " 

Something is apparently off in the GISS data.  It is provided by James Hansen, one of the most ardent advocates of AGW.  It needs to be adjusted to take out the urban heat effect, as over time many ground stations have become surrounded by asphalt and concrete.  The impact of these adjustments is now so huge that the whole data set is becoming suspect. 

Maybe GW is caused by computers?  Take a look at this animated comparison: 

Comments

[Roger]

You have said that the "rate of increase of CO2 has slowed". That does not mean that the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is steady, but just increasing at a steady rate. There are many readers out there who will not pick up on this important difference.

We could also say that the rate of rate of change is also low, or zero. Indeed, we could continue differentiating the line until we get a zero gradient, but that is just deception.

[yelnick]

Roger, your comment will confuse readers. Look at the chart. The rate of CO2 goes positive and negative (the sine wave in the chart) each year. if the positive side slopes down, as the chart shows, and the negative is flat, as the chart shows, and the amplitude is about as shown, then total CO2 in the atmosphere will begin to decrease. The steady rate of decrease through half the year is not being made up by the lessening increase in the other half. This is not supposed to happen with the AGW theory, and it appears to be beginning to happen.

Unlike what you stated, this does not mean that the rate of CO2 going into the atmosphere is steady, nor does it mean it is steadily increasing; it means it is decreasing. Colder ocean means CO2 is re-absorbed and taken out of the atmosphere. Less atmospheric CO2 even as man continues to emit.

Maybe AGW is simply a goofball theory that captivated the popular imagination? If the CO2 decrease is happening, the AGW theory will go into the dustbin of history.

[Al Gore]

Uh oh......

[Brian Henderson]

Just because the rise in CO2 levels is decreasing that doesnt mean the damage we have been doing to the planet since the Victorian age will disappear overnight. Just as it has taken us just over 100 years to push the planet to the brink of destruction it will take at least another 100 years to fix it.

I hope the autor of this article is pleased with theirselves now they have the perfect excuse to live their life without thinking of the future.... they have found a great excuse!

[iblain]

Some people need to have a cause in their life. Something larger than themselves to believe in. Without global warming, what will they do? They won't be able to live with themselves if we aren't destroying the Earth.

[Chris]

Roger is right. It is the area under the curve that is important, not the derivative, and if it is not evident that the area under each positive swing is larger than the area under each negative swing - in other words the total CO2 taken out of the atmosphere each summer in the northern hemisphere is less than that put in each winter, take a look at this graph - which clearly shows that CO2 levels are still rising. In other words, you are looking at the wrong chart. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

[yelnick]

Chris. my point is that the turnover should become visible in the cumulative line within a year or so. We just had a weak el nino, which is a mechanism for the oceans to vent heat. The ARGO sea measurements show that the oceans have been cooling off since 2003. As they cool they will reabsorb CO2. Given that the Great Recession has slowed release of man-made CO2, the two effects combined should show up relatively soon (in the time scales of the Planet).

[phishna]

Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases, CO2 is 3.618% and man made CO2 is even more miniscule, only 0.117%. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are so diffuse that is impossible for CO2 to cause global warming. Repeat: CO2 can NOT cause warming.

http://globalwarmingcon.blogspot.com/

CO2 is only 3.62% of the total greenhouse gas and man made CO2 is only 0.117% (3.62x3.4/100)%

The CO2 increase in the atmosphere is very small, rising about 60 ppm is the last 50 years. To put this in context, the current CO2 concentration is about 380 ppm, meaning that there is 380 CO2 molecules vs. a million other molecules. Since it is hard to envision a million molecules, imagine a 1,000 molecules in a box. 380 ppm means there are about 1/3 CO2 molecule vs. a 1,000 other molecules. Less than 1 CO2 vs. 1,000 parts, and we are supposed to believe that tiny concentration of CO2 is a threat to the point that we are to shut down the entire economy!

Global warming by CO2 is a bigger hoax, the science is wrong, CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas and the minuscule increase in CO2 can NOT cause the earth's temperature to increase no matter how deep and transcendent the belief in global warming!

[Chris]

So the next time you are petting a lion go ahead and pull out one of it's nose hairs (less than 1 millionth of it's weight) surely it can not have any affect as it is so small a portion of the lion's weight. Yes you are supposed to believe that tiny concentrations can have a big effect.

However, there are two ways to approach the end of the earth in a sailing ship - proceed and expect to fall off, or proceed and know that the earth is actually not flat. Your choice. A few simple observations would have told you ahead of time that the world was round, like seeing that ships in the distance disappear below the horizon.

Science does not always get the answer right, but global warming is pretty well established now, and we should have been compensating for it thirty years ago. The more we argue about whether it exists the worse are the consequences. Global warming is like gravity. The effect is the same whether you believe in it or not. You can wait 30 years to see what the effect will be, but guess what, we have already done that.

[iblain]

Chris, you seem to be very certain of what you speak, but your arguments are silly. What does pulling a tiger's whisker have to do with global warming? The temperature has been both higher and lower in the past. The carbon dioxide level has been both higher and lower in the past. Given that carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas and it exists in such a small concentration, I doubt that it could make a measurable difference in the Earth's temperature. Write back in a thousand years when we have some actual data.

[Chris]

Well of course I always know that either you agree with me or you must be wrong. No, you will notice that I say "pretty well established" and "science does not always get it right". Myself I am completely open minded about the past, present and future, but I am not willing to sacrifice the future for the present.

Whether you or I doubt it, will not change whether it does or does not make a measurable difference in the Earth's temperature, but will change whether we take appropriate action to mitigate the effects.

If you prefer a more direct metaphor, it is like driving toward a cliff and deciding whether to keep going or not, even if we are not at risk, ourselves. However, lets look not at what we do not know, but what we do know. The Earth has had five major mass extinctions. The best known, but second largest, being the extinction of the dinosaurs. We are now in the midst of a sixth mass extinction. Ask yourself is that good or bad? Ask yourself if we shouldn't ought to get our act together and not be so destructive?

All of civilization has developed during a time that the Earth was colder than it is now, which is why I advocate for regulating the temperature to about 1900 levels, about 6 to 7 tenths of a degree Celsius lower than year 2000 (I have no problem setting it at a temperature that favors humans!). When it was hotter than now, for example during the age of the dinosaurs, we would not survive in most if not all regions of the Earth, just as they would not survive in today's climate. Hind sight is always 20-20, but in the last 30 years we have already suffered enough problems from global warming thank you very much, with most of those occurring of course in the last 10. One of the biggest forces behind pretending that global warming does not exist is the desire to sell $50 trillion worth of oil reserves, but guess what, oil is worth twice as much when you use it for petrochemicals than it is if you burn it. Even if global warming did not exist, generations into the future will wish that we had outlawed burning oil long ago.

[yelnick]

Chris, appreciate your contribution but am puzzled with your presumption that tis is the warmest time in civilized history. Civilization has seen warmer times, such as in the Roman era and the Medieval Warm Period. The US had a warmer decade in the 1930s! Mann tried to erase the MWP from history but his hockey stick has been debunked even with suggestions of outright fraud (inverting data for example). All of the anecdotal stories of warming can be explained by a natural rise off the Little Ice Age 300 years ago, and since we began a cooling trend about ten years ago we have seen the predictions of Al Gore go the other way: fewer hurricanes, less violent tornadoes, sea levels not rising, etc. In the past year glaciers in Alaska and the Himalayas have begun lengthening. (check this: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/). Recent studies of Greenland find it much less at risk than Gore claimed, and it is clear that Antarctica is still cooling.

So where is the basis for alarmist hysteria that somehow 30 years from now we suffer from a cataclysm?

As to the extinctions, yes as Man encroaches on habitat we are seeing serious changes, particularly in the oceans. But to tie all of this into AGW is a huge mistake for the environmental movement - an Eco-Vietnam so to speak. The Planet appears to be entering a cold patch which historical patterns say will last your 30 years, and the Sun seems to have gone into hibernation in terms of sunspots. Both the natural cycle and the dearth of solar radiation mean that AGW is likely to be a laughingstock theory by the middle of the next decade, and Al Gore a comical figure.

For those such as myself who wish that externalities were costed into products and that attention were to be paid to the destruction of habitat and continued cheating on the Clean Air Act, the potential undermining of sound environmentalism due to putting all the eggs in the basket of AGW is a tragedy unfolding in front of our eyes.

[Chris]

I take it you are disagreeing with this chart? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[Chris]

And these two? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

As I see it you have to go back 130,000 years to get to where we are now.

[Chris]

Or to correct that, maybe 120,000 - give or take a little, but way way before recorded history.

[Jon]

Yelnick, don't get sucked into an argument with Chris, it is a waste of energy...Anyone who knows the bigger picture of the global agenda understands global warming and climate change as the biggest political fraud going, Al Gore being the protaganist and playing the role better than Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
http://challengingyou.blogspot.com/search/label/globalwarming

[Simon Miller]

I have to put my 2 pennies into this.
Firstly, when the sea levels are not increasing, despite everything we're told in the news - (Don't trust Al Gore's IPCC, look for real climatological data) - and the sea ice levels have actually INCREASED over the last 2 years (again, don't trust Al Gore's data, kind it elsewhere!) - Then you have to start questioning what is going on.

Now, to backup Chris...
I want a better world for my kids and future generations too, and I'd rather not be in a car driving towards a cliff either.

Reality check.
But if the world has been warmer than today, and many many years before we ever made an impact on global warming (assuming we are) - then the Earth can do it all by itself, and without our help - and just as important, The Earth cooled without carbon tax! It was a natural cycle. What else can you call it if Man had nothing to do with it?

I'm not washing my hands of responsibility for the environment, or the planet. On the contrary. To please people like you, and to an extent, all of us - then instead of arguing over who is right, and who is wrong, - it should be argued what can we do to make the world a better place?
Burning fossil fuels, and war-mongering over energy reserves is not what God wants for us - and certainly not what the people of this planet want for themselves either. So why does it happen?
Money. Power, and the games played by global corporations.

If corporations acted as the American Constitution allowed, and not what you see today, there would be no corporations, and businesses would act in the interest of people, not profits. There would be no federal reserve, and life in general for the world would be a lot better (my opinion).

What's all this got to do with Global Warming?
Do your homework, and listen to the crackpots. They have a story to tell too. So hear our people like David Icke, Alex Jones, and others - but don't take any of them word for word - do your homework. Make your own opinion - and you begin to find the world is not as we're told, and global warming is not the enemy. You may find that historical figures who are celebrated (Einstein for one) pale into insignificance to the un-celebrated (Nikola Tesla) - who could achieve things we don't understand today. What kind of positive impact would a world without electric pylons have? (Telsa) Or better still, clean energy at infinite capacity, and practially free?

Maybe yo think I've lost it at this point, but the number of PPM (People Per Million) is far greater than Co2, and if you believe in that, perhaps there is more.

I urge you to see a pathetically low tech version of this kind of technology here :

http://www.lutec.com.au/

Patented, working, in production... kind of. They're not the first, won't be the last - and I've been watching these guys for years. Imagine the damage something like this could do the corporations of Oil and Energy? Exactly. That's the smoking gun that kills off the inventers of such technology, all the while, dreaming up excuses as to why they should tax us with Cap n Trade, Eco taxes, and the like.

Money, Money, Money. With such technologies, you could be energy independent, grow your own food, and not need to work. We wouldn't need the corporations, we wouldn't need money. They fear that world, and make sure we push their agenda. After all, who's paying the wages?

[Chris]

Ah yes, the Earth is completely willing to do everything completely without us. If we vanished from the planet it is estimated that in only 25,000 years there would be barely a trace of our existence, and there would be new plants and animals on the planet, but not us. That, however is not something I am willing to allow.

We may be new here, but it is our planet now! Ours to do with what we please, and in a manner that best benefits our existence here for the next billion years, though by the end of this century we will be well on our way towards colonizing space.

The rule is, though, when you leave this planet, leave it as a garden of Eden, and not as a garbage dump.

[Andrew]

Phishna said:

"So the next time you are petting a lion go ahead and pull out one of it's nose hairs (less than 1 millionth of it's weight) surely it can not have any affect as it is so small a portion of the lion's weight. Yes you are supposed to believe that tiny concentrations can have a big effect."

What kind of science is that to compare pulling out a lion's nose hair to the climate system?

[Chris]

Small things can have big effects.

[Neil Foster]

The AGW theories and consequent scare stories put out by the likes of Al Gore, an oilman and now the owner of the main carbon trading corporation on the planet, Generation Investment Management, are nothing less than a mechanism to bring about Global Governance through massive 'carbon taxes' on ordinary people.

If any of you have taken the time to read the Copenhagen Agreement, it's all there. There is barely a word about saving the planet but there is certainly lots of talk about Global Government and Global Taxation.

The whole AGW fable, is just that, a fairy story. People need to wake up and start living in the real before they are enslved by these fanatics.

Neil

[Alan Watt]

No one has brought up that the Greenhouse Effect is fake? Or that the Club Of Rome decided on global warming to scare you into a global dictatorship. We shouldn't be arguing amongst one another, but you need to realize who your enemy is. Anyone typing here is not the enemy, the enemy is the one poisoning and enslaving you.

[Klakkie]

No one has mentioned the sun has got hotter...

I don't subscribe to AGW but I do feel we need to better use our resources. However, false environmental taxation is more poltical than useful; and the AGW theory is a tool of politics.

[Dec]

It is unfortunate that no matter how many people manage to wake up to this scam(only one among many i'm afraid), most people will actively fight against those trying to bring out the truth on this matter. It is a rare person that is willing to have his or her world view completely destroyed, and subsequently realise that his/her entire life has been a succession of carefully constructed programs to dehumanise them.

It is mostly only those who,from an early age, have been skeptical of the world as it is presented to them that will be fully able to understand the level of deception. Most just don't want to believe that the world is really that bad. The ongoing genetic manipulation through our medical system(the word system stems from the roman word for sewer with obvious implications for modern institutions ie. healthcare, judical, educational et.), food supply, ubiquitous dangerous gender bending chemicals and other vehicles have left many with an incapacity to think or reason for themselves and will happily believe any garbage that is spewed out at them by the MSM.

I am afraid the greater portion of the population are just not equipped mentally, emotionally or otherwise to see the reality or what is fast bearing down on them.

(insert relevant deity here) help us all

[paul]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that the atmosphere is a delicate system that could be sent into an unstable state by the injection of a tiny amount of a trace gas is an Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The claim that the atmosphere is a delicate system that could be sent into an unstable state by the injection of a tiny amount of a trace gas is an extraordinary claim. Particularly in light of the fact that CO2 levels are currently at the very low end of their historic cycles (current levels are 370ppm, historic levels range a low of 200 ppm to a high of about 7000ppm).

The extraordinary claim that the late 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years is based entirely on the hockey stick. For me, I'd like to see a bit more proof than the tree ring data from 10 cherry picked trees in Siberia.

The extraordinary claim that humidity is constant in the troposphere and that water vapor has a strong positive forcing is, well, completely unsupported by the evidence.

[Carbon Advice Group]

There seems to be two people one favouring the idea that global warming happens due to human folly, which is scary and the other group is trying to remove the scares.

But I think the scare will remain.

On the other hand...

All people who are simply adding to Global warming has to be at least punished so that they know what they are doing.

There are some who contribute to global warming out of neccessity and they can offset it by buying carbon credits.

Carbon offsets aim to neutralize the amount of Co2 emissions contribution by funding projects which should cause an equal reduction of emissions somewhere else, such as tree planting. Under the premise, first reduce what you can, then offset the remainder, offsetting can be done by supporting a responsible carbon project, or by buying carbon credits.

Thank you.

[yelnick]

Carbon Advice Group, what about the ClimateGate folks at CRU and elsewhere who are creating fraudulent data to scare the masses? Shouldnt they be punished first? When the keepers of the data are corrupt, all the conclusions drawn from it are suspect - including the need to do carbon offsets.

If people continue to believe in GW when the data is lacking or (worse) suspect, GW has gone from science to religion.

In the ClimateGate emails were confessions that the data did not prove the case, so had to be hidden or manipulated. Michael Mann having to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period is a telling and egregious example. As was their trick to cut off data to hide declines in temperature.

[Ogretmen]

Great site but why this web site do not have other languages support?

[yelnick]

Ogretman, the global language of business is English, or its American form, Manglish (mangled English). But the real reason is, yo hablo un poco espanol .. ich kann nur ein bischen deutsche .. ya gavaroo ne-munuoga parussky. Etc. as they say in Latin. I tried to perfect my German in Germany but they wanted to practice their English on me. I learned Russian to get an edge in chess via the Russian books, but computers have made that unnecessary. And I wish I had learned Italian, especially after seeing A Fish Called Wanda.

[Nike Dunks]

Your blog gives people the life is beautiful! Heart as long as optimistic there will be hope!

[Ebony]

I thought I'd have to read a book for a dicovsrey like this!

[Sarwono]

People who read objectively and who are not sucdeed by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change.Nice way to change the subject. No one is talking about climate change. It changes constantly. What is being talked about is Anthropogenic Climate Change (warming, disruption or giggle bunnies your choice).The evidence is overwhelming for these people.What evidence? that climate changes? See above.FOX news followers, who are mostly Republicans, are still arguing about the “theory of evolution”, gay marriage, and abortion.Nice way to totally discredit yourself. That statement indicates you have no idea what you are talking about (but the first statement you made was a real clue too).The only reason that there is any skeptical discussion about climate change and global warming, is because the (mainly) “skeptical PR barrage has succeeded in creating an impression that there is still doubt in the scientific community regarding these critical issues. This “doubt” is slowing down the change process and creating circumstances which are becoming increasingly dangerous.No, the doubt is held by all scientists. The religious priesthood has no doubt. A real scientists knows that the number of FACTS (no doubt) are preciously few. And the number of theories (very little doubt) are not much greater. AGW or ACC or GCD is not even a theory, so real scientists know there is a lot of doubt. Regardles of whether they believe ACC to be happening or not.

[Madalina]

Whoa!Congressman Chicken Little has jumped to a csinluocon and whipped all you animals into a frenzy of false security based on what is, at best, dubious claims. This unscrupulous man is using opposition to a terrifying truth to manipulate your fears of the coming apocalypse into an anti-environmentalist tirade.Well, while you are all singing his praises, keep in mind that this huxter is the same man who heaped praise on the Taliban (going so far as to fight along side them during a vacation to Afghanistan) and defends Jack Abramoff with his every breath.As an influence peddler of the highest order, he knows that we are scared of climitization, and offers a position that is comforting to those of you who are so hopelessly inured to the status-quo that the idea of change, even for the greater good, is more terrifying than the prospect of a Nevada coast-line or an eternal winter.Oh, and by-the-bye, all of this MORON business is hurtful and counterproductive, and I know that deep down you're all just posturing. Certainly you must realize that the same minds that created and improve(d) space exploration, earthquake architecture, Doppler radar technology, and Cellular communication aren't suddenly morons when they tell you something that you would rather not hear.Think of climate study in terms of volcanology. The geologist can't tell you the exact date of an eruption, but he certainly knows when one's a-comin Don't be that guy standing in the streets of Pompeii asking everyone to remain calm despite the fact that its raining ashes.End diatribe now.