Just seen this one. Hopefully we can have some of our locals with experience chime in.

This problem is so large, complex, and nonlinear that I expect this will challenge our modelling abilities for many, many decades.

the rub is that all the "answers" to this "problem" and the "problem" itself is being decided by politicians. science has little to say where funding goes. it goes to those scientists who create sound bites that support the views of whichever party is in power. so instead of finding scientific solutions, we fund projects that lead to election or re-election.

What does it matter? We may stop the green house gases, but the magnetic poles of our planet are still switching and soon the north pole will become the south pole and vise versa. When that happens we will probably all die anyway. If its not one thing it is another. Also YellowStone (one of the worlds super volcanoes) is in the redzone (it errupts every 600,000-800,000 years and it as been 640,000 since the last erruption) and that will cause basically nuclear winter.

Everyone should watch that doomsday show on discovery. It shows so many ways that we could randomly die lol. Maybe we should get al gore to watch it and there will be much more press about all of it.

Too unfortunately true. The discoveries of science are almost entirely controlled (both by control of funding of research and by control of dissemination of findings) by "the powers that be". Consider the amount spent on such things as LHC and LIGO versus the amount spent on RV and PK.

There are some serious obstacles to overcome but there is some light at the end of the tunnel. A problem of similar magnitude (bigger or smaller ... who's to say?) was the CFCs acting as a catalyst to destroy the ozone layer. CFCs were universally banned and the hole in the ozone layer is healing at a steady rate. This event would indicate that it is possible to get worldwide agreement when the whole planet is affected.

The modeling of climate is actually much easier than modeling weather. The problem so far is that the models only include factors that are studied by the modelers. If six different modelers work on the project they get six similar models, but when the models are compared to each other, each uses factors the others leave out. This results in the models showing warming occurring at a slower rate than what is actually occurring. Each year the planet is getting hotter than expected and part of the reason is that the modelers are conservative in the choice of factors which understates the problem.

A big factor is the "Tipping Points". Methane (which was left out of many models) is locked into the cold oceans in the form of methane hydrates in solid form along coastlines and in the tundra. Just a little warming is all it takes to cause the hydrate to break down releasing the methane into the atmosphere. Methane is far worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Once the methane is released, the global warming accelerates (like it is doing)and it takes more effort to turn the situation around.

A similar problem to the methane hydrates is the CO2 locked in the arctic tundra. National Geographic reported that there is twice as much CO2 locked in the tundra as exists in the whole atmosphere and will be released when the tundra thaws. I haven't seen anyone else report this so I am not sure National Geographic got it right, but they are usually fairly reliable. If it is true this problem would be a big tipping point.

Another problem is the rain forest. We (man) are still chopping it down like crazy and it is one of the primary absorbers of CO2. There is a big problem of the rain forest being reduced to the point where it can no longer make it's own weather and 'boom' it turns to desert. This would result in a major loss of the Earth's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. ( The halting of the cutting of rain forest is a major goal of the Copenhagen Conference ).

The actual solutions are much different than the political solutions. The poor countries want the US to pay them for causing the current problem. India and China want to be "unrestrained" to allow them to grow rapidly to a US like economy. Neither of these positions help solve anything but making poor countries rich. A possible result of these positions is that nothing substantial may occur at the current Copenhagen Climate Conference.

The real solutions lie in halting the use of oil to fuel cars while still using it for large trucks, trains, and ships. Electric cars should have been pushed after the 73 oil crisis but are coming on strong now. The real viability of electric cars will boom with the practical development of the super capacitor. This device stores electricity similar to a battery but doesn't wear out. The first such powered car is due out in 2010.

The increase in the use of electricity will cause new plants to be built but the use of natural gas as the fuel should be banned. There is a technology recently developed where the exhaust gasses from a coal powered power plant are bubbled through sea water. The sea water minerals react with the CO2 in the exhaust to produce usable cement. The way we make cement now by heating limestone with natural gas is a big energy hog and producer of large amounts of CO2. The clean coal technique mentioned kills two birds with one stone and uses our own resources which is a bigger bird in itself.

The US is currently leading the world in solar cell research through a multibillion dollar program started by George Bush. The goals of the program are to boost major universities' ability to research both the efficiency and reduce the cost of mass producing solar cells. The results so far have been amazing.

The biggest single factor in global warming projections is simply to control the growth of human population. Not much progress is expected since it is so politically incorrect of a topic. Without population growth the pressure to cut down the forests would drop dramatically.

Historically, when the Earth warmed or cooled, the process usually happened slow enough for animals and plants to move to a compatible new location. None of that can happen now because mankind has locked the use of most land all over the world. If the rain forests try to move they are simply gone. If the wheat and corn growing areas try to move, we can't adjust fast enough to prevent major food shortages for years, if not many years.

Regardless of the false information spread mostly on the internet, mankind is the cause of the rapid warming by it's enormous production of CO2. The evidence is crystal clear to anyone who really studies the problem. There are actually few "real" scientists IN THE FIELD who would deny this fact. The huge blanket of CO2 is causing the warming to accelerate so quickly that plants and animals couldn't adjust quickly enough anyway.

The false accusations accusing the scientists of creating a Hoax to get funding is simply not the case. Sure, there is some competition for funding but the lion's share of the cost of global warming has nothing to do with the cost of studying the problem, which is a drop in the bucket by comparison. The big cost is the "politics" and the switch from a petroleum economy.

Sadly, solutions created by politicians probably won't do the job. Engineers could approach the problem pragmatically, but that does not appear to be in the "works".

Imagine solar cell roof shingles that provide all your power and charge your car. If you need more power (like at night) you are attached to the power grid just like now. Imagine the enormus coal reserves of the US being used to make clean electric power and used to make syn fuel (diesel and gasoline) so the need to import oil is eliminated. It could happen but not anytime soon.

Syn fuel is a world war II technology.