NationStates Jolt Archive

Inform me, please, because I'm quite ignorant on the subject. Does the apparent global warming we are so worried about actually result from our own actions (factories, automobiles, etc.), or from, so I've heard, the variation in the earth's distance from the sun? Or both?

We seem to be the most important factor, at least as far as we know right now.

Our own. Because, if we all stopped driving as some people advocate, it wouldn't do much in the ways of stopping the wrath of the sun.

Mind you...while our consumption of energy isn't good for anything...we don't "know" anything.

us.

natural climate forcing, including solar variables, is currently cooling the planet down.

Inform me, please, because I'm quite ignorant on the subject. Does the apparent global warming we are so worried about actually result from our own actions (factories, automobiles, etc.), or from, so I've heard, the variation in the earth's distance from the sun? Or both?

It is from the sun and the natural cycle of the earth. Look up Glacial-Pluvial periods. That will explain it to you.

The stuff that everyone's [i]worried[/b] about is from us, but our actions do little to change the environment, and in the end it's more up to the planet and the sun than us.

Unless you're one of those people who believe you can alter the earth's orbit for the better by getting everyone to jump. (http://www.worldjumpday.org/)

It is from the sun and the natural cycle of the earth. Look up Glacial-Pluvial periods. That will explain it to you.
Those alone are not enough to explain the current trend. There's something else in action, and so far it appears to be us.

Those alone are not enough to explain the current trend. There's something else in action, and so far it appears to be us.

Bull kaka poopo.

Bull kaka poopo.
No, really. If it was to the natural, regular trends, the global temperature should be dropping slowly instead of increasing sharply.

Of course, there may still be undiscovered natural causes that may account for this increase, but that's unlikey since projections based on human activity match closely (though not exactly) the observed trends.

However, the last word is not in yet, but that doesn't mean we should wait until then to do something about the environment, just in case it's really us. Plus clean air and water are good things just by themselves.

Sources for global temperature increasing sharply. I realize what we're doing is doing no good, but I'd really like to see your sources. I've heard the opposite (from the Rand Institute, mind), but please.

Sources for global temperature increasing sharply. I realize what we're doing is doing no good, but I'd really like to see your sources. I've heard the opposite (from the Rand Institute, mind), but please.
Here are a few:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateTrendsTemperature.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html

The third one is very interesting, particularly the part concerning the balloon and satellite records of temperature in the troposphere which show no big variation. However, the site itself warns that other physical factors can account for this difference, plus the fact that these methods have only been used for the past 20 years and may not be accurate enough. Another cause may be that higher layers in the troposphere behave different than those closer to ground. This is one of the biggest questions still remaining around global warming.

The fourth one shows trends over longer periods in time. Unfortunately, these records lack the ability to tell us how temperature behaved in short periods of time (say less than a century a few million years ago). They show that the Earth had warmer periods in the past, but those periods can be explained by natural causes, unlike the current trend.

Those alone are not enough to explain the current trend. There's something else in action, and so far it appears to be us.

Actualy it is. There has been massive warming trends before. How do you think the Vikings were able to settle in Greenland and thrive? They were able to grow food and I'm not talking just one crop either but multiple crops.

Then the climate turned colder and they abandoned the colonies over here in the new world.

As for the us or the sun debate. Its the sun, the moon as well as the Earth's normal cycle of heating and cooling. This is temporary and soon, the temperatures will begin to cool and the world will be freaking about global cooling.

Here are a few:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateTrendsTemperature.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html

These graphs are beginning to point towards a decrease in temperatures. Thanks for posting proof that surface temps are actually going down.

The fourth one shows trends over longer periods in time. Unfortunately, these records lack the ability to tell us how temperature behaved in short periods of time (say less than a century a few million years ago). They show that the Earth had warmer periods in the past, but those periods can be explained by natural causes, unlike the current trend.

Actually, you can use the past warming trends to actually explain current trends.

As for the us or the sun debate. Its the sun, the moon as well as the Earth's normal cycle of heating and cooling. This is temporary and soon, the temperatures will begin to cool and the world will be freaking about global cooling.
Yes, there are natural cycles, some in which the temperature has raised more than now. But visit the sites I provided a couple of posts ago. The current trend is too sharp to be explained by natural cycles alone, furthermore the Medieval Warm Age that you mention wasn't really that warm: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html .

If it was the Sun causing the current warming there would have had to be an increase in brightness and radiation reaching Earth, which there has been not. Neither the Moon has changed it's orbit, or the Earth, at least not in any appreciable way; there hasn't been a significant increase in volcanic activity or big releases of CO2 from the ocean that can explain the current changes.

What other natural explanations are left?

Those alone are not enough to explain the current trend. There's something else in action, and so far it appears to be us.

Did you know the first Vikings in Greenland could grow grapes there?The climate changes all the time.The evidence for human induced global warming is blown way up.And even if we are having some effect on it,it's not the end of the world.

Yes, there are natural cycles, some in which the temperature has raised more than now. But visit the sites I provided a couple of posts ago. The current trend is too sharp to be explained by natural cycles alone, furthermore the Medieval Warm Age that you mention wasn't really that warm: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html .

I did. Didn't prove a thing.

If it was the Sun causing the current warming there would have had to be an increase in brightness and radiation reaching Earth, which there has been not. Neither the Moon has changed it's orbit, or the Earth, at least not in any appreciable way; there hasn't been a significant increase in volcanic activity or big releases of CO2 from the ocean that can explain the current changes.

How about water vaper? After all, we do have an abundance of water here and when it gets evaporated, it goes up into the atmosphere. We don't control water vaper.

What other natural explanations are left?

Natural heating and cooling.

Did you know the first Vikings in Greenland could grow grapes there?The climate changes all the time.The evidence for human induced global warming is blown way up.And even if we are having some effect on it,it's not the end of the world.

Even scottland was growing grapes during the viking era and Scandanavia had longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures.

Gotta love history classes :D

These graphs are beginning to point towards a decrease in temperatures. Thanks for posting proof that surface temps are actually going down.

http://www.robertobaca.com/Fig_A.gif
Err... would you care to explain how this is a downwards trend?

Actually, you can use the past warming trends to actually explain current trends.
How? Because they happen? How do they happen? Why do they happen? Are the same basic conditions being repeated now?

What other natural explanations are left?
A interesting explanation would be all of the heat reflective surfaces humans create. The majority of natural surfaces exposed to the sun absorb a lot of heat. Things like asphalt, concrete, and various metal surfaces tend to reflect a lot of heat back into the atmosphere.

http://www.robertobaca.com/Fig_A.gif
Err... would you care to explain how this is a downwards trend?


How? Because they happen? How do they happen? Why do they happen? Are the same basic conditions being repeated now?

I would if your graph is larger.

As to your 2nd point, I'll just refer you to the evidence that has been left behind throughout history. Temps warmer? yes but temps will go back down. Then what? What are you going to blame Global Cooling on?

Did you know the first Vikings in Greenland could grow grapes there?The climate changes all the time.The evidence for human induced global warming is blown way up.And even if we are having some effect on it,it's not the end of the world.
All that means is that there was a higher temperature in Greenland than now. It doesn't mean that the phenomenon was global and it doesn't mean that what's happenning now has the same root causes as that phenomenon.

In fact, reconstructions of global temperature for that period show just a slightly increase in temperature, still far below of what's going on right now.

And no, it's not the end of the world, but definitely something to keep in mind.

All that means is that there was a higher temperature in Greenland than now. It doesn't mean that the phenomenon was global and it doesn't mean that what's happenning now has the same root causes as that phenomenon.

Actually, according to evidence, it was global and not just concentrated in the northern Hemisphere. Scandanavia had longer growing seasons and able to grow more than one crop. Scandanavia isn't greenland.

In fact, reconstructions of global temperature for that period show just a slightly increase in temperature, still far below of what's going on right now.

Actually... no. We aren't seeing what they saw back then. As far as I know, Greenland is still as cold as ever and according to one of your graphs, it is getting colder. Couple that with Antartica getting colder and you can begin to put evidence together that temps are starting to go down.

And no, it's not the end of the world, but definitely something to keep in mind.

I'm not worried about it.

I did. Didn't prove a thing.

Exactly. It doesn't show a big change in global temperature for that period. What did you think it was going to prove?


How about water vaper? After all, we do have an abundance of water here and when it gets evaporated, it goes up into the atmosphere. We don't control water vaper.

Same. Water doesn't just choose to evaporate. More energy has to be going into it for this to happen. Where would that energy be coming from? Plus, there hasn't been a big increase in atmospheric water vapor either.


Natural heating and cooling.
Geez! Through what means? What would be the basic, root, underlying causes of this natural heating and cooling? What part of nature is causing it? How is it causing it?

Exactly. It doesn't show a big change in global temperature for that period. What did you think it was going to prove?

I thought you were going to prove that we were responsible for global warming. I guess you didn't since the evidence isn't there and your graphs are showing a cooling trend.

Same. Water doesn't just choose to evaporate. More energy has to be going into it for this to happen. Where would that energy be coming from?

Oh the sun perhaps? I thought this was elementary science stuff?

Plus, there hasn't been a big increase in atmospheric water vapor either.

That should tell you that the Ice caps aren't melting.

Geez! Through what means? What would be the basic, root, underlying causes of this natural heating and cooling? What part of nature is causing it? How is it causing it?

Good question. I can tell you though, that it isn't from us humans.

A interesting explanation would be all of the heat reflective surfaces humans create. The majority of natural surfaces exposed to the sun absorb a lot of heat. Things like asphalt, concrete, and various metal surfaces tend to reflect a lot of heat back into the atmosphere.
It has been taken into account in calibrated readings. And it would still count as man caused.

I would if your graph is larger.
Which of course you're going to provide and explain. Go ahead, I want to see you do that.

As to your 2nd point, I'll just refer you to the evidence that has been left behind throughout history. Temps warmer? yes but temps will go back down. Then what? What are you going to blame Global Cooling on?
Yes, but will go back down how? When? If it's because human kind can't sustain civilization anymore, then that's not very good. If it's because emanations from the Earth will go on for 10,000 years and will increase temperatures enough to make the surface uninhabitable for a long time, that's not good either.

Actually, it's also being warned that suddenly cutting the sources of gasses can have the negative impact of a very bad cooling.

I believe that the news of us being the cause of global temperature change, far from being bad, is actually good. It means that we can do something about it and create our own ideal weather.

It has been taken into account in calibrated readings. And it would still count as man caused.
Meterologists will tell you that water vapor in the atmosphere has a much greater affect on global warming than all the other greenhouse gases combined. This fact is conspicously absent on most if not all of the global warming alarmist sites. That's because human activity has little or now affect on the amount of water vapor.

www.junkscience.com

Meterologists will tell you that water vapor in the atmosphere has a much greater affect on global warming than all the other greenhouse gases combined. This fact is conspicously absent on most if not all of the global warming alarmist sites. That's because human activity has little or now affect on the amount of water vapor.

www.junkscience.com

^^Agrees with this post entirely.

You are right in what meteorologists say in regards to water vaper. I know several met majors too that will agree with this statement as well.

Actually, according to evidence, it was global and not just concentrated in the northern Hemisphere. Scandanavia had longer growing seasons and able to grow more than one crop. Scandanavia isn't greenland.

Actually... no. We aren't seeing what they saw back then. As far as I know, Greenland is still as cold as ever and according to one of your graphs, it is getting colder. Couple that with Antartica getting colder and you can begin to put evidence together that temps are starting to go down.


Source for all this please. I have provided sources for global temperature records for the last 1000 years that show not that much warming in the Middle Ages. Please, give me a source that supports your point of view.

Show a source that explains how the cooling in Antartica is NOT related to GLOBAL (global means the entire planet, in case you didn't know) warming.

Explain how the graphs show a decreasing trend in temperature.


I'm not worried about it.

I'm not worried either. That doesn't mean we are not the cause.

Which of course you're going to provide and explain. Go ahead, I want to see you do that.

You posted the graph so it should be u to make it bigger.

Yes, but will go back down how? When? If it's because human kind can't sustain civilization anymore, then that's not very good. If it's because emanations from the Earth will go on for 10,000 years and will increase temperatures enough to make the surface uninhabitable for a long time, that's not good either.

Which won't happen. If it hasn't happened by now, it wno't happen any time soon. No, we'll have another ice age before to long then I'll be curious as to what people will try to blame it on.

Actually, it's also being warned that suddenly cutting the sources of gasses can have the negative impact of a very bad cooling.

And yet, people want to do just that though I would love to see who they are going to cut water vapor.

I believe that the news of us being the cause of global temperature change, far from being bad, is actually good. It means that we can do something about it and create our own ideal weather.

Good luck in that fantasy world.

Source for all this please. I have provided sources for global temperature records for the last 1000 years that show not that much warming in the Middle Ages. Please, give me a source that supports your point of view.

I'll have to get the title from my 17th century british America professor. I also have it in my notes too. They know this based on archeology digs of Norsemen settlements in the Northern Hemisphere.

Show a source that explains how the cooling in Antartica is NOT related to GLOBAL (global means the entire planet, in case you didn't know) warming.

Your the one implying that we are the cause of global warming. So far you presented no evidence to that fact. Are you finally going to provide evidence?

Explain how the graphs show a decreasing trend in temperature.

On 2 that I saw, the temps started to go DOWN after 2002. In one, it ended at 2000.

I'm not worried either. That doesn't mean we are not the cause.

Doesn't mean we are the cause either because we aren't the cause.

I thought you were going to prove that we were responsible for global warming. I guess you didn't since the evidence isn't there and your graphs are showing a cooling trend.
Point to a graph that shows this trend and explain it.

Oh the sun perhaps? I thought this was elementary science stuff?
Point to a source that shows Earth has been receiving more solar radiation than usual.


That should tell you that the Ice caps aren't melting.
That shows Greenland isn't melting. The polar caps cover a "slightly" larger area.


Good question. I can tell you though, that it isn't from us humans.
So, you admit that you can't back up your opinion.

Point to a source that shows Earth has been receiving more solar radiation than usual.

Someone is getting desperate.

That shows Greenland isn't melting. The polar caps cover a "slightly" larger area.

Thanks. You just disproved your own theory on Global Warming. You just stated that the polar caps cover a larger area. That implies a cooling trend. Thanks for proving my point.

So, you admit that you can't back up your opinion.

Don't have too. You just destroyed your own arguements.

He isn't getting desperate, Corneliu, you're being a horrible debator. He's provided relevent facts and listed sources hes taken them from. You've responded by denying what he says out of hand. No, not proving him wrong, simply saying he's wrong and moving along, in so many words.

Concede the debate before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

You posted the graph so it should be u to make it bigger.

Here's one:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg
It stops at 2000. Is that what you mean?


Which won't happen. If it hasn't happened by now, it wno't happen any time soon. No, we'll have another ice age before to long then I'll be curious as to what people will try to blame it on.
Oh, you can see the future now. But you still can't explain why the global temperatures are rising.



And yet, people want to do just that though I would love to see who they are going to cut water vapor.
Forget people. People don't have a good grasp on science, so it shouldn't be up to people's opinions or beliefs.

Also, water vapor concentrates in clouds, which reflect sunlight, thus cooling Earth again. This mechanism could help stop and maybe revert the warming trend. However, this doesn't mean that the main source of CO2 is not us, just that that may be a way out.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm not so worried about it.

Someone is getting desperate.
That's because someone's not finding any sources to back his opinions.



Thanks. You just disproved your own theory on Global Warming. You just stated that the polar caps cover a larger area. That implies a cooling trend. Thanks for proving my point.
Does it? Let me see. The core of Antartica is getting colder, but the ice that surrounds the continent is breaking up due to higher temperatures. Hmmm... Greenland remains cold, but the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia is melting. Hmmm... I wonder if this is consistent with a GLOBAL warming trend with some local cooling areas, or a global cooling with localized warming.


Don't have too. You just destroyed your own arguements.
In your dreams. You still haven't showed what natural processes are behind the change in global temperatures.

I'll have to get the title from my 17th century british America professor. I also have it in my notes too. They know this based on archeology digs of Norsemen settlements in the Northern Hemisphere.

And there may certainly have been a much higher mean temperature in the Northern Atlantic during that period. What I want is GLOBAL mean temperature. GLOBAL means the entire world.


Your the one implying that we are the cause of global warming. So far you presented no evidence to that fact. Are you finally going to provide evidence?
There's no smoking gun, no scene of the crime with a psycho murderer standing on top of the corpse with a maniac grin in his face. So far there's correlation between levels of CO2 and industrial activity in the past 150 years or so. And that's one of the problems with attributing global warming to humans, that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

But what other possibilities are there? As you very well have pointed out through your lack of a better answer, there aren't other causes that can explain the current trend. Scientist have looked into nature for something that can explain it, but so far have come up empty. Models that take into account human activity do a better, though not perfect, job explaining what we see.



On 2 that I saw, the temps started to go DOWN after 2002. In one, it ended at 2000.

Point them out, and realize that a couple of years of lower temperatures don't necessarily mean a trend.


Doesn't mean we are the cause either because we aren't the cause.
So, it's just happening through magic?

I'm sorry I currently don't have the sources for you to check, but I will make my points anyways. I will try to find the sources and post them when and if I find them.

1. It has been scientifically proven that the Earth has a slightly elliptical orbit, which causes heating and cooling trends over thousands, if not millions, of years.

2. Ocean currents can have a major effect on the global climate. Ever hear of El Nino? The tsunami may have wreaked havoc with currents in the area.

3. If we play a significant part in global warming, why wasn't it really hot during the Industrial Revolution when there were very few or no emission laws. Most, if not all, of the airborne pollutants created during the Industrial Revolution have been scrubbed from the air by natural processes. The Ionosphere and Ozone layer are in much better shape now.

4. Studies have shown that a minor volcanic eruption can produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire Industrial Revolution.

I can continue on and on, but feel that I have made my point about it being a combination of the Earth and Sun as the cause of this round of global warming.

So, it's just happening through magic?

pretty much. don't you just love science deniers?

"empirical evidence? why would i bother with a thing like that? mechanisms? we don't need no stinkin' mechanisms."

He isn't getting desperate, Corneliu, you're being a horrible debator. He's provided relevent facts and listed sources hes taken them from. You've responded by denying what he says out of hand. No, not proving him wrong, simply saying he's wrong and moving along, in so many words.

Concede the debate before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

I'm not going to concede nothing because so far, the graphs he used has proven the fact that Global Cooling is starting to occur.

Here's one:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg
It stops at 2000. Is that what you mean?

No! Even though that one also ends in 2000, it also shows the fact that temperatures cooled down by the year 2000.

Oh, you can see the future now. But you still can't explain why the global temperatures are rising.

Its a natural occuring event. There is a planet wide heating and cooling cycle. On top of that, we are or were (depending on the person) coming out of an ice age. In order to come out of it, you need hotter temperatures.

Forget people. People don't have a good grasp on science, so it shouldn't be up to people's opinions or beliefs.

Then whose opinions should it be?

Also, water vapor concentrates in clouds, which reflect sunlight, thus cooling Earth again. This mechanism could help stop and maybe revert the warming trend. However, this doesn't mean that the main source of CO2 is not us, just that that may be a way out.

The main source is really water vapor. More water vapor goes into the air than we do because there's an abundance of water. Your right in regards to reflecting sunlight with clouds.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm not so worried about it.

Good. Then why are we arguing since you can't reverse a natural trend?

That's because someone's not finding any sources to back his opinions.

I think you better concentrate on your own sources since the graphs you have been trying to use have shown that the earth has started to cool down.

Does it? Let me see. The core of Antartica is getting colder, but the ice that surrounds the continent is breaking up due to higher temperatures.

According to one of your graphs, those hotspots are ABOVE the Antartic Circle thus placing them in the temperate zone.

Hmmm... Greenland remains cold, but the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia is melting. Hmmm... I wonder if this is consistent with a GLOBAL warming trend with some local cooling areas, or a global cooling with localized warming.

According to your temperature graph with the dots, it has shown a relative cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere up around the Artic Circle.

In your dreams. You still haven't showed what natural processes are behind the change in global temperatures.

That's because we don't know that much about how our planet operates. Not even scientists with degrees could tell you the natural events of things.

I'm sorry I currently don't have the sources for you to check, but I will make my points anyways. I will try to find the sources and post them when and if I find them.

1. It has been scientifically proven that the Earth has a slightly elliptical orbit, which causes heating and cooling trends over thousands, if not millions, of years.

2. Ocean currents can have a major effect on the global climate. Ever hear of El Nino? The tsunami may have wreaked havoc with currents in the area.

3. If we play a significant part in global warming, why wasn't it really hot during the Industrial Revolution when there were very few or no emission laws. Most, if not all, of the airborne pollutants created during the Industrial Revolution have been scrubbed from the air by natural processes. The Ionosphere and Ozone layer are in much better shape now.

4. Studies have shown that a minor volcanic eruption can produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire Industrial Revolution.

I can continue on and on, but feel that I have made my point about it being a combination of the Earth and Sun as the cause of this round of global warming.

You are indeed correct in your assessment. However, those that are really closed minded and don't want to look at the real facts of this case, will not believe a word your saying.

Keep up the good work Iguananadon.

pretty much. don't you just love science deniers?

"empirical evidence? why would i bother with a thing like that? mechanisms? we don't need no stinkin' mechanisms."

I'm not denying science. Infact, I just used his own graphs to debunk what he was trying to state.

No! Even though that one also ends in 2000, it also shows the fact that temperatures cooled down by the year 2000.


You're using figures from 2 consecutive years to argue that the trend has changed and the Earth is cooling down?

Are you...for real?

You're using figures from 2 consecutive years to argue that the trend has changed and the Earth is cooling down?

Are you...for real?

I'm going by what the graphs he is using are saying.

I'm going by what the graphs he is using are saying.

No you aren't. You're inventing a trend based on the last 2 figures.

No you aren't. You're inventing a trend based on the last 2 figures.

Actually no. If you actually look at the graphs, you'll see the warming and cooling trends. We are about due to see a drop in global temperatures based on current trends that have been shown on those graphs.

Did you know the first Vikings in Greenland could grow grapes there?The climate changes all the time.The evidence for human induced global warming is blown way up.And even if we are having some effect on it,it's not the end of the world.

They grew no grapes in greenland. They found them growing wild close to where new york is now.

They grew no grapes in greenland. They found them growing wild close to where new york is now.

Actually, no. They were actually doing grapes up in Greenland as well as in Scottland. They had longer growing seasons in Scandanavia as well thus leading to more food and then larger families.

This lasted for awhile then temperatures got colder and the ice expanded and the growing season got shorter again.

Actually, no. They were actually doing grapes up in Greenland as well as in Scottland. They had longer growing seasons in Scandanavia as well thus leading to more food and then larger families.

This lasted for awhile then temperatures got colder and the ice expanded and the growing season got shorter again.

Not that I mean to hijack the thread because of greenland grapes, but would you name a source (http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/faq532.html)?

Not that I mean to hijack the thread because of greenland grapes, but would you name a source?

History and Archeology. Two things that go hand in hand together. As I said previously, I'm going to have to get my source from my 17th Century British American Professor. I dn't have the title of the book on hand nor the name of the author.

Excuse me but it HAS been scientifically proven that the greenhouse effect exists, therefore the global warming is caused by it.

The natural cycle you are talking about also exists, but it usually happens over a period of many centuries when not millenia. The warming of the last 50 years is too high to be justified with this argument.

And denying the existance of the greenhouse effect will surely not help the planet. If you want, sit down and do nothing waiting for the next cooling cycle, believing that the pollution we cause has no consequnces on nothing and who says it does only leftist propaganda. In the mentime, disasters like the one of New Orleans will occur more and more.

Your right about greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the primary componet of it.

If you want to cut down on greenhouse gasses, then I would love to see how your going to cut down on the amount of water vapor.

Why not cut the CO2 emissions, which have doubled in the last 100 years (the years of the global industrialisation, only a coincidence?) instead?

I add that water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, has a property of self-regulation, this means that there are natural mechanisms which regulate the presence of it in the atmosphere. Also CO2 has something similar, but the artificial growth of it is putting the physical equilibrium to a severe risk.
Not to mention the completely artificial greenhous gases like CFC which have NO self-regulation mechanism and therefore remain in the atmosphere forever.
And last but not least, although water vapor is quantitatively the first GG, it's "mirror-effect" on the radiations is one of the smoothest (if not the smoothest) of the GG

And water vapor doesn't "eat" the ozone

Why not cut the CO2 emissions, which have doubled in the last 100 years (the years of the global industrialisation, only a coincidence?) instead?

We could, if we actually tried to make India and China sign Kyoto or something even more rigid; that's where all of the new CO2 is coming from. The OECD's emissions are pretty much not growing, or at most 1% per year. Asia's are about as big but are growing about 10x as fast as ours.

Yeah, this is indeed the greater risk, because the majority of the Western Countries (sadly not all, and sadly not the biggest one) have alòready made big steps in the right direction.
India and China are now at the stage we were in the early 20th century; but toghether they are 3 times bigger than USA and Europe

We could, if we actually tried to make India and China sign Kyoto or something even more rigid; that's where all of the new CO2 is coming from. The OECD's emissions are pretty much not growing, or at most 1% per year. Asia's are about as big but are growing about 10x as fast as ours.

That's actually quite illuminating, however the fact remains that the EU alone cannot avert global warming. Incidentally, stars decrease in their heat output over their lifespan, not increase, and the sun is accordingly immune from blame, so please don't indibt it upon crimes against humanity :D

The fault is of the men, and this is good. Because we can do something.
If it was the sun, we would be lost.

1. It has been scientifically proven that the Earth has a slightly elliptical orbit, which causes heating and cooling trends over thousands, if not millions, of years.
And that would certainly be a cause if the trend observed compressed thousands or millions of years, as has been observed in the record of past cycles. But the current trend is a significant temperature change over the course of a few decades. Much too fast to be explained by changes in Earth's orbit.


2. Ocean currents can have a major effect on the global climate. Ever hear of El Nino? The tsunami may have wreaked havoc with currents in the area.
El Niño and La Niña are separate cyclical phenomena over the Pacific. Although they do have a very significant impact on weather this tends to be temporary and it wouldn't explain why there has been an upwards trend in global temperature. They've remained more or less constant during the past 30 years.

The tsunami couldn't have altered ocean currents, as it was just a wave traveling through the ocean. Waves don't push water on the ocean, only when they break against a coast is when they cause a mess.


3. If we play a significant part in global warming, why wasn't it really hot during the Industrial Revolution when there were very few or no emission laws. Most, if not all, of the airborne pollutants created during the Industrial Revolution have been scrubbed from the air by natural processes. The Ionosphere and Ozone layer are in much better shape now.
Because there was a lot less industry then than now. Even unregulated the amount of total gasses expelled was very small compared to what it's now. Certainly natural processes allow the Earth to recover, but if you keep injecting more and more gasses into the atmosphere faster than it can clean itself you're going to have a concentration of those gasses.

The ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming. Zilch. The ozone layers sits several kilometers above the surface and was being depleted due to excess CFCs. It's doing much better now because we reduced the use of CFCs.

The ionospher sits even higher, has absolutely no bearing on global warming and has never been in trouble. In fact, do you know what the ionosphere is?


4. Studies have shown that a minor volcanic eruption can produce more greenhouse gasses than the entire Industrial Revolution.
And volcanoes also expell a lot of ash, which help equilibrate the effect of that warming. In fact, volcanic activity is very important to keep the planet habitable and is a regular occurence in the planet, but there has not been an increase in volcanic activity in the past century, the amount of gasses released by volcanoes into the atmosphere has remained more or less constant. Of course, on top of that regular spewing you have to add the gasses expelled by industry.

I'm not denying science. Infact, I just used his own graphs to debunk what he was trying to state.

no, you didn't.

and greenland never had grapes, even during the slightly warmer period of the north atlantic. greenland's growing season was way too short. that's why tyrkir's discovery of grapes in vinland is noteworthy in the saga of the greenlanders.

I think you better concentrate on your own sources since the graphs you have been trying to use have shown that the earth has started to cool down.
Dude, do you even know what "trend" means? Seriously.

According to one of your graphs, those hotspots are ABOVE the Antartic Circle thus placing them in the temperate zone.
Actually, they go as far south as 70°S, which is inside the Antarctic circle. Sure, there's also some cooling in the core of Antactica and on the Antactic circle, but the periphery of the continent has mostly been warming up.

According to your temperature graph with the dots, it has shown a relative cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere up around the Artic Circle.
It shows cooling around the Labrador Sea and Baffin's Bay, some points very far up north in Siberia and a few spots in Canada. It has shown significant warming up in Scandinavia, Jan Mayen, Iceland and some of Siberia, Alaska and Canada. Maybe you can say it's been 50-50 areawise, but if we look at the size of the dots, you'll notice that the red dots are bigger than the blue dots.

That's because we don't know that much about how our planet operates. Not even scientists with degrees could tell you the natural events of things.
And yet you're absolutely sure it's natural.

Im absolutely sure that man's activities has had little or no appreciable affect on the total greenhouse gas amount.

Nothing you have posted or said has proven anything different.

1) Volcanic activity is the number 1 damager of the ozone and global temperature even second is bacterial respiration as you can see we may not be helping but if we stop it would hardly make a difference maybe a year at most

2) we are only guessing what is damaging the ozone by the increase trend in temperature that has been along the lines of our industrialization

3) the Earth goes though natural cycles of temperature change the increase in heat is caused by the volcanoes and nature and the decrease in temperature is caused when volcanic activity stabilizes causing periods of mini ice ages as the gases in the air are absorbed into the sea/forests

4) the Earth has never been on a strait orbit around the Sun the last ice age was caused by the Earth being farther away from the Sun!

5) the increasing freak weather is also being caused by the Moon drifting away from Earth at about a millimetre a year

6) if we forced China and India to sign the Kyoto agreement it would destroy there industrial sectors causing wide spread unemployment these workers would flood into the agricultural sector which in the far east is mainly rice which is a horrible polluter it would also cause worse poverty which they could probly not pull themselves out of

Dude, do you even know what "trend" means? Seriously.

Yes I do. If you look on your own graph, you would see the warming and cooling trends. If you look at the years and do the math, that would indicate that we are nearing a time when the temperatures are about to start cooling off.

Actually, they go as far south as 70°S, which is inside the Antarctic circle. Sure, there's also some cooling in the core of Antactica and on the Antactic circle, but the periphery of the continent has mostly been warming up.


Take a look on your own maps. Those dots are ABOVE the antartic circle. Not below it. The periphery is either just, and I mean just below or above the antartic circle. The further south you go however, the temperatures have been shown to be on a decrease. If Antartica is getting colder, that pretty much ends this debate.

It shows cooling around the Labrador Sea and Baffin's Bay, some points very far up north in Siberia and a few spots in Canada. It has shown significant warming up in Scandinavia, Jan Mayen, Iceland and some of Siberia, Alaska and Canada. Maybe you can say it's been 50-50 areawise, but if we look at the size of the dots, you'll notice that the red dots are bigger than the blue dots.

Actually those dots are on the scandanavian peninsula and they were blue dots. Nice try buddy but that was what I saw.

And yet you're absolutely sure it's natural.

Abosulately. It is natural. Your own graphs have indicated that it is natural.

Excuse me but it HAS been scientifically proven that the greenhouse effect exists, therefore the global warming is caused by it.

See, you made a nice mistake of logic there. You're right of course. It has been proven that the greenhouse effect exists. It has not been shown that it is the primary cause of global temperature changes. Nor has it been shown that human produced greenhouses are the key cause of global temperature changes. In fact it has been shown that non human causes are vastly more powerful (ie, earth's orbit. Moon's. H20 vapor, volcanic activity etc...). As such the second have of your sentice is most defintely wrong.

The natural cycle you are talking about also exists, but it usually happens over a period of many centuries when not millenia. The warming of the last 50 years is too high to be justified with this argument.

Actually the natural cycle occurs over a period of 100k years or so. It is a general trend with plenty of sharp rises and falls. Allow me to demonstrate. 1, 2, 8, 4, 12, 6, 7, 9, 15, 25, 17, 17, 18, 21, 50, 24. That little series of numbers is only a change of 1.4 per number. Yet there are swings as large as 29 at a time. Why? Long period of time. Large swings. Small change. Global temperature can be seen the same way. Over long periods of time it is a gradual change. Over short periods it can be sharp and choppy.

And denying the existance of the greenhouse effect will surely not help the planet. If you want, sit down and do nothing waiting for the next cooling cycle, believing that the pollution we cause has no consequnces on nothing and who says it does only leftist propaganda. In the mentime, disasters like the one of New Orleans will occur more and more.

And denying the existance of the greenhouse effect will surely not help the planet. If you want, sit down and do nothing waiting for the next cooling cycle, believing that the pollution we cause has no consequnces on nothing and who says it does only leftist propaganda. In the mentime, disasters like the one of New Orleans will occur more and more.

Uh right.

Why not cut the CO2 emissions, which have doubled in the last 100 years (the years of the global industrialisation, only a coincidence?) instead?

Because it makes up an extremely small part of the effect and has historically been at levels hundreds of times what it is currently at.

I add that water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, has a property of self-regulation, this means that there are natural mechanisms which regulate the presence of it in the atmosphere. Also CO2 has something similar, but the artificial growth of it is putting the physical equilibrium to a severe risk.
Not to mention the completely artificial greenhous gases like CFC which have NO self-regulation mechanism and therefore remain in the atmosphere forever.
And last but not least, although water vapor is quantitatively the first GG, it's "mirror-effect" on the radiations is one of the smoothest (if not the smoothest) of the GG

Enviormentalist myth #1 "The earth self-regulates"

No, no it doesn't. There have been multiple periods of mass extinctions, brought on by natural causes. The earth throws itself 'out of whack' without any help from us. There is also no physical equilibrium. The Earth is dynamic and constatly changing and would laugh at the concept of equilibrium.

Yeah, this is indeed the greater risk, because the majority of the Western Countries (sadly not all, and sadly not the biggest one) have alòready made big steps in the right direction.
India and China are now at the stage we were in the early 20th century; but toghether they are 3 times bigger than USA and Europe

Uh, the US (the biggest one) has taken many very large steps to reduce CO2 emissions. It simply didn't buy into giving China and India (which were happy to sign Koyoto. It didn't affect them at all) a free pass.

The fault is of the men, and this is good. Because we can do something.
If it was the sun, we would be lost.

Hahaha AHH HAHAHA. What an ego you have.

Excuse me but it HAS been scientifically proven that the greenhouse effect exists, therefore the global warming is caused by it..

The Greenhouse effect has been shown exist,but there is no way to show how much it could influence global temperatures.Just guesses.A graph that shows the planet is getting hotter proves only one thing - that the planet is getting hotter.It dosn't tell you why.
That human activity is responsible is just a theory.


The natural cycle you are talking about also exists, but it usually happens over a period of many centuries when not millenia. The warming of the last 50 years is too high to be justified with this argument.

There are plenty of cases throughout history when the climate changed dramatically over a short space of time.In fairly modern times there was a mini- ice age in northern europe - the river thames in london was frozen solid,people could walk around on it.I'm not from london but as far as I know,that dosnt happen very often. :p

I'm not saying pollution is ok,but there is nothing concrete to prove modern climate change is anything different from what's been going on here for millions of years.

ok all you science deniers, i have a challenge for you. i dare you to find a single peer reviewed article on climate change that disagrees with the so-called 'scientific consensus' as expressed in the ipcc report. in fact, i double dare you.

ok all you science deniers, i have a challenge for you. i dare you to find a single peer reviewed article on climate change that disagrees with the so-called 'scientific consensus' as expressed in the ipcc report. in fact, i double dare you.

Why are you saying that we are denying science when infact we are using science, as well as history, to disprove the notion regarding what certian people o n here have been saying?

I have not seen any studies on either side that seem to be unbiased. It seems to me that the researchers involved have thier own opinion, and then go in search eveidnece to prove thier theory, ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit.

The idea that mankind is going to destroy the planet seemed to start with the book Silent Spring, which was written in the late sixties.

It seems to me that this is more of a political argument than a scientific one.

Why are you saying that we are denying science when infact we are using science, as well as history, to disprove the notion regarding what certian people o n here have been saying?

then you should have absolutely no problem at all providing peer reviewed articles on the science of climate change to support your contentions. in fact, it should be trivially easy. so let's see 'em.

then you should have absolutely no problem at all providing peer reviewed articles on the science of climate change to support your contentions. in fact, it should be trivially easy. so let's see 'em.
www.junkscience.com

then you should have absolutely no problem at all providing peer reviewed articles on the science of climate change to support your contentions. in fact, it should be trivially easy. so let's see 'em.

Sorry but it isn't up to me to prove that global warming exists or not. That was left up to the people that have been trying to prove it and haven't succeeded yet.

There is no proof that we are the cause of it. At least not from any reliable sources. As someone previously stated: "I have not seen any studies on either side that seem to be unbiased. It seems to me that the researchers involved have thier own opinion, and then go in search eveidnece to prove thier theory, ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit." (Gun Toting Civilians)

Gun here is absolutely correct in his assumptions. I do believe however that it is a natural cycle. How can I prove this? Well the graphs that have been originally posted is a good start in that regard. It has shown warming and cooling trends during various years.

I have not seen any studies on either side that seem to be unbiased. It seems to me that the researchers involved have thier own opinion, and then go in search eveidnece to prove thier theory, ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit.

and you base this idea on what? a careful review of the relevant peer reviewed literature, perhaps? and if so, would you care to cite some articles from ye olde 'other side'?

and you base this idea on what? a careful review of the relevant peer reviewed literature, perhaps? and if so, would you care to cite some articles from ye olde 'other side'?
Or he could be just like you... ignore any evidence that contradicts the firmament that is your belief system.

There is no proof that we are the cause of it. At least not from any reliable sources.

like, for example the ipcc report?

"The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability... The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing of the climate system... The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm

"Human activities—primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover—are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents or properties of the surface that absorb or scatter radiant energy... In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/022.htm

and out of 928 peer-reviewed articles published between 1993 and 2003 that a recent review published in science* looked at by using searching for the keyword phrase 'global climate change', not a single damn one of them disagreed with the ipcc's conclusion.

so what reputable sources were you thinking of exactly? or are you just trying to cower behind the word 'proof', knowing full well science doesn't deal in proof at all?


*Naomi Oreskes, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004

To everyone who posts the increasing graphs of temperature v time from 1800 to present.

BECAUSE WE KEPT ACCURATE, ALL-ENCOMPASSING GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS IN 1890!

Sorry, but I had to make that point. Even today, perhaps the best measure of temperature is from satellite sources. I heard somewhere that satellites indicate, if anything, a slight downward trend. Wish I could find that source.

Not that this means Hummers rock (in fact, they quite suck), but nevertheless. It's not clear-cut as a theory, data is speculative, and for god's sake don't use it as an alarmist excuse to push forward personal agendas, as some are doing.

www.junkscience.com

Yes, lets post sites with such an obvious bias trying to push their agenda, that will certainly get things done. I mean, it's not like the other side cited NASA or anything...*COUGHACTUALLYTHEYDIDCOUGH*

I heard somewhere that satellites indicate, if anything, a slight downward trend.

"After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm

Yes, lets post sites with such an obvious bias trying to push their agenda, that will certainly get things done. I mean, it's not like the other side cited NASA or anything...*COUGHACTUALLYTHEYDIDCOUGH*
let's see... the IPCC.... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's whole purpose is global warming as a result of human activity. Can't get any more bias than that.

"After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm

x_X

Well, anyway. So much for that vague recollection. It's quite hard to accurately track global temperature - even with satellites, I suppose - isn't it a bit odd that those graphs show data from 1890?

let's see... the IPCC.... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's whole purpose is global warming as a result of human activity. Can't get any more bias than that.

don't lie. it's whole purpose was to review the lit and present a comprehensive picture of our current knowledge on the subject and its implications.

seriously, let's see some peer reviewed journal articles that disagree with the ipcc consensus view. put up or shut up.

"After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm

And how do we know they are not just saying this because the satellite data debunks what they have been saying?

Gun here is absolutely correct in his assumptions. I do believe however that it is a natural cycle. How can I prove this? Well the graphs that have been originally posted is a good start in that regard. It has shown warming and cooling trends during various years.Now, while you are entitled to your opinion, let me state that it is incredibly dangerous. Let's assume you are right but the world attempts to prevent global warming. Worst things that can happen are rising gas prices, a couple less jobs because of emmissions restrictions, and cars that are more expensive.
In the case that you are wrong and the world does not attempt to remedy global warming, however, the worst that can happen is almost unimaginable. You can kiss most coastal towns goodbye, watch deserts spread everywhere and all sorts of climatic disasters from hurricanes to droughts or floods cause massive destruction.
Prudence calls for acknowledging that global warming is influenced by human beings and attempting to deal with it before it's too late. If we followed your opinion and it turned out to be wrong, things will look very grim indeed.

And how do we know they are not just saying this because the satellite data debunks what they have been saying?

firstly because it was a single bit of evidence that was drastically different from all the other ones, which tends to mean something is up with the one, rather than the many others.

secondly, because 3 seperate papers that recently underwent peer-review that each arrived at that conclusion. science in action, ya know.

oh, and because the people who discovered the discrepancy in the first place find these papers convincing.

i tell you, you science deniers eventually have to argue like creationists. there is no ground for you to stand on here. so its off to claiming that there is some incredibly massive conspiracy involving every scientist who publishes relevant material in peer-reviewed journals, and some sort of well concealed coverup of the truth™ involving reality itself.

don't lie. it's whole purpose was to review the lit and present a comprehensive picture of our current knowledge on the subject and its implications.

seriously, let's see some peer reviewed journal articles that disagree with the ipcc consensus view. put up or shut up.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
http://www.john-daly.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166150,00.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
http://www.john-daly.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166150,00.html

Somehow, "Fox News" and "peer-reviewed" wont sit together in my head... Peers of Rupert Murdoch, possibly.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
http://www.john-daly.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166150,00.html

so i should just assume that you have no idea how science works or what the phrase 'peer reviewed journal articles' means, right?

cause here's the thing. climate scientists who actually do science by conducting experiments and publishing them in peer-reviewed journals seem to uniformly come up with results consistent with the ipcc consensus. people who disagree with the ipcc consensus findings appear to not do any relevant science at all and operate entirely through the media. they seem to employ the same strategies that creationists do to convince people who don't know much about science that there is some sort of scientific controversy, rather than a couple of people throwing a temper-tantrum and screaming 'waaaaaah, dun wanna!'

my challenge to you is to provide evidence that these people actually are doing science within the major institution of scientific knowledge, peer-reviewed journals. so hop to it already.

I could have written your response for you, knowing how you would respond.

I would have summed it up better tho...
"No matter what you post or site, since I don't agree with it, it's hogwash"

Isn't it you who likes to throw around the term "science denier"?

Somehow, "Fox News" and "peer-reviewed" wont sit together in my head... Peers of Rupert Murdoch, possibly.
Didn't bother to look at it, did you?

I could have written your response for you, knowing how you would respond.

I would have summed it up better tho...
"No matter what you post or site, since I don't agree with it, it's hogwash"

Isn't it you who likes to throw around the term "science denier"?

He asked for peer-reviewed journals, making it very clear that he will accept evidence from peer-reviewed journals. You are correct in a way, as articles denying human impact on the climate are never found in peer-reviewed journals, and instead stick to the media where they don't have to worry about scientific standards.

Didn't bother to look at it, did you?

the fox article essentially says "there were these three peer-reviewed articles that we don't like the conclusions of. we found some 'prominent climatologists' who will disagree with them on record. we won't bother to wait for their ideas to go through peer review, we'll just report them as if they are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. wah wah waaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

the fox article essentially says "there were these three peer-reviewed articles that we don't like the conclusions of. we found some 'prominent climatologists' who will disagree with them on record. we won't bother to wait for their ideas to go through peer review, we'll just report them as if they are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. wah wah waaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Exactly. I had in fact read it, and that's how the whole climate "debate" is portrayed. Quote one or two climatologists and attempt to give the impression that the scientific community is divided in some kind of equal way, when there are just a handful on one side.