and don't forget What Is To Blame For Increased Global Warming questions and answers!
Resolved Question: Is Obama a Marxist?.?
???
What do you think?
I found this guys post somewhere and I think it sums it up...
Obama is a modern-day Marxist.
Castro and Obama share many of the same values and principles for the country's economy:
1. Redistribute the country's wealth - Marxism 101
2. Grow the size of the government - Create new departments dedicated to supporting Item 1
3. Blame greedy American corporations for the pains of the US and the rest of the world
4 Increase taxes on those already paying the largest percentage and total amount. The top 1% already pay 39% of all taxes.
5 Nationalize healthcare
6 Campaign on a principle based on appealing to the lower income 50% of the US to despise the rich and convince 45% of the other half that their life is miserable so that once convinced of their doom and gloom, they will support the doomsayer and will want bigger government
7. Convince the public, that America is perceived as evil, thus, hated by the rest of the world.
8. Abandon America's principle of helping the world rid itself of dictatorships, thus, put our weapons down, throw our arms up, and retreat in shame from Iraq.
9. Support dictatorships throughout the world and elevate them to be recognized by the US as worthy leaders that need to be heard without preconditions - legitimize them
10. Grow the support base by expanding the lowest income class in the country by increasing and broadening entitlements; however, add to that the importation of poverty into the United States by giving Amnesty to well over 20 million illegal aliens in the country. Furthermore, promote this policy in order to attract even more illegal immigration prior to the granting of the amnesty in order to achieve the highest number of "new, uneducated, government-dependent poor class", I call the "new poor".
11. Dictate to Americans that they should be ashamed for using 25% of the world's energy while only having 3% of the population and that A/C thermostats in should be set at higher than 72 degrees.
12. Give up America's sovereignty for the "good of the world" and to save the planet from "global warming" by supporting new treaties on international boundaries, not drilling in ANWR or offshore, but standing by while Castro plans to drill off the Florida coast.
13. Campaigning on a message of "change", because it sounds good.
moreResolved Question: Another sign of global warming?
Or "climate control", as Obama called it last night, revealing the true (and impossible goal) of liberals?
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
High snowfall and cold weather to blame.
A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.
http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm
moreResolved Question: What's primarily causing global warming - humans, the sun, or we don't know?
It seems that deniers are reverting back to blaming the sun for the recent global warming (approximatly 0.5°C over the past 30 years). Yet according to the Max Planck institute, solar irradiance has not increased over the past 70 years. Satellite data confirms this lack of solar output increase over the past 30 years.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
Most scientific studies attribute just 0-10% of the recent warming to solar effects, and no study has attributed more than one-third of this warming to the sun. Yet we continue to see people trying to argue that the sun is to blame.
Then there are some deniers - often the same ones who blame the sun - who say we basically don't know anything about global warming, including what's causing it.
Then of course there's the vast majority of climate scientists who disagree with both these statements, who say that humans are the primary cause of the current warming.
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
And these scientists actually publish research to support their claims, amazingly enough. For example:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsvgW.yxjm.fll_aeYxXNQfty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080930100924AAUaUwM
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/30/study-suns-contribution-to-recent-warming-is-negligible/
So what's your answer? What's the main cause of the recent global warming, and why do you think so?
moreResolved Question: How many people actually know the scientific facts behind Global Warming?
I am starting to wonder, how many people out there actually know the facts about Global Warming, and how many are just operating based upon whatever they hear from the media or Hollywood. I think it's great that people are taking measures to respect the ONLY home we have, but are they equipped with the facts in order to make the best decisions on how to care for our planet? I'm annoyed at the fact, this issue is getting blown out of proportion and people think it's the start of Doomsday...and I get really annoyed at catch phrases such as "go-green", because it seems more like a fashion statement to people who want to appear "Holier Than Thou", driving around in their Prius. Has anyone else heard of these facts listed below? Or has anyone heard facts that might invalidate the ones below?
Here are some unbiased facts I just read in a Science Magazine, who also shares it's information with other notable Science Magazines such as Nature Geosicence:
1. Global Warming is really happening. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the average global surface temp. has risen approximately 1.2*F since 1880. (Please note that this fact doesn't tell us the cause of the increase.)
2. NASA reported that the average number of major hurricanes (categories 4 and 5) has doubled since 1970. HOWEVER, when you calculate the average of all hurricanes, you find much less of an increase. In fact, the year 2007 saw a decrease in hurricanes. So, NASA's fact is true, but it doesn't tell the whole truth. Yes bad hurricanes have doubled, but the number of hurricanes altogether has decreased. (Note that this information does not provide us with a cause for why hurricanes are stronger but less frequent.)
3. Since the Ice Age (both Scientists and Creation Scientists believe there was once an Ice Age), the earth's temps have fluctuated by only a few degrees. 900-1300 AD was considered a "warm period", followed by a "little ice age" from 1300-1880 AD, when the overall temps dropped about 2*F. These relatively recent fluctuations can be correlated to natural changes, such as volcanic eruptions and cycles in the sun's radiation. (When the earth receives more energy from the sun, the earth gets warmer.) It is logical to assume that similar factors continue to have some influence on today's global warming.
4. CO2 gases are in the earth's atmosphere that regulate temperature by holding in heat from the sun, and as such these gases are necessary for life. The primary greenhouse gas, which is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, is water vapor. Carbon dioxide, which comes second to water vapor amongst the greenhouse gases, provides only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect. So, yes, pumping more CO2 into the air is not great, but it isn't the sole cause of warming. (The oceans and volcanoes release more CO2 into the atmosphere, that humans combined....the warmer the oceans, the more CO2 is released. So, perhaps the warming temps are RESULTING in more greenhouse gas.)
5. Polar Bears are actually currently thriving. Receding glaciers, melting ice caps and other changes are, of course, likely to affect a variety of animal and plant species. But, based on the fossil record, it appears that many species, such as the Miohippus and the woolly mammoth, flourished in the changing climates at one point, but eventually went extinct. Humans clearly had nothing to do with these climate changes and extinctions. According to some climate models, which use current data and a variety of assumptions to predict future climate patterns, several plant and animal species could go extinct by 2050 due to climate change. Currently, there are no documented extinctions resulting from global warming.
6. www.stopglobalwarming.com claims that the ocean level will rise only 6 feet in the next hundred years, but they have yet to present the scientific evidence to back up their claim. Based on the climate models, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, estimates that ocean levels will rise approx. 16 inches during this century. While this could result in many inconveniences without proper planning, it's certainly not the end of the world due to flooding.
7. Global Warming has been blamed for an increase of weather catastrophes. First of all, when has extreme weather been out of the ordinary? Secondly, only recently did scientists gain weather documenting tools and avanced satellite equipment to record and document modern weather events, that could have gone unrecorded in the past. That makes it pretty difficult to validate whether these events have been increasing. According to the journal Nature Geoscience, major hurricanes increasing in recent decades is not a result from Global Warming and are estimated to decrease by the end of the century. There really is not sufficient evidence to clearly identify Global Warming as the cause of extreme weather events.
I do feel we need
moreVoting Question: I need to save this !!!!!!!!!!?
Carbon: The Building Block of life and the Cause of Global Warming
Dangerous phenomenon have been occurring everywhere on our planet. Is it a work of Mother Nature or is it the work of humans? Global Warming is a serious threat to every form of life. However scientists are still debating whether it’s a natural factor of life or if we humans are the cause for this occurrence. Many experts conclude that Global Warming is caused by drastic changes in our every day lives such as the increased use of cars, the destruction of trees, and the growing amount of factories that emit pollution such as CO2 gases. Others believe it is a supposed to happen. Who or what is the cause for Global Warming.
Rising Tides is an outcome of Global Warming and it’s the first article by Bob Herbert. Herbert explains the chilling fact that the climate has drastically changed throughout the seasons. Another effect of Global Warming that he stated was that the vast amount of melting glaciers such as a gigantic ice fragment of the Larsen Ice Shelf. These effects have a devastating toll on all life. The melting of ice causes enormous flooding, the changing of season causes insects to emerge earlier, and the artificial increase of temperature causes droughts. You might think our newfound technology such as air conditioners are able to deal with these new changes, but how will the homeless kids living in South Africa, or Panda Bears roaming around China, deal with this problem? Herbert concludes that the problem is here, and is impossible to ignore. He believes that the major factors of this emerging problem are the industrial societies, who carelessly consume natural resources and release green house gases. Herbert states that this problem is growing and that it is the time to stop it. As he pointed out, “Carbon dioxide doesn't just float away in a day or two. It remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.” Herbert states all the dangers of Global Warming that are impossible to ignore.
Contrast to Herbert’s opinion, Robert Cooke believes Global Warming is a system that cannot be prevented or stopped. He points out that we have only discovered this problem when we started to monitor our planet’s health, about 40 years ago. How are we to know that this isn’t a natural stage of our planet? As Cooke stated, “Tests in sediments and ice cores show that the world’s temperature has been higher in the past and, of course, sometimes lower during ice ages.” This means that maybe our temperatures are not unexpected, but it still does not hide the problems of changing temperatures. Cooke also pointed out a new factor, winds, that effect the melting of ice. Cooke followed with evidence and details of how the ice melts. Still, he ignored how rising tides are a big crisis. In addition to that, Cooke did not answer other problems such as the warming of the planet or the natural disasters not regarding the melting of ice. Also, he did not answer the outcomes of Global warming, even if he believes it’s not real. He tries to persuade us by saying Global Warming is not real, but had no hardy facts against what we already know is happening.
In conclusion, Herbert’s article sounded less logical and less clear, but Cooke’s article did not address all the facts of Global Warming. Therefore, we believe Herbert’s article is well-made because it provides most of the details of the topic. Herbert also lists the risks of Global Warming if we continue to ignore it compared to Cooke, who knows about the problems, but does not blame it on humans. The trouble is, the threat is here, and there must be a reason for it. Though both arguments deal with the cause of Global Warming, Herbert’s statements are more reasonable and easier to believe. In his situation, we can actually do something about Global Warming.
moreResolved Question: Are we really the culprits behind Earth's increase in temperature in the past century?
Earth's climate has fluctuated naturally over the past 650 million years. The past century has just been a tiny speck in such a large time frame. Are we really to blame for Earth's warming?
Please provide scientific proof here. To make things clearer, I firmly believe in global warming. However, I just realised that this is one question which I cannot answer, so I am seeking your help.
moreResolved Question: It seems to me that nobody asks the right questions.?
"Global warming" is the wrong choice of words and "climate change" should be more universally used, but does a change in verbage change the facts?
The facts about whether human influence has anything to do with it will rage on forever. The planet warmed and cooled long before humans were ever involved. Species went extinct at much more alarming rate before the advent of humans, yet we blame ourselves whenever it happens (maybe it was just time).
Plain and simple, whichever term you use (global warming or climate change), it is nothing more than a ploy at global domination of energy and a chance to increase the size of government through the taxation of "energy credits".
moreResolved Question: If Global Warming wasn't taught in the government schools?
would you notice any difference in the climate?
Global warming is blamed for increasing temperatures 1.6 degrees over the last 100 years. If you're 25 years old, that's just 0.4 degree increase over your lifetime.
How would you notice any change if your government schools didn't tell you?
What changes have you actually observed in your lifetime?
moreResolved Question: The sun and global warming?
Finishing up on Dana's question on the sun here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlDL4qtFg1yCgUGN8xNf40Psy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080812141634AA1SRcI&show=7#profile-info-20f3291b9320a302e9070bf55325531daa
I didn't get a chance to respond to his response, so
"bob326 - Meehl states 'radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases is dominant for the response in the late twentieth century' and discusses solar amplified by anthropogenic effects."
Wrong paper. The climate commitment study I was speaking of was:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5716/1769
And yes, I know Meehl agrees with AGW theory and the study is about GHGs, but if you can think past that you can learn how even fixed forcing agents (meaning the sun in this case) can influence temperatures for centuries to come.
"Also, there is no 30 year solar lag. Thus a significant fraction of the recent warming cannot be blamed on the Sun, even by your own citations."
Of course there is no 30 year solar lag, but that isn't what I was arguing, and if you had read my post you would have understood that. I will repeat what was in my post: After the plateau in solar activity, most of the temperature response should occur in the first few decades, although arguably, that response was delayed by the causes of the midcentury cooling (aerosols, ocean circulations, etc..). All forcing agents, including CO2, have trouble explaining the mid-century cooling without bringing aerosols into the equation, and solar is no different.
Now onto the question: We are starting to find out that solar irradiance varies much less than previously thought (see J Leans earlier work vs. Svalgaard's more recent reconstruction), and yet we are very certain that these small changes in irradiance along with other solar variables can produce large changes in Earth temperatures and climate through a complex set of feedbacks. Much of this process is poorly understood.
So, given our level of understanding, can we be so sure that the sun isn't playing a larger role than the IPCC assigns it?
gcnp,
Solar magnetic activity and material output (like solar cosmic rays) both track pretty well with irradiance, and all together can have profound impacts on the hydrological cycle, air currents, ocean currents, etc. Like I said before, such variables and their impact on climate are poorly understood, and are not similar to retained energy from extra CO2.
UV as well.
Bob wrote
"Against that you're trying to say there are unknown effects of solar irradiance on ocean currents, etc. Why pick an unknown effect over a known one?"
I am not picking anything. I am asking how we can be sure that the sun isn't playing a larger part in the recent warming, based on our current level of understanding.
"A final refutation of the idea is that solar irradiance was going down, while temperatures were going up. The mechanism for that effect would be a doozy."
If you use ACRIM, solar irradiance continues to go up. But that small increase isn't what I am talking about, it is the large increase prior to 1950. Based on climate commitment studies, such an increase should contribute to rising temperatures for centuries to come.
The Lockwood and Frohlich paper you continually cite does not tackle the whole issue, and therefore, does not answer my question.
"Maybe not, but given our/your level of understanding regarding GHG, can we/you be so sure that GHG isn't playing a larger role than the IPCC assigns is?"
That is certainly a possibility, but it isn't the question.
"Climate is complex and nobody knows it all. But from the GHG-theory which IS understood, I think it would be wise to not just "wait and see", considering the possible consequences."
I agree, and that is why I advocate action, including largescale mitigation and adaptation strategies. This allows me to discuss the actual science, without getting into the political and environmental aspects, which is how it should be.
Bob wrote
"The warming effect of CO2 is a basic physical property of CO2. A simple physics model of CO2 gives temperature increases in the ballpark of what we're seeing. More complicated models are used simply because they more accurately describe the temperature increase."
No matter how suggestive the GHG concentration curves are to the naked eye relative to the plateau in solar activity, without positive feedbacks, anthropogenic GHGs can only account for less than a third of the recent warming. Credible attribution of the rest of the ~0.85 W/m2 energy imbalance requires models that can reproduce the observed solar response, and have a much better “match” to the climate than current models.
Bob wrote
"But the data shows that solar changes CANNOT be a major factor in the warming of the last 30 years."
No, the data does not.
"in fact, they have had a small negative effect on warming recently. Lockwood and Frohlich are one of a number of papers that have demonstrated that."
The title of L&F's paper hinges on which dataset you use. PMOD shows a slight negative trend, while ACRIM shows a slight positive trend, but even with PMOD's negative trend, the sun could still cause warming.
Jazzfan wrote
"Photons are not behind the model Svensmark published, gamma radiation from outside our solar system is, which excludes our sun as the direct culprit."
I am not promoting Svensmark's theory, which personally, I believe to contain many flaws.
Dana wrote
"and the radiative forcing is more than an order of magnitude smaller than that from CO2 alone"
The radiative forcing from TSI is an order of magnitude smaller. That isn't the whole issue and I have mentioned a number of other potential solar forcings.
"So you don't have specific mechanisms. All you have are speculative hypotheses that don't have much in the way of empirical validation. "
Of course I don't have a specific mechanism.
"but arguing CO2 isn't important is, at this point, purely emotional denial, not rational skepticism."
That isn't what I am arguing, gcnp, and you would do well to read my posts and respond to them rather than tackling your very own strawman.
"I understand that skeptics hate the notion their lifestyle is a problem. I hate the idea as well, and furthermore, I don't see any rational solutions to the problem, but you won't find me accepting irrational, ill-considered nonsense masquerading as honest objections just to quell my guilt or justify inaction."
Oh come of it, gcnp. Again, if you would have read my post, you would see that I am for action, including largescale mitigation and adaptation strategies. I can still discuss the science, can't I?
"CO2 is affecting the radiative balance of the planet and that is changing climate. "
Of course. I don't disagree with this at all. My question was: based on current level of understanding, can we be so sure that the sun isn't playing a larger part than the IPCC assigns it?
Your post here, gcnp, has been one big strawman argument. I still agree that CO2's role is significant, I still agree that we need to take action. Nowhere in my post did I argue against either of those, and yet, for some reason you seem to think I did. Absurd.
Bob's post was more useful. Mostly wrong, but more useful.
"EDIT2 - 'even with PMOD's negative trend, the sun could still cause warming.'
How?"
The PMOD trend has only been slightly negative, and is still at unusually high levels. A simple comparison would be: you put a pot of water on the stove, and turn it up to high, wait a minute, and then turn the stove down to medium-high. The pot of water continues to warm, yes? It takes the oceans centuries to reach equilibrium, and as long as solar levels remain at unusually high levels as they have, we will continue to see warming.
moreResolved Question: How can people blame the recent global warming on the Sun?
Total solar irradiance has not increased on average over the past 30 years as global temperatures have risen 0.5°C.
http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig9_web.jpg
The upper atmosphere has cooled rapidly over that period.
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/
And the planet is warming more during the night than during the day.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtemX?mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=1&bye1=1880&eye1=2006&graph=Lineplot&klu=1&dat=GHCNX&mon2=00&bye2=00&eye2=00&mon3=00&ye=00¶m=Temperature&proce=80&puzo=0&ts=6&non=1&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&sbeX=0&sbeY=0&senX=71&senY=35
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-2.htm
Considering these facts, how can 'skeptics' justify blaming the Sun for the recent global warming?
BB - see the second link, which contains satellite data showing a 0.17°C warming trend in the lower troposphere. Satellites and surface stations agree.
...that's 0.17°C per decade
Tomcat - Scafetta&West do indeed include feedbacks. In fact, their calculations are based on a poor estimate of climate sensitivity (one of the flaws in their paper).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/
bob326 - Meehl states "radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases is dominant for the response in the late twentieth century" and discusses solar amplified by anthropogenic effects.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/16/3/pdf/i1520-0442-16-3-426.pdf
Also, there is no 30 year solar lag. Thus a significant fraction of the recent warming cannot be blamed on the Sun, even by your own citations.
moreResolved Question: Where can I read the "White House Report" on GW?
http://www.yahoo.com/s/903298
This video says that the White House just released a report saying that GW has caused the epic midwest flooding. Where is the report?
I understand that global warming is expected to increased heavy precipitation in areas, but this video makes it sound like the White House report directly blames the midwest flooding on GW.
Can anyone help me find the report?
Just as I suspected.ABC should not have said what they did. They intentionally made it seem that the report directly blames the midwest floods on GW, in fact this is exactly what they said in no uncertain terms.
moreResolved Question: Why would you trust Science instead of GOD about our Climate Change?
When there is so much Junk and whacked out theroies whey are climate is changing
here's a few
Now it might be insects..
A scientist from Pennsylvania State University who uses fossil records from the time of the dinosaurs to build a break picture of our future survival. Insects and climate change are to blame.
Fossil records from around 55 million years ago apparently show a sudden increase in CO2 concentrations within the atmosphere and a corresponding explosion in insect activity.
MT BEST, AUSTRALIA--(Marketwire - June 17, 2008) - New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.
The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.
Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming
His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use compact fluorescent lightbulbs
The Bible clearly tells us what will happen on earth before the return of Jesus this is the one that is only holding water..
Thoughts?
moreResolved Question: Whom to blame on certain issues? Who can we believe?
We have the economy up first: Democrate blame the war, and oil prices on the Republicans; and Republicans blame Dems for the cost of increasing minimum wage being past to the consumer.
The war on terror: Dems blame Reps for poor foriegn affairs; Reps blame Dems for not doing enough to prevent attacks.
The enviroment: Dems blame Reps for not doing enough to prevent man-made global warming; and Reps blame Dems for catering to enviromental lobbist to push forth a government agenda to regulate big buisness.
There are so many issues to deal with, but most common people blame the president. This is both ignorant and dense! There is a house, a senate and an executive office to deal with these issues. It's called check and balances, but for some reason people only see the president; and blame him while the two parties blame each other.
moreResolved Question: Global warming research paper......help?
Global warming is happening now, and scientists have evidence that humans are to blame. Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation. An increase in some greenhouse gases can result in global warming .Too much of a good thing is bad, and too much warming of the lower atmosphere can direct to countless troubles as well. The atmosphere is thin enough that we are capable of changing its composition. In particular, we have increased the amount of carbon dioxide – the most important of greenhouse gases. The layer of the atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of human-caused carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. As it thickens it traps a lot of the infrared radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere and continue out to the universe. As a result, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere – and oceans is getting dangerously warmer. Human activity plays a big role in global warming; burning fossil fuels, clearing rainforests and greater numbers of livestock can throw off the balance of gases in the atmosphere, which can have major effects. [Your introduction gives a good overview of what the essay is going to be. Your thesis statement is clear but do not write it like this. But you could have started with a hook to draw the reader in.]
The sentence in the brackets is what my teacher wrote. How can I "hook" you guys in my intro. and how can I make my thesis statement better?
My thesis statment is:
"An increase in some greenhouse gases can result in global warming .Too much of a good thing is bad, and too much warming of the lower atmosphere can direct to countless troubles as well."
moreResolved Question: Do other readers here think that there has been an increase in natural weather disasters world-wide?
I'm just thinking about the recent three years - The Tsunami in Thailand, Katrina, the cyclone in Myanmar and now the earthquake in China. Additionally, the weather patterns appear more unpredictable and destructive. Is it too simplistic to blame it all on global warming trends due to the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels?
moreResolved Question: Global Warming Fanatics, why not blame the sun?
Since you GW fanatics already have all the answers, can you tell me why the sun is not a major cause in Global Warming?
The sun's cycles are observable and predictable. It's cycles match with tempurature changes, (ie, Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) The sun is the Earth's furnace, if it's output goes up, the room warms, output goes down, room cools.
I read the article on www.livescience.com about how the cosmic ray, cloud formation theory is flawed. But what about the increase, decrease of x-ray, visiable and UV radiation output of the sun? Doesn't that effect our climate dramatically?
I would like to see any data that this does not effect our climate. Since there is and unquestionable consensus amoung scientist, there shouldn't be much trouble explaining this.
moreResolved Question: global warming?...?
...even if we're not the only one to blame...it is true that we are somehow responsible for this... human activities increases the continuing rise of the average global temperature...so any ideas?...
moreResolved Question: Global Warming Believers - can you explain this?
Explain to me how CO2, a NATURAL product of animal respiration is a pollutant?
Also - why is the Sun's activity not to blame for any supposed increase in temperature?
moreResolved Question: Is the Sun responsible for the temperature increase known as "global warming"? Scientific proof?
If you answer yes, what proof do you have that answers these?
"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
News article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
And this study, refuting Svensmark's theory with data.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
Even Foxnews doesn't think so:
"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html
The world is far warmer than it was in the 1920s
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
And CO2 has to have a warming effect (although it can be masked, short term, by other factors). It's basic physics:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/
Of course, when new ideas are proposed, some will dismiss them. This isn't evidence against the global warming science developed for the last 20 years by thousands of scientists. It's evidence that the "skeptics" are the ones with bad judgment, and no facts.
The question cites the scientific proof that it's not the Sun. Here is scientific proof that it's mostly greenhouse gases.
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727
There are many confirming studies, using a variety of methodologies.
When someone says "there is no proof" what they're really saying is "I'm uninformed about the scientific proof of global warming".
The temperature data is well documented and the uncertainties (the green "error bars" in the first graph) well understood.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/
moreResolved Question: The increase is autism is exponential at 10 to 17% per year and we are all worried about a tenth of one degree
According to the CDC autism occurs in as many as 1 in every 150 births. This is an increase from 1 in 2,500 births in 1995. The increase is exponential at 10 to 17% per year. At one time a preservative in children’s vaccines was blamed but the cases kept increasing after AMATEUR MEDICAL EXPERTS WITH LUCRATIVE BOOK DEALS had the offending preservative removed. This could be mankind’s worse nightmare.
Global warming also has AMATEUR WEATHER EXPERTS, SOME WITH BOOK AND MOVIE DEALS, willing to rid society of anything and at any price to correct a problem that is rather trivial compared to what is happening to human babies. We need to prioritize. Couldn’t Al Gore solve the autism epidemic as quickly as he solved the global warming problem? Of course, you could all solve this tomorrow. A lack of practical knowledge is what made you such very fine weather predictors that you'll actually sign your name critizing real meteorologists who have doctored in the science because they are dummies.
moreResolved Question: Can you tell me what you think of my paper?
In my lifetime a subject has come up recently that I personally believe to be false. That subject is ‘Man Caused Global Warming’. This is a topic I wake up to every day, people ralling against companies because they pollute. This Topic of global warming is every were no matter were you go this will follow you. Personally I think that it is only a made up story for a political movement for Al Gore, (like his story about him inventing the internet.) But I will let you decide when you see the other side of the story.
There is no doubt that the Earth’s average temperature has been increasing over the last couple of years, but when the environment activists start blaming it on the CO2 emissions from cars and factories I have a hard time to believe what they’re saying. You can’t take an open system like the earth and take on variable among many to come to a scientific conclusion; you just cannot do that there are other variables involved with the Earths average temperature going up, such as solar activity which has been confirmed to make changes in our weather patterns, and last time I checked solar activity is not in our control. Another variable is change in plant coverage, ground level Ozone, changes in particles from the sun, Genetic changes in ocean algae. These are some of many variables that count in the earths Open System, so an increase in global temperature could possibly be from some natural source. Just last year a scientific study tried to see if the amount of cow farts has mad a difference.
The other fact is that if you pay close attention to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, you will notice his chart with the ‘history of CO2 levels’ on there, look closely at the dates, every time there is a spike in the CO2 level there happens to also be a spike in human population. So if humans are the cause of CO2 levels increasing you can blame it on the new medicines and such, making people live longer and breathing longer, and as we all have learned from 6th grade science class when you exhale you release CO2 into the air. So a solution to that would be nuclear holocaust to eliminate the entire earth population. YEY Al Gore.
One of my last statements is from an article from xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming. On page four of their ten page report about the facts being against global warming they kindly give us a paragraph sating that there is only a 50% that global warming and CO2 levels both increasing have any relation to one another, to some it my be wow 50% that’s a high chance but to others it is like 50% that’s not enough to convince me. I currently have to agree with the latter. The article also states this “If we include proxy measurements, ice core samples- they have CO2 lacking in temperature not increasing it.” Oh just so happens to be something left out of the AGW rhetoric.
This is just a sample of all the information that you can find out there on the political theory (not scientific) of global warming. As we have seen from Open systems with complicating variables, to odds that global warming and CO2 are related, we can tell that statistical data does NOT support man caused global warming and scientific data DOES not man caused global warming.
The only way to have real success in science is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explin what’s good and not good about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. –Richard Feynman (physicist)
moreResolved Question: Humans think that they caused global warming: are we just naturally egotistical?
When the parents of a child seperate, sometimes kids end up blaming themselves (using a twisted logic) for all that went wrong when it was simply just the parents' fault.
Right now, humans blame themselves for global warming although science is showing some positive signs that we are innocent when it comes to the planet heating up. Why do people so easily accept the world is ending because of us, but refuse to accept that it may not be our fault?
****
Polar bears are not going extinct: Dr. Mitchell Taylor of the Artic government of Nunavut says that "11 of the 13 Canadian polar bear populations are stable or increasing in number."
As well, spatial cycles such as the Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Brightness Variation, and Cosmic Ray Fluxes are responsible for global warming.
Another thing, CO2 levels went up 800 years AFTER the temperatures went up. There is no scientific evidence to dispute otherwise.
***
I read the conclusion to that paper suggested. "There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown."<--- "Unknown" being the key word, buddy. What if this unknown factor is amplifying the effects of tiny solar flares that don't seem to mean much to today's scientists?
The Global warming theory is also happening backwards. According to the doom-sayers, the atmosphere should be heating up before the earth/land does. It's happening in opposite: The land is heating before the atmosphere is. Just thought to throw that out there...
And with the polar bears, my point is that global warming is not the cause for their numbers being on the decline: 'harvesting' is. THAT is a totally different subject.
moreResolved Question: Isn't increased snowfall an expected result of global warming?
This is a scientific question, so I don't need to hear deniers complaining about how people blame everything on global warming.
Here is my thinking:
On average global warming causes increased precipitation to fall due to warmer average weather causing more evaporation. In the winter, when temperatures are below freezing, precipitation falls as snow.
On average, an increased global temperature of a fraction of a degree is not going to bring winter temperatures in cold regions above freezing. But it is going to increase evaporation.
Therefore, it seems to me that increased snowfall is an expected result of global warming. However, I don't think I've ever seen this result predicted.
Is my thinking on this issue correct?
zion - to answer your 3 questions:
1) No, increased snowfall in a location where there would already be snowfall would not change the albedo.
2) Yes, until the snow melts it would "sequester" a relatively miniscule amount of water. This is why sea levels are slightly higher in spring/summer than winter.
3) Climate scientists.
moreResolved Question: why are earthquakes increasing in both frequency and strength along with an increase in volcanoe activity?
why are earthquakes increasing in both frequency and strength along with an increase in volcanoe activity around the world over the last ten years specifically and why is global warming blamed on human activity when the same level of warming has now been scietifically proven on all the other planets and moons in our solar system when there are no humans on these planets? Is there another answer to this?
regards
moreResolved Question: Have there been any weather or social phenomena this last decade that are NOT attributable to global warming?
We have heard that global warming has caused hot weather, cold weather, ice melts, increases in ice, more intense hurricanes, more hurricanes, higher water levels, droughts, fires, floods, blizzards, heat waves, penguin deaths, polar bear deaths, frog deaths, social strife, disease, decreases in food supplies, crime, wars, and famine.
So the question is: what can't be blamed on global warming?
Yankee S. I disagree. Global warming caused the snow in New England for the playoff game against the Raiders, leading to Brady fumbling and leading to brain-freeze by the referees. This, in turn, led to the "tuck rule" debacle, which handed the game back to the Pats, allowing them eventually to win their Super Bowl. So without global warming to cause the blizzard, the Pats would not have won it that year.
moreResolved Question: Examining a TSI proxy, how can the Sun possibly be blamed for the current global warming?
Some anthropogenic global warming skeptics have claimed that although Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has remained essentially unchanged as global warming has accelerated rapidly over the past 30 years, the Sun may be responsible due to some sort of delay factor (perhaps related to the oceans' heat storage capacity).
Well examining the best available TSI proxy (from a Lean 2000 paper), the TSI increased from 1910-1950, decreased from 1950-1975, and remained roughly unchanged from 1975-Present.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/tsilean.jpg
Examining the global temperature, it similarly increased from 1910-1940 (aerosol cooling overwhelmed warming effects from 1940-1950), decreased slightly from 1940-1970, and then increased rapidly from 1970-Present.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif
So the global temperature followed the TSI fairly closely for most of the 20th century.
Why is this no longer the case?
I'm not talking about Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory. I'm talking about the theory that the Sun is directly responsible for the current warming.
Flaws in the GCR theory are discussed here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahuxfpv5RzyHSeqsVZ1fxnEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu
moreResolved Question: are conservatives misinformed? are they this misinformed on every issue?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgKjhcNjdWDJLdfcXcGB59vY7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071208170823AAJH4EG
i couldn't believe the answers i got.
"last 100 years . . . temp. increase of 1 degree" whether it sounds so or not, this is incredibly significant. if it was so insignificant, the ice wouldn't be melting, the ph level of the oceans wouldn't be down .5, and a record high number of specie extinctions would not be occuring.
"can't predict the weather two weeks from now" on a microscopice scale, no. we can't get the temp right within .1 degrees, but we get the general temp? yes. this has nothing to do with the global warming argument anyway.
brianthepig's answer was my favorite. he says mars is heating, therefore the sun is to blame. solar levels are on the DECLINE.not only that, but half the planets in the solar system are cooling.all this proves is that we do not have the same atmosphere as mars, and that all planets' environmental conditions aren't not controlled by one factor
“arrogance to presume to understand nature better than nature herself” until mother nature herself learns to speak English fluently, I’m afraid we’re going to depend on our own methods. I’m not even sure if that post warrants this much of a response.
“Well why dont you show us the flawed data that global warming is entirely based on? Why dont you tell us why a British court found the data to be seriously flawed and biased? . . .” the data isn’t flawed. Here’s one piece though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png please disprove it
As for your comment about the british courts: the british courts declared that certain statements in gore’s movie were either inaccurate or not proven. they also said that major premise still stood, and that AGW was a virtual fact. As far as losing grant money: skeptics get paid MORE than advocates. Oil companies fund them. As far as the NAS, I’ve never heard of this study. Please show it to me and I’ll message you privately.
To the guy who mentioned global cooling: that was a minority of scientists. So few there wasn’t even a single commission on the subject. In that case, as in mnay other, the minority was wrong. Right now, the minority is suggesting AGW isn’t real.
slacker: and any degree of warming / cooling is perfectly ok? no!
same answer to jade.
a thirty straight year temperature increase is, by no measure, normal. and to the third poster: no, we aren't sitting pretty. temp levels mimick co2 levels. co2 levels are at an all time high.
ice age = gradual temp decrease over hundreds and thousands of years. what we're going through now is a dramatic increase in temp
moreResolved Question: Danish Space Center blames Global Warming on the Sun. Could they be wrong?
The Danish National Space Center states "Changes in the Sun contribute to climate change. Solar activity has been exceptionally high in the 20th century compared to the last 400 years and possibly compared to the past 8,000 years. When solar activity is high, the flux of galactic cosmic rays is reduced due to increased magnetic shielding by the Sun. The cosmic rays may influence Earths climate"
Here is evidence that says that the suns activity is the highest it's been in the last 8000 years. How could that NOT have any effect on the earths climate?
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
moreResolved Question: Ridiculous' Today Blames Rise of Food Allergies on Global Warming?
'Today' Blames Rise of Food Allergies on Global Warming
Is there any strife in the world the "Today" show isn't going to blame on global warming? Last week NBC's Ann Curry cited climate change a cause of increasing tween stress, this week, "Today's" chief medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman warned global warming has sparked an increase of food allergies.
The following exchange between Snyderman and co-host Meredith Vieira occurred on a segment about the increase of food allergies in women on the October 25 edition of "Today":
Meredith Vieira: "You touched on it briefly in the piece but why are food allergies on the rise, especially with women?"
moreResolved Question: Why do people try to blame these Californian super fires on global warming?
The temperature has only increased one degree on average in the last one hundred years and not at all in the last fifty years. One degree is not enough to cause these super fires. Besides, warmer doesn't instantly mean drier. Al Gore's two computer simulations predicted that this area would be either a flood zone or a desert in the future. Isn't that a bit extreme? If they were accurate, wouldn't the two computer simulations came to closer conclusions? Back to my point though, it is the environmentalist policies, which keeps the government from clearing dense underbrush from state forest and public citizens from clearing dense underbrush on their private property that has caused these fires. This would normally occur through natural forest fires, but since we fight these fires, the forest have built up layer on top of layer of fuel to feed these fires. Am I the only one that thinks we should stop instantly believing outlandish environmentalist claims pushed by the media?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for preserving nature, but we have to be more careful in our actions and I feel that to blame this on global warming is nothing more than shirking responsibility. It's time we realize that these environmentalist have an agenda, just like any other group and any policies they get passed into law, should be viewed with scrutiny.
BIRDGIRL
I don't know what the law is concerning the clearing of underbrush in your area, but from what I have read an environmentalist group called the Sierra Club, pushed and got a bill passed that made it illegal for private citizens and state forest workers to clear underbrush. Here is a link to the first article I came across that talks about it. It isn't my original source and I apologize that I cannot find it again. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/29/article_jj.htm
The law passed by these environmentalist to stop logging also stopped or made illegal the clearing of underbrush. I have heard this more than one place, so I don't believe I am wrong about this, but I could be and I apologize if I am. Warmer does not always mean drier, if it did we would have no tropical zones which are hot and humid. This is why I cite Al Gores computer sim, one claimed that in the future this area could be a flood zone, meaning that while it is getting hotter, it would also become more humid.
What are you talking about when you claim that I am desperate to label people. I call them environmentalist, because that is what they call themselves. How is that a desperate attempt at labeling people? Yes, some people are just ordinary people. These are the people like you. I am talking about the hardcore liberal environmentalist. The reason you assume they don't have an agenda is because you assume they are like you. This is not true, and you need to open your eyes to that. This is why they get away with half the stuff they do. People like you have no idea what they are all about, so no one keeps them in check. "Not sure why you are making a fire a political issue all of the sudden?" I can't believe that you even ask this. IT IS POLITICAL. The cause of this fire, was a bill that was pushed onto becoming law by an extremist environmentalist group. We need to take away the lobbying power of these groups, because they should not have this much influence in politics.
DANA1981
You never cease to amaze me with your answers. Most of the ones I have come across are complete lunacy.
You say, "It's not the temperature change directly, it's the climate change the warming has caused which contributed to conditions which were ripe for a large fire."
Consistently warmer temperature over a period of time is climate change. You cannot say temperature didn't cause this and climate change did because, for the sake of this argument, they are the same thing. Your argument makes no sense. You are still saying, temperature over time made it drier and that resulted in a fire. This is untrue, because the climate has only changed one degree on average in the last One hundred and fifty years and not at all in the last fifty. One degree on average will not make it dry enough to cause a super fire. The bottom line is that it became a super fire, because of the abundant amount of fuel that was just lying around, waiting to be consumed.
moreResolved Question: question for the global warming deniers/skeptics? . . isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
what has caused the warming over the past century?
or do you not think there has been any warming? do the thermometers and ice core samples have a liberal bias?
if you think man is not to blame (or that co2 is not the cause), what do you think the cause is? please use experimental data to back your claim. using only "natural" factors, the earth's temp would have risen .16 centigrades. the observed temp increase was .74 centigrades. this increase is not normal and by no means gradual. when you compare solar output, co2 levels, sulfate levels, etc. (all known factors) up against the temperature increase, the only one that correlates is the co2 graph. some scientists claim that there could be another factor at play (also take note how 99% of them believe AGW is likely), but the scientists have not said what that factor might be. if you don't know the factor either, then are you in agreement with me that man made global warming (by co2) is the only current possible explanation?
also, quick run down of some extra info:
i often hear misinformed people state the 800 year co2 -temperature lag is evidence that co2 is not to blamed. it'd take to long to summarize that argument, so here's the link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
i also once had someone tell me that the sun is to blame. this is not possible. the sun goes through 11 year cycles. we've experience 30 straight years of warming. also, if the sun were to blame, all planets would be warming. they are not
begona, there were a very small number of scientists who believed in that. certainly no consensus. sorry, but your statement is misleading.
and by the why, i'm not looking for silly statements like that. i want you to answer one question and only one question: what has caused the warming? if you can't answer that question, don't answer at all.
moreResolved Question: Do you think these people are nuts?
This morning on the Weather Channel they brought up the fact that 2007 so far, has seen significantly LESS tornados than has been the average of the past 2 or 3 previous years. It was suggested that this was a result of climate change.
I CLEARLY remember seeing on the Weather Channel this spring, as tornado season was starting, Dr. Heidi Cullen said that because of Global Warming, they were expecting to see an INCREASE in tornadic activity.
#1- How can a statistic, which shows a slight change over a small amount of time, be indicative of climate change. I mean- if there were 2,000 tornados last year and only 3 this year, yeah, something is going on. But they are talking about a difference which at best represents normal weather fluctuation and they automatically slap a controversial reason to it.
#2- Why is it that one minute, they decide Global warming will cause MORE storms, but when the exact opposite occurs, the SAME PEOPLE blame it on Global Warming still?
moreResolved Question: Are the IPCC climate change sceptics?
I have been reading the report and it seems to me to be something of a breakthrough for reasonable assessment of climate change.
I mean it says that it is very likely that most of the observed global increase in temperature in the latter half of the twentieth century is due to the anthroprogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
This seems for the first time, they want climatologists to stop blaming the temperate rises in the first half of the 20'th century on CO2 emmissions.
Even sceptics such as myself would agree that changing the contents of the atmosphere would have some effect on climate (not necessarily a large one). Apparently what the IPPC has determined is that the amount of temperature increase caused by human activity over a 50 year period is 90% likely to have exceded 0.3 degrees celcius.
The expectations of the report is for a 2 degree increase in global temperatures over the next 100 years which is lowest end of most global warming predictions.
If you're interested, here's their summary report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf
Nickel
I was considering where they expect the earths temperature to increase at about 0.2 degrees per decade.
You correctly pointed out that the expected temperature change does depend on which scenario you consider as they cannot accurately predict future CO2 emmissions.
"A 2°C warming is an extremely optimistic scenario, according to the IPCC."
Dana, did they use those words or do you just think that thats what they should say instead of what they did say.
The IPCC doesn't need you speaking for them because they are trying to stick to the science and weed out the sensationalism. You are peddling your beliefs. and they are not on your side.
moreResolved Question: Have you seen the 11 inaccuracies found within 'An Inconvenient Truth' by a British court?
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
In order for the film to be shown (in British schools), the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
Are the Brits onto the Libs, are what?!
moreResolved Question: The photosynthesis effect!?
Many people claim that the greenhouse effect is to blame for global warming, but i dont. Now, i do believe that chemicals do play a part in global warming but it is not the main problem. I have a theory that explains whats really causing global warming. The theory is called the photosynthesis effect. It is when the tree and plant population declines and therefore cant absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. So the carbon dioxide stays in our planet causing a tramendious heat increase. But the problem can be solved by replanting trees as well as other plant life, in which would absorb the carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. If venus had plant life then it would probably be cooler as well. What do you think about the photosynthesis theory that i have created.
moreResolved Question: Global warming ! SMOKERS ! Don't be to shocked but this has nothing to do with the wonderful McCanns.?
How long will it be before smokers get the blame for global warming because of the increase in patio heaters in pub gardens.
I suspect the anti McCanns oop's I mean smokers will have plenty to say on this.
moreResolved Question: Fellow conservatives, would you say this frames you general position on Global Warming?
I acknowledge that Global Warming is a reality. The ambient temperature is rising here on Earth.
I also acknowledge that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles throughout it’s past.
I recognize that other planets’ surface temperature have increased as well which can be attributed to increased sun heat/radiation.
I am still not convinced that human activity is to blame for the majority of Global Warming but, I do believe we should do what is within reason to reduce our pollution regardless. However, we should not do so at the cost of our safety (i.e. lighter more dangerous vehicles) nor should we compromise our nation’s ability to produce energy.
I firmly believe that we should aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources and I accept the factual statistical data which establishes the fact that nuclear power is clean and safe.
Dark S - Great point, I read this a while back...
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways bene-ficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could har-vest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little face-tious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely be-cause of projected increases in agricultural production.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
moreResolved Question: How can the Sun be blamed for the current global warming?
Here is a graph from NASA showing solar irradiance from 1980-2005:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93617main_sun4m.jpg
And here is an average global temperature plot which includes that time period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
There is little correlation between the two. For example, solar irradiance decreased dramatically from about 1980-1987, while the average global temperature increased by over a tenth of a degree. The current level of solar irradiance is roughly what it was 25 years ago, but the average global temperature is about 0.4°C higher.
How can anyone realistically blame the Sun for this warming?
Just in case someone decides to blame sunspots, here is a similar plot showing their lack of correlation to global temps as well:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
Tomcat - stop trying to cherry pick the data and read the following:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070913123734AAgAWkc
jim z - I would suggest reading the whole page you link in the future.
"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"
Larry - compare your link's first 2 charts to mine provided by Stanford. Yours have been altered (sunspots shifted back in time) to make the correlation appear to exist.
moreResolved Question: Does it make any difference what caused global warming if there is still no way to avoid it?
When this topic is mentioned.
There is always some FOOL who says there is no proof that man has caused global warming.
What ever the cause global warming is a fact that we all must find a way to survive.
What ever caused it makes no difference to our survival. It is the lord who say vengeance is mine. Those companies that have been holding back the technology that could have saved us will know who is to blame. Ask any thermal engineer how much his technology has progressed in the public eye in the past 50 years. If you want to see for your self go to any good search engine and search for
ice shelf 1995 then keep increasing the year you will see the information that you get comes out every couple of months up until 2004 when for some reason everything either it got very quiet or the information stopped reaching us.
There are also sites that had information, that for no apparent reason went away. Do you suppose this information is being held back?
moreResolved Question: global warming...the final solution?
global warming at the moment is blamed on deforestation,polluting factories,to many cars and even cows breaking wind,when is somebody going to inject (human)overpopulation into the equation,6+billion now expected to double in the next 50-60 years.has the increase of humans got nothing to do with it? please no g.o.d. answers.
moreResolved Question: How fast will the pelosi/reid regime blame Bush for higher gas prices from their news oil company taxes?
Story link for all the Miami/Dade liberals who still cant understand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy
quote 1
Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."
Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring — at least for the time being — calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.
quote 2
Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.
once again this is the liberal agenda of the pelosi/reid regime run amuck. when you leave that much on the table to be thought out later how is this right?
hey ok...your so naive it would scare anyone who has a healthy concept of protecting this nation from out of control liberal extremists.
moreResolved Question: Increased UFO sightings. Are they watching our possible extinction in the years ahead, to help or take over?
Most species on earth have an average lifespan of about 4 million years, just about where the species homo sapiens is right now! We have had 5 major extinction events blamed on oxygen depletion of the seas, giant asteroid & comet impacts, massive volcanic upwelling, global warming, epidemics, leaks of methane gas from the sea floor, global cooling leading to snowball earth, and most of all, catastrophic solar flares. NOW,
could these UFOs know something we don't? Are they just watching our world slowly dying or waiting to step in and take over or even to help? Some people think UFOs don't exist, others more intelligent than us believe they are for real. What is your opinion? What are the 5 major extinction events of earth that we've already had?
moreResolved Question: What to konw about Ethanol Industry ? and the result of this political idea? another state plan ?
moreResolved Question: Is global warming really our fault? It happened during the dino era, and they didn't drive cars?
We humans blame ouselves for affecting the earth's natural balance (the loss of polar ice, sudden weather changes and records, changes in our ocean's temperatures, etc...) by excessively burning fossil fuels, but is this really the problem?
Or is the earth meant to heat up, lose its ozone layer and ice caps, then freeze in an ice age, to then melt down to where we are now? This process has supposedly happened before, so is it logical to blame our selves because it's happening now?
It is often said we have increased the speed of the process, but have we really? Hey, maybe our ancient friends did blame themselves :)
moreResolved Question: Is the devil creating hell on Earth?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_re_us/heat_wave
sure heat waves always occur but temps are gradually increasing, most blame global warming but thats another story, would it be possible that everyone on Earth had broken one the 10 commandments at least once and the lord got fed up and went some place else and left the Devil to cook us up?
or not,...
moreResolved Question: Did You Know That New Scientific Research Refutes Many Of Gore's Climate Claims?
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
moreResolved Question: I was in the global warming gravy Train : observational evidence or models ? co2 the real cause?
By David Evans
5/28/2007
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.
In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:
1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.
2.Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
3.Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
4.There were no other credible causes of global warming.
This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
2.Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3.The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4.There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.
The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!
Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.
But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?
None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.
Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.
The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.
I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.
I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.
Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.
Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.
Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.
______________________________...
David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak
moreResolved Question: Al Gore. The convenient lie?
I wouldn't listen to Al Gore if I were you.
There are a few problems with his little Hollywood film...
- Gore promoted the now-debunked "hockey-stick" graph temperature chart for the last 1,000 years in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted to debunk the significance of the medieval warm period and little ice age.
- Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientist believe does not exist.
- Gore asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930's were as warm or warmer.
- Gore said that the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that this is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
- Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing.
- Gore erroneously claimed that the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, though satellite measurements show no temperature change at the summit, and the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggests that desiccation of the atmosphere in the region caused by post-colonial deforestation is the cause of the glacial recession.
- Gore made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
- Gore incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930's and other glaciers in South America are advancing.
-Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame.
- Gore inaccurately said that polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and there is evidence that the only groups that are not thriving are in a region of the Arctic that has cooled.
- Gore did not tell viewers that the 48 scientists whom he quoted as having accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support the Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry in 2004.
The above is a quote from here... http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121... where you can also see the sources that support the conclusions.
Some politicians talk about "Global Dimming", but this theory has simply been put forward to try and explain why the observed rise in global temperature over recent years has been significantly lower than the alarmists predicted, but there isnoevidence for this. There is also the "Ocean Notion" which is the idea that the missing temperature has been sucked up by the sea. (To be released at some future time with "cataclysmic" results, of course!). This could only happen if theworld got much colder
In my opinion, the reason why the alarmists' predictions are turning out to be way off the mark, is simply because the science is bad and the "consensus" is wrong.
moreResolved Question: Isn't it more important for evangelicals to worry about global warming than abortion and gay marriage?
SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Southern Baptists approved a resolution on global warming that questions the prevailing scientific belief that humans are largely to blame for the phenomenon and also warns that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor.
The global warming debate has split evangelical Christians, with some not only pressing the issue but arguing humans bear most of the responsibility for the problem because of greenhouse gas emissions. Other evangelicals say talking about the issue at all diminishes their influence over more traditional culture war issues such as abortion, gay marriage and judicial appointments.
We're all on this planet together and in this matter it would seem that our beliefs, more than ever, influence the lives of everyone else.
We need to consider our priorities.
moreResolved Question: Job well Done?? from the State : WAR?
more