1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Evidence for global warming being caused by man made activity is weak, and incredibly so. Substantial evidence points to periods of increased warmth and cooling in the past, not least the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age, (1). The Little Ice Age only ended during the end of the 19th century, and it might be argued that we are seeing the exit from it, rather then global warming. There is also correlation between these cold and warm periods and sunspot activity, indeed during the little ice age , there was little or no sunspot activity (2) and by the same token a decrease in solar output. Today we are again seeing an increase in solar activity (solar flares/sunspots/solar output) and it seems as though this may be the main culprit (3)

Similarly recalculations of the famous Mann study shows that its not the warmest it has ever been, indeed during the end of the medeival warm period it was in fact warmer then it is today. (4)

Similarly the effect that humans can have upon the greenhouse effect is minimal, water constitutes 50% to 90% of it by varying calculations, and thus is in the end the most important greenhouse gas, yet it is one that humans have no control over. (5)

   

I used to think G Bush did it but then I thought maybe the sun got hotter (It did) so yes we are witnessing a natural climate change. Some say it is just the speed of change that has really changed but life in the 21st century is known to be faster than that in Michael Faraday's time.

   

There's a scientific consensus that climate change is being affected by man. there's a few deniers who work for oil companies or have some other vested interest who would like to fool us all, but they are nothing but charlatans. If you get really insistent, I guess I can dig up all the links again, but I've already posted some of them on this site, so you can always go find those.

   

Yeah I think you should just for clarity and consistency.

   

Well the following obsercvatins are pretty much agreed upon:

(1) the planet is heating up
(2) anthropogenic activities are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the combustion of fosil fules (as well as other greenhouse gases such as methane)
(3) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it absorbs thermal radiation).

From there it's a matter of connecting the dots. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, which could be due to our emissions or could be the result of a temperature incresae due to increased incident solar radiation.


A couple of reasons to suspect an anthropogenic source are:

(1) the increase in concentration of CO2 is more rapid than in the past and at a higher concentration than at any time in teh past 400,00 years;
(2) the concentration of carbon isotopes C13 and C14 point to fossil fuels as CO2 carbon source;

On the other hand, studies have shown that in the early part of the 20th centruy, the solar brightness was at its highest level in 1000 years.

In fairness to Mann et al. it should be pointed out that his error results in an increase in the uncertainty of his findings -- it did not conclude that the medieval warm period was warmer than today, but it did conculde that that is a possibility.

Mann concluded that solar and radiative forcings alone could not explain the temperature chanegs, and that radiative forcing from CO2 was requried. The errors in his statistical analysis cast uncertainty on his conclusion, but do not prove it wrong.

   

Look at the pretty colours

How many 5's did we have? If we have the next season with another 20-30 storms will you say that this is nature and truly expect to be taken seriously, and incredibly so? What would have to be seen to give credence that CO2 is not rising from a volcano eruption like Krakatoa as a sharp spike in C02 but rather a broad and profound morass of C02 that is planet wide and suffocating the entire (ever shrinking) atmosphere we breath at once. Take a look at the news on the front page and you will see global warming has begun to claim population centers. How many more will be beneath the waves before you take the idea seriously and incredibly so?

   

The "morass" as you put it effects all of .28% of the greenhouse effect. That is not a large amount, and when compared to an increase in solar output it seems inconsequential as a source of global warming.

Furthermore, how do you explain the Medeival Warm Period? Too many campfires?

   

Just because 0.28% is not a "large amount" according to you, does not mean that it is necessarily inconsequential. Many researchers find a residual impact of climate change on top of the increase in solar irradiation: that is, even takign into account the increase in the sun's brightness, there is still more CO2 and warmer temerpatures than there should be.


AS far as I can tell, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 make up around five or six percent of emissions, so I don't know about this 0.28% number.

   

The key to this discussion is that while we know for certain these things you've listed, we don't actually have any solid evidence as to the magnitude of the effect of all the CO2 in the atmosphere - we don't know how CO2 fits into the grand scheme of all the other factors which affect climate change.

   

Ok, if the sun is getting warmer it stands to reason that the Earth would get warmer, keeping all other factors the same. But if you increase the amount greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...it could compound a situation that was already occuring. And just because there is a relatively small change in the amount of carbon dioxide or other gasses doesn't mean that they can't have a significant effect. look at how fast weather systems can change, with only a small change in parameters.

   

Yes, that's it. And of course, it's impossible to identify a single aspect in isolation because it interrelates in a complex way with all the others. Water vapour is complex: it adds to heat because it is itself a greehouse gas, but it also forms cloud, which reflects incoming solar radiation, removing heat. The ozone layer is important. Snow cover changes the albedo (the protion of the earth's surface that reflects incident soalr radiation).

   

If you ask me, it's the damned hippy protesters that destroy any chances of solid scientific evidence be taken seriously.... I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the payroll of the oil companies.

The problem is that they take partial results of scientific research and spin them around to prove something fitting their agenda, claiming they have scientific proof. The backlash investigations show that they really don't have any evidence to prove their cataclysmic theories, and the cited research, which may have been entirely valid, is thrown out with the bathwater.

Now, thanks to these idiots (who most often just have an agenda against capitalist oil companies), the mere mentioning of global warming or environmental concerns is greeted with rolling eyes and great skepticism. Gee, thanks hippies, way to destroy science.

   

There's also a consensus in many circles that the Jews are trying to take over the world.

Then there's the consensus that Europeans are so much wiser than Americans.

Not to mention the consensus that one-world socialism is a great idea.

And let us not forget the scientific consensuses of the past, shall we?

Stomach ulcers are caused by stress, not H.pylori.

The world is flat.

The world is the center of the Universe.

Powered flight is impossible.

Space flight is impossible and a crackpot lunacy.

The atom is indivisible.

Microbes have no effect on diseases.

DDT is a miracle.

Thalidomide is a miracle drug.

Valium is a miracle drug.

Prozac is a miracle drug.

AIDS is just a cancer peculiar to gay men for some reason.

The world is entering a new ice age due to pollution.

Atom bombs can be used peacefully to make new harbors and for excavating mines.

No one will ever need or want a personal computer.

Dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles.

And global warming is just another Chicken Little scare. The world has been much colder and much warmer in the past and it will be warmer or colder in the future.

The only constant is change and anyone who thinks that climate should be stable and predictable is an ass.

   

The dumbasses probably would be if they were smart enough to ask.



I can agree with that. They use valid research to substantiate predetermined political agendas and then when the agenda is exposed the valid research is also dismissed. That a very well-reasoned hypothesis. Kudos to you on such inductive reasoning skills!



Hmmm. You inject a new perspective into the argument that I will consider.

Seriously.

   

It's rubbish.
It's junk science, put out by little trumped up media darlings like Suzuki and the like.
The credability of the entire thing falls apart when China, India, Africa and every other developing country is excluded.

   

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next