Unfortunately on a day where we had two AGW threads, I had pressing work in the lab and I was unable to respond to many things as I normally would on such threads.

One of the things that I would like to most clearly state is the certainty to which we know there is a problem.

The mechanisms behind AGW are actually quite simple to understand. So much so, that many find it difficult to understand how people don’t get them when they are laid out. To be fair, the interactions of those mechanisms are quite complex and there are very many great difficulties in pinning down certain predictions accurately.

However,just because we can not say that on August 12 2079, the sea level will be x, or the temperature in Denver will be y, does not mean that the basic mechanisms are no longer at play or that they have lost their power or simplicity.

It does not mean that there is nearly the wiggle room for doubt that many hold for whatever reasons.

Here are some of the mechanisms:

1. CO2 really is a GHG, and the sun really does emit a large amount of IR. When CO2 is hit by IR, it both becomes warm through vibrations and it can then re-radiate the absorbed IR back to earth - where it gets absorbed by other things that in turn heat up. It is well understood quantum mechanics as to why CO2 does this. Even if it were not throughly understood why it does this, it has been conclusively measured for over 100 years that it does this.

It follows immediately that the more CO2 you have in your atmosphere the warmer you planet must be. This can not be debated. It follows immediately that if you increase CO2 concentrations in your atmosphere, your planet must warm as a matter of consequence. This has been directly observed.

2. The warmer your planet gets, the more ice will melt. It should not be hard to imagine that the Earth is in some sort of dynamic equilibrium in terms of how much ice it has. It should not be hard to imagine that as you warm the planet, you change the equilibrium and ice will melt. It already did so as part of natural cycles at the cooler temperatures 100 years ago. It should only do so more now. We see this happening now.

This also creates a feedback. Ice reflects more IR into space - where it will not be absorbed terrestrially and warm things - than water. If you have more water, less IR gets reflect, which will warm things more, which will mean you have even less ice. Then the cycle repeats more IR is absorbed etc… This is a feedback. We are seeing it happen now. This too is not hard to understand.

Note: from both of these effects alone, there should be no debate that these processes end without ice if you keep adding CO2 into the atmosphere. This should be obvious.

3. As you warm the Siberian and Canadian bogs, you have yet another massive GHG release in the form of both methane and CO2. This is another feedback. More melting -> more GHG from the bogs -> more warming -> more melting.

Again, what is so hard to understand? Where is there room for uncertainness? Where is there room to say maybe not?

There are other feedbacks as well. There are shifting current, ocean anoxia and all matter of other things to discuss as well. However, these three are sufficient to make my main point.

There is not a lot of room to debate the ultimate effect of this or where the road leads. If one were to put a gun to there head and pull the trigger, there is not a lot of room for debate there either.

The problem with our culture is that everyone feels they have a right to an opinion, in science you do not. Some have a romanticized view of the uncertainties of science. No, we are very certain. People need to understand this.