The "hockey stick" graph, which shows a rapid rise in world temperatures over recent decades, has been both poster child for the dangers of human- induced global warming and prime target for climate change sceptics. They cite an anomaly in the graph - it does not record a dip in temperature between 1200 and 1850 - as reason to ditch the whole thing. Now new data may help explain why the graph does not record the "little ice age".

Ocean currents in the North Atlantic, dominated by the Gulf Stream, usually keep winter temperatures in western Europe mild by carrying warm water north from the tropics towards Europe and heating the westerly winds travelling from North America. Climate scientists have suspected that a weak Gulf Stream may have caused the little ice age, but until now there has been no direct evidence for this theory.
More here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225804.300-climate-change-sceptics-lose-vital-argument.html)

What "skeptics"? Does anyone other than the oil industry and Fyyr really doubt the science of global warming?

George bush?

I don't care what the oil industry thinks about the issue.

I think the Global Warming industry is going to be a positive boom to business around the world. I think the whole thing is a great endeavor, actually. And when companies start forming to exploit it, I will be the first to invest in them.

Don't mean I believe its really real though. But that never stops people from spending money on it,,,just look at the religion business.


My CO2 harvesting and storage schemes will make billions upon billions if I can just convince investors to pony up the VC. Stuff like this is a great step toward making ME rich.

Don't mean I believe its really real though.Remind me, what is it that you don't believe? The CO₂ concentration measurements that have recently been off the scale, the historical tie between CO₂ concentrations and weather, or the increasingly hot weather and storms that coincide with mass CO₂ emissions in recent decades?

The CO₂ concentration measurements that have recently been off the scale,
Show me this.

the historical tie between CO₂ concentrations and weather,
Show me this too.


or the increasingly hot weather and storms that coincide with mass CO₂ emissions in recent decades?
Show me this.


Don't show me opinion. Don't show me congealed statistics. Provide me, if you can, with the data.

Times, Dates, and numbers. I can graph them myself and form my own opinions.

Show me this.Recent CO₂ emissions steadily rising (measured at Mauna Loa): http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_53_

Relationship between CO₂ and weather: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xVostokCO2.htm

Increasingly hot weather that coincides with CO₂ emissions: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html

Another graph showing CO₂ concentrations and temperatures for over 400,000 years, and tying this all together (note that historically, CO₂ was never above 280 ppmv, but today it's about 380): http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

I don't think the actual, raw data is on the Internet, because few people are as far in denial as you are. But the authors and names of the studies are listed, and if you contacted them they would probably be willing to share the data with you.

You know I watched a documentary not too long ago about stars... like the real ones in the sky. They talked about the different stages stars go through in their "lifetime" Our sun obviously is a star and they also discussed how our sun is getting closer to us each year (well... we are getting closer to it by gravitational pull)

They also explained how every millimeter we are closer that our temperature on the planet increases. Now, I am not saying I don't believe we humans have seriously contributed to the pollution and CO2 production on the planet. But wouldnt it make sense that nature has something to do with all of this too?

They also explained how every millimeter we are closer that our temperature on the planet increases. But wouldnt it make sense that nature has something to do with all of this too?Do you have evidence that our planet is now closer than ever before to the Sun, and that distance began decreasing around 1960? I haven't checked, but somehow I doubt our planetary orbit has changed significantly since then.

...But wouldnt it make sense that nature has something to do with all of this too?


Um, that would mean that you too are in DENIAL, Madie.


Um and don't let the fact that Tuda's first link about CO2 rates being taking on an ACTIVE VOLCANO change your skepticism. Na, never consider that part. Ignore the fact that volcanoes, emit, um, CO2.

Pssst... Swiftfox... where are you?

Climate change denial is led by Canada. We actually welcome global warming, so our winters won't be as cold.

Don't tell anyone, ok?

I agree with Thicket and the Canucks on this one...I rather enjoy it being 64 F at the end of November here in Toledo.

That snow on the ground and freezing temperature **** was for the birds.

Um, that would mean that you too are in DENIAL, Madie.


Um and don't let the fact that Tuda's first link about CO2 rates being taking on an ACTIVE VOLCANO change your skepticism. Na, never consider that part. Ignore the fact that volcanoes, emit, um, CO2.
Time for you to pony-up, denial-boy. Can you show that CO2 increases are caused by volcanoes? We've had some incredible volcano activity over the last 600,000 years but we've got more CO2 than at any other time in 600,000 years. As far as I'm aware, we don't have all that much volcano activity.

Um and don't let the fact that Tuda's first link about CO2 rates being taking on an ACTIVE VOLCANO change your skepticism. Na, never consider that part. Ignore the fact that volcanoes, emit, um, CO2.The ice core data from Antarctica (which I linked for you) shows the exact same recent trend. I suppose there are active volcanoes there too, which coincidentally spew out precisely the same amount of CO₂?

Ignore the fact that volcanoes, emit, um, CO2.
They also spew out a huge amount of ash which tends to cool things more than the CO2 warms them.

Madie, I don't think we're actually getting closer to the sun. There's a slight wobble in the orbit that gets us closer, then further, away from the sun.

Obliquity (change in axial tilt)
As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. It's the cool summers that are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year-to-year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an Earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.html

But this has been factored into the global warming stuff and shown not to be a component of that.

http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=291

I am still waiting for the explanation on how we are causing Mars and Jupiter to warm up, too. I didn't think we had factories spewing anything on those two planets.

I am still waiting for the explanation on how we are causing Mars and Jupiter to warm up, too. I didn't think we had factories spewing anything on those two planets.It must be rover pollution.

Do you have evidence that our planet is now closer than ever before to the Sun, and that distance began decreasing around 1960? I haven't checked, but somehow I doubt our planetary orbit has changed significantly since then.

It is not our planetary orbit that is changing, it is the Sun's. Because of the constant (albeit extremely slow) expansion of the Sun - we are being drawn closer to it.

I will admit fully that I am not good at doing research on the Web to support the things that I "say" - lol - its why I rarely challenge things being discussed in these threads. I did find these sources that explain the life of a Sun and how the Sun is moving. I will also admit that none of these links provide any sort of data to support the accusation that the sun in causing any sort of Global warming - but they are interesting and fun sites to visit.

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/scied/SUN/sunpage.html (http://hea-www.harvard.edu/scied/SUN/sunpage.html)
<O:p</O:p
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html (http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html)
<O:p</O:p

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm#stats (http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm#stats)


My take-away from the documentary I watched is that the Sun's life expectancy is another 5 billion years and that we don't have to worry about it becoming a severe threat to our environment (boiling seas and all that) for at least another 2 billion. However, in the 2nd link it does talk about how 1 little solar flare did cause a "little ice age" for Earth in the 17th century and how the Sun does affect our climate with even the smallest event.

If I remember right, the sun isn't expanding (significantly) right now. When it runs out of hydrogen to support hydrogen->helium fusion, it'll start expanding and become a red giant.

I will admit fully that I am not good at doing research on the Web to support the things that I "say" - lol - its why I rarely challenge things being discussed in these threads.
Madie, Madie, Madie. You should know by now that knowledge is not a prerequisite for arguing in this forum. :)

I don't know why this subject keeps coming up. It is not our SUV's, or CO2 emissions, as mighty and world changing as we think we are, all our pathetic efforts one way or the other pale in orders of magnitude less in comparison to processes that are not only global in scale, but cosmic.

If you believe that our ability to change the earth's climate outshines that of the sun's ability to do so, then you simply have a wrongly-scaled perspective. It never ceases to amaze me that the very people who espouse a belief that we are simply randomly assorted chemicals moving through a cosmos doomed to eventual heat death, that those very same people say that we can significantly alter the earth's atmosphere and climate. Logically, you can't have it both ways.

Again, for your perusal.

Sun >>>>> Earth

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/13db967.jpg

Disregarding the fact the sun puts off more energy in one second than all of mankind has ever produced since we first discovered fire, let's go to something smaller. Volcanoes were mentioned, I believe. We could set off every nuke in our arsenal and it would not equal the effects on the atmosphere of Pentubo, Kratatoa, or even Mt. St. Helens.

Mt. St. Helens is a particular study of mine. For example, during the 9 hour eruption on May 18, 1980, almost every SECOND it released the same energy as a Hiroshima sized nuclear explosion. And it's not anywhere near a large volcano, much less a super-volcano such as the Yellowstone Caldera (yes, the entirety of the Yellowstone National Park is one, huge rim of a supervolcano) Discovery even had a special on it, with fair to middling special effects.

Mars' ice caps are melting.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-2.html

Jupiter's storms are becoming much more active, indictating a much greater solar energy input received.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Our pitiful little CO2 contributions I am sure don't help things, but some of the apocalyptic claims I have heard from so-called climatologists that know better lead me to believe that their agenda must be something other than succinctly and accurately depicting how much impact we as humans can have on the global environment. If the measure of our true impact on the environment was released, a lot of them would have to find other work.

A true universal maxim is that if you make it someone's job to find problems, don't be surprised if they continue to find (fabricate) them. I am intimately familiar with this on the bureaucratic level, working for the worst bureaucracy in the US. There are whole legions of people in the US government who can manufacture problems out of whole cloth, because then they get funding to fix said problems.

Not all of their claims are self-motivated though. Sure, locally, you can poison streams and lakes and rivers, sure, you can spill oil in the ocean and kill local wildlife, sure, unfiltered coal power plants can cause smog, pollution, and health hazards, locally. And (pay attention now) we should definitely put anti-pollution laws in place, and enforce them strictly, so that we and future generations can enjoy clean air, water and pristine national parks and preserves. We shouldn't use our lesser impact on the environment as an excuse to pollute.

But to say that our CFC's and CO2 emissions will definitely, permanently alter the global climate, in any comparitive scale to the sun's and earth's processes, which in their view, that have been operating for billions of years, and all it takes is humans to wreck it, is displaying the only thing larger in scale than the sun, earth, and all the aforementioned processes. Human hubris.

:clap:

Nicely done Gunny

I think the ultimate Human hubris is avoiding the reality that we ARE doing things to change the climate. Or even worse, we'll figure out some way to undo it if things get bad enough.

Sun >>>>> EarthSo? Do you have proof that the sun is the sole cause of global warming?Volcanoes were mentioned, I believe. We could set off every nuke in our arsenal and it would not equal the effects on the atmosphere of Pentubo, Kratatoa, or even Mt. St. Helens.So? Do you have proof that volcanoes are the sole cause of global warming?Mars' ice caps are melting.So? WTF does this have to do with our planet?Jupiter's storms are becoming much more active, indictating a much greater solar energy input received.Jupiter is a gigantic ball of gas that generates more energy than it receives from the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin-Helmholtz_mechanism). Again, WTF does this have to do with our own ecosystem?A true universal maxim is that if you make it someone's job to find problems, don't be surprised if they continue to find (fabricate) them.And if it's their job to ignore problems and conduct business as usual, you better believe they're going to do so.There are whole legions of people in the US government who can manufacture problems out of whole cloth, because then they get funding to fix said problems.These are independent scientists, not the U.S. government. The U.S. government is still mostly in denial on the issue.But to say that our CFC's and CO2 emissions will definitely, permanently alter the global climate, in any comparitive scale to the sun's and earth's processes, which in their view, that have been operating for billions of years, and all it takes is humans to wreck it, is displaying the only thing larger in scale than the sun, earth, and all the aforementioned processes.Ok, so your argument boils down to, "the Sun is so gosh darn HUGE, we can't POSSIBLY do anything to affect temperature!"

Nice scientific reasoning. Too bad the <i>actual scientific evidence</i> definitely proves you wrong.

So far all you've proven is that you're the master of red herrings. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

It is not our planetary orbit that is changing, it is the Sun's. Because of the constant (albeit extremely slow) expansion of the Sun - we are being drawn closer to it.Mainstream scientists have rejected the theory that variations in the sun's energy have been causing global warming in the past few decades. A couple of scientists have proposed it as an idea, and suggest that part of the warming might have been caused by changes in energy received from the sun, but the hard evidence is lacking. If you check out the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) and skip down to "Solar variation theory," you'll see the discussion. When reading it, remember to distinguish between unsupported hypotheses and proven theories.

I don't know why this subject keeps coming up. It is not our SUV's, or CO2 emissions, as mighty and world changing as we think we are, all our pathetic efforts one way or the other pale in orders of magnitude less in comparison to processes that are not only global in scale, but cosmic.


So do you really think that we can limitlessly pollute our planet in every way possible and never be able to put ourselves in any danger at all? That seems to be your argument and it is completely unjustified.

We obviously can pollute too much. The hole in the ozone layer, city smog, fallout from Chernobyl, and acid rain all prove that. It is a fair question as to how our current emissions of greenhouse gases are changing our climate, but it is entirely illogical to think that you can put unlimited pollution into a finite atmosphere and have no impact.

We've even put enough space debris around our planet to cause ourselves problems. How much more cosmic do you want our pollution to be before you'll take notice?

Disregarding the fact the sun puts off more energy in one second than all of mankind has ever produced since we first discovered fire, let's go to something smaller. Volcanoes were mentioned, I believe. We could set off every nuke in our arsenal and it would not equal the effects on the atmosphere of Pentubo, Kratatoa, or even Mt. St. Helens.
The net effect of volcanoes is to cool the planet rather than warm it. Although they emit plenty of greenhouse gasses, the cooling effect of the ash more than countaracts the warming that the gasses cause.

Mt. St. Helens is a particular study of mine. For example, during the 9 hour eruption on May 18, 1980, almost every SECOND it released the same energy as a Hiroshima sized nuclear explosion. And it's not anywhere near a large volcano, much less a super-volcano such as the Yellowstone Caldera (yes, the entirety of the Yellowstone National Park is one, huge rim of a supervolcano) Discovery even had a special on it, with fair to middling special effects.
If it were the energy that humans are producing that was causing the problem then you'd have a point. However it's not our energy but rather the production of greenhouse gasses which trap the energy produced by the sun.

The Sun's output is not entirely constant. Nor is the amount of sunspot activity. There was a period of very low sunspot activity in the latter half of the 17th century called the Maunder Minimum. It coincides with an abnormally cold period in northern Europe sometimes known as the Little Ice Age. Since the formation of the solar system the Sun's output has increased by about 40%.

Source (http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html)


However it's not our energy but rather the production of greenhouse gasses which trap the energy produced by the sun.

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor), which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing)); carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide), which causes 9-26%; methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane), which causes 4-9%, and ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone), which causes 3-7%.

I am finding it more and more difficult to believe that the affect humans have on the atmosphere is really that significant.

So do you really think that we can limitlessly pollute our planet in every way possible and never be able to put ourselves in any danger at all? That seems to be your argument and it is completely unjustified.

Ok Anka... just because I think you missed this part of Gunny's post...

And (pay attention now) we should definitely put anti-pollution laws in place, and enforce them strictly, so that we and future generations can enjoy clean air, water and pristine national parks and preserves. We shouldn't use our lesser impact on the environment as an excuse to pollute.

Amen Sister!!

I couldn't have put it any more succinctly than Gunny on this subject. I don't think there are scientists that are saying that we have such little impact on global warming that we shouldn't try and curtail what we are doing.

If you check out the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) and skip down to "Solar variation theory," you'll see the discussion. When reading it, remember to distinguish between unsupported hypotheses and proven theories.

I read the link.. and links from the link and links from those links. And basically... *my* take away from all that, scientists still are not in agreement just how much of an affect humans have on global warming. Everyone has a "theory" No one can effectively produce hard evidence that the contamination that humans cause significantly increase the Earth's temperature.

The only hard evidence produced by any of the reports is that the Earth's temperature has increased in the past 1000 years. But even the best mainstream scientists disagree on the "human factor."

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Gunny Burlfoot
Sun >>>>> Earth

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So? Do you have proof that the sun is the sole cause of global warming? Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Gunny Burlfoot
Volcanoes were mentioned, I believe. We could set off every nuke in our arsenal and it would not equal the effects on the atmosphere of Pentubo, Kratatoa, or even Mt. St. Helens.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So? Do you have proof that volcanoes are the sole cause of global warming? Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Gunny Burlfoot
Mars' ice caps are melting.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So? WTF does this have to do with our planet? Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Gunny Burlfoot
Jupiter's storms are becoming much more active, indictating a much greater solar energy input received.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Jupiter is a gigantic ball of gas that generates more energy than it receives from the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin-Helmholtz_mechanism). Again, WTF does this have to do with our own ecosystem?

Gunny's point in all of that is that the Sun affects our planet... like it affects the surrounding planets in our solar system.

How can global warming be happening on Jupiter and Mars if there are no humans there to cause it?

No one has ever said that the Sun or Volcanoes are the "sole" source of global warming. Only that we humans don't contribute to the problem as much as the Sun.

Exactly, this ockham's razor seems as sharp as a bowling ball.

Don't stop people from trying, though. That is most certain.

I don't really give a ****, as long as I can make a ton of money off the deal. Which I will do, when I start my CO2 reclamation businesses.

This seems to suggest that the opposite is happening, we're getting further from the sun.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/

The only hard evidence produced by any of the reports is that the Earth's temperature has increased in the past 1000 years. But even the best mainstream scientists disagree on the "human factor."No. The hard evidence is both the temperature, and the CO₂ concentration.

For over 400,000 years, CO₂ concentration and mean temperature have been very closely linked. When one rises, so does the other.

Since our massive CO₂ emissions era (~1960s), both the CO₂ concentration <b>and</b> mean temperature have risen. Dramatically, year by year. And CO₂ concentration is now much higher than it has been for over 400,000 years.

The science of CO₂ as a greenhouse gas which traps heat is clear.

Connect the dots, please.Gunny's point in all of that is that the Sun affects our planet... like it affects the surrounding planets in our solar system.Well duh, of course the sun affects our planet. It's what heats it up and provides for most of the life on the planet. The question is how much of that energy are we trapping.How can global warming be happening on Jupiter and Mars if there are no humans there to cause it?Because Mars isn't even remotely like Earth. Jupiter is about as different a planet as you can get compared to Earth. I mean, we're talking about a huge planet that is a big ball of gas and generates by itself more energy than it receives from the sun. Using these planets as models for our own ecosystem is retarded.

Not to mention, our observations of these planets are speculative and imprecise. We haven't actually visited and carefully measured the temperatures on Mars. We can't even figure out what's at the center of Jupiter, let alone take measurements there.No one has ever said that the Sun or Volcanoes are the "sole" source of global warming. Only that we humans don't contribute to the problem as much as the Sun.Prove it.