Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

Frankly their lack of understanding of Relativity doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me. But just saying that his theory sets an upper limit doesn't tell us why it does so. Einstein added the Cosmological Constant to his theory because he didn't like the predictions it make without it. It turns out he was wrong, the constant wasn't needed*, and the predictions the theory originally made were correct. Just adding something to a theory doesn't mean it should be there.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution

What was that term? Why do they think it should be part of the final solution? Again, not answers. We regularly rely on very old equations, some thousands of years old, that still give accurate predictions.

His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing.

Again, what is the new term and how does he justify it's inclusion? Is it necessary to form the solution, or does he just think it is necessary because he doesn't like the predictions the theory makes without it?

(*) New studies are said to be adding it back in, but really they're just adding a new constant, with a new value, to fit new observations. It has very little in common with Einstein's constant, other than the fact that is changes the expansion rate of the universe.

They would have looked like a totally impossible tasks. So when you look at what currently looks like an impossible task, throttling the economic engine that has in the past produced the breakthroughs needed to meet the task is not the solution.

Some pertinent points from the article:

“…Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount. …

…How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution…

…So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down…”

Grewgills: The article say the theory has been peer reviewed. Although, who the peers should be is open to debate.

Maybe the work of physicist and environmental researcher Miklós Zágoni wil help. ” He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.”

“Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”

The article doesn't actually tell us what those negative feedbacks are or how they work. Can you please provide us those details?

Maybe the work of physicist and environmental researcher Miklós Zágoni wil help. " He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was."

"Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973c.htm

Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.

and from the Schmittner et al paper in Global Biogeochemical Cycles

A new model of global climate, ocean circulation, ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycling, including a fully coupled carbon cycle, is presented and evaluated. The model is consistent with multiple observational data sets from the past 50 years as well as with the observed warming of global surface air and sea temperatures during the last 150 years. It is applied to a simulation of the coming two millennia following a business-as-usual scenario of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (SRES A2 until year 2100 and subsequent linear decrease to zero until year 2300, corresponding to a total release of 5100 GtC). Atmospheric CO2 increases to a peak of more than 2000 ppmv near year 2300 (that is an airborne fraction of 72% of the emissions) followed by a gradual decline to ∼1700 ppmv at year 4000 (airborne fraction of 56%). Forty-four percent of the additional atmospheric CO2 at year 4000 is due to positive carbon cycle–climate feedbacks. Global surface air warms by ∼10°C, sea ice melts back to 10% of its current area, and the circulation of the abyssal ocean collapses. Subsurface oxygen concentrations decrease, tripling the volume of suboxic water and quadrupling the global water column denitrification. We estimate 60 ppb increase in atmospheric N2O concentrations owing to doubling of its oceanic production, leading to a weak positive feedback and contributing about 0.24°C warming at year 4000. Global ocean primary production almost doubles by year 4000. Planktonic biomass increases at high latitudes and in the subtropics whereas it decreases at midlatitudes and in the tropics. In our model, which does not account for possible direct impacts of acidification on ocean biology, production of calcium carbonate in the surface ocean doubles, further increasing surface ocean and atmospheric pCO2. This represents a new positive feedback mechanism and leads to a strengthening of the positive interaction between climate change and the carbon cycle on a multicentennial to millennial timescale. Changes in ocean biology become important for the ocean carbon uptake after year 2600, and at year 4000 they account for 320 ppmv or 22% of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the preindustrial era.

I do not currently have access to the full articles, but the WaPo article seems to overstate what is indicated by the abstracts.

The problems that I see with solar, geothermal, or wind power, Alex, are mostly grid problems.

More important than distance traveled is the inconstancy of wind and solar (particularly wind). The grid cannot handle surges in power at all well, so there needs to be an intermediary between this production and the grid (either batteries or mechanical storage).

There is a reason Global Warming became Climate Change

Indeed there is. Some places will become cooler, some warmer, some wetter, some drier, as the average temperature of the earth rises. Climate change is a more all encompassing term that includes a much larger set of changes that accompany rises in global average temperature.

Re the article that (deservedly IMO) received so little attention, one cold winter does no more to disprove climate change than one hot summer proves it to be so.

Perhaps George Carlin was right - maybe we only came into existence to provide the ecosystem with plastic, & have now outlived our usefulness...

And I think Dave’s point is not that we should do nothing since no one else will, but that a “solution” that does not lead to actually solving the problem is not a viable solution at all.

Yes, that's exactly it. I'm looking for solutions and preferably incremental solutions since those are the ones I think are most likely to get implemented rather than policies that are apparently disconnected from the objectives they're supposed to accomplish.

And I think Dave's point is not that we should do nothing since no one else will, but that a "solution" that does not lead to actually solving the problem is not a viable solution at all. Instead of fixating on how we can screw ourselves so we feel better but actually accomplishing nothing, I think Dave is asking what things we can do that actually WILL solve the problem. Assuming there is even a problem at all (which I am for purposes of this thread).

Sorry Mate. There is a reason Global Warming became Climate Change - The GW facts did not match the rhetoric hence the change to CC.
If we spend trillions trying to fix what is a natural occurrence our fixes may just contribute to making the problem worse.

Climate Argument grows hotter as big chill deepens
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/03/virtually-unreported-in-britain.html

As for what makes me think that's your argument, I assumed it from this:

Are there any plans on the table that would solve the problem quickly enough?

Even if none of the currently-available alternatives can solve the problem, on their own and/or when done only by the US, pretty much _any_ efforts are going to at least extend the timeframe we have to work with.

I note you haven’t proposed a workable solution that solve the stated problem in the given timeframe.

I admit I don't have the background to propose or really evaluate such things. But since it is, as you say, your article, and you seem to be discarding the major suggested line of action without offering any of your proposals, I can only assume that "doing nothing" is your proposal.

Melting ice means less reflective surface on earth, which means more solar energy is trapped, which means warmer temperature, which means more melting ice. You see where this leads.

Again- chaotic system. Will the change in surface albedo be greater or less than the ability to trap CO2? The environement is a huge number of competing processes which means unless you have a pretty decent idea of how each works you can't predict the final outcome. And we just don't know the system nearly well enough.

We can detect what is happening today, and that should give us pause, because if it continues it will be very bad for mankind as a whole.

What worries me are aggressive attempts to control the outcome. I've seen suggestions of solar shades and attempts to manipulate the planetary albedo and more. These ideas suggest that we have a far greater ability to predict what will happen than we do.

Our policy should be one of trying to stay hands off as much as possible.