The consensus on GW

[Kärnfysikern]

Why? and if so, with there being so many factors, how could you decide which one is actually the right one?

Its because the longer the time period the more reliable the data is. Think of any other statistics. Doing a study on medicin using only a group of 2 people will not yield any relevant data. Doing it with 1000 people will make it statisticaly significant.

I dont know what number of years that is defined as the minimum period to observe climate changes, it was mentioned in a class I took this summer but it has slipped my mind.

About deciding witch factor is relevant. Its possible to exclude alot of causes by different methods. I dont know enough about the methods to comment.

People try to say what kind of weather we are going to have based on recorded history. How long have humans been recording this information compared to the life of the Earth?

The more important question is for how long do we need data to be able to say anything. What happened with the climate 1 billion years ago or 100 million years ago doesnt effect what happens to the climate today. For instance the entire earth was covered in ice a few billions years ago. 200 million years ago the antartic was covered in vegitation.
That tells us nothing of what will happen tomorrow. The only thing that old records tell us is what can happen. Not what will happen.

Is it it relevant to have records for more than say 20 000 years? We have atleast that from tree rings, greenland ice, antartic ice ect.

[Logan13]

What happened with the climate 1 billion years ago or 100 million years ago doesnt effect what happens to the climate today. For instance the entire earth was covered in ice a few billions years ago. 200 million years ago the antartic was covered in vegitation.
That tells us nothing of what will happen tomorrow. The only thing that old records tell us is what can happen. Not what will happen.

Is it it relevant to have records for more than say 20 000 years? We have atleast that from tree rings, greenland ice, antartic ice ect.

Using this logic, we could make the same agruement against the evolution of species. "Just because species died out 65 million years ago doesn't mean that it will happen again in more recent times". I think that we can both disagree on this, but it is your logic, not mine, that created such a statement........ The earth/nature is cyclic, accept it.

[Kärnfysikern]

Using this logic, we could make the same agruement against the evolution of species. "Just because species died out 65 million years ago doesn't mean that it will happen again in more recent times". I think that we can both disagree on this, but it is your logic, not mine, that created such a statement........ The earth/nature is cyclic, accept it.

I have always accepted it.

But do you accept that co2 is a major player in the cycles of our climate?

[Logan13]

I have always accepted it.

But do you accept that co2 is a major player in the cycles of our climate?

Taken from the same article............
"Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors."

[Logan13]

Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria
by Patrick J. Michaels
Cato Institute
Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.

[Logan13]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo.html

[Logan13]

The Petition: A Global Warming Case Study - Case Study Collection
http://www.sciencecases.org/petition/petition.asp

[Kärnfysikern]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo.html

Relevance?? Seems to repeate what I wrote above to roid.

The Petition: A Global Warming Case Study - Case Study Collection
http://www.sciencecases.org/petition/petition.asp

Relevance? All the major american research institutes support global warming.

[Kärnfysikern]

Taken from the same article............
"Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors."

With the historical record we have of increasing co2=> increasing temperature it seems obvious.

You still didnt answere my question if you accept that co2 is important for the cycles of the climate or not. Not if you accept that co2 is a greenhouse gas.

Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria
by Patrick J. Michaels
Cato Institute
Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.

We could play my favorite scientists vs your favorites scientists oppinion all night long. What matter is what I wrote in my first post. NOT ONE SINGLE article in a peer review journal that tries to claim global warming isnt man made. If this dude above is so sure he should publish it in nature. If it gets accepted its credible, if not then it doesnt stand up to scientific scrutiny. Like I have said before I am not qualified to judge and neither are you so its useless to even engage in that kind of thing.

I dont think scientists has ever belived the kyoto protocoll will make a difference, its just a firt step in the right direction.

[J.S.N.]

Using this logic, we could make the same agruement against the evolution of species. "Just because species died out 65 million years ago doesn't mean that it will happen again in more recent times". I think that we can both disagree on this, but it is your logic, not mine, that created such a statement........ The earth/nature is cyclic, accept it.

if you have to use time metaphors, it's both linear and cyclical. due to rotation of the earth and moon, as well as tilting there are cyclical components but there are things that are quite different over the course of our earth's lifespan, and the organsms that inhabit the earth (the biosphere) play a huge role. look at how fast a frmerly fertile region like mesopotamia can be turned to desert due to salinization due to irrigation, or how quickly the soil degrades and it stops raining in deforested parts off the tropical rain forrests.

[Logan13]

if you have to use time metaphors, it's both linear and cyclical. due to rotation of the earth and moon, as well as tilting there are cyclical components but there are things that are quite different over the course of our earth's lifespan, and the organsms that inhabit the earth (the biosphere) play a huge role. look at how fast a frmerly fertile region like mesopotamia can be turned to desert due to salinization due to irrigation, or how quickly the soil degrades and it stops raining in deforested parts off the tropical rain forrests.

Yes, and Death Valley used to be under an ocean. Parts of the world currently above sea level will, once again, be below the sea. There is nothing that man can do to stop this. Ecologies will continue to evolve, and if the orgainsms that make up these ecologies cannot evolve fast enough, they will die off, as it has always been. There is a difference between the micro and macro views of the earth's evolution, but when you get down to it, the earth does not care about the semantics or pragmatics that we impose on it.

[J.S.N.]

Yes, and Death Valley used to be under an ocean. Parts of the world currently above sea level will, once again, be below the sea. There is nothing that man can do to stop this. Ecologies will continue to evolve, and if the orgainsms that make up these ecologies cannot evolve fast enough, they will die off, as it has always been. There is a difference between the micro and macro views of the earth's evolution, but when you get down to it, the earth does not care about the semantics or pragmatics that we impose on it.

we care. it's in our interest to influence the environemnt to be as hospitable for us as possible.

[Logan13]

we care. it's in our interest to influence the environemnt to be as hospitable for us as possible.

My idea of a "hospitable enviroment" would be to have a warmer climate...........

[J.S.N.]

My idea of a "hospitable enviroment" would be to have a warmer climate...........

it would be nice to have a warmer year in MI, however it comes with tons of negatives that outweigh the positives, starting with higher sea levels.

[RA]

Its because the longer the time period the more reliable the data is. Think of any other statistics. Doing a study on medicin using only a group of 2 people will not yield any relevant data. Doing it with 1000 people will make it statisticaly significant.

I dont know what number of years that is defined as the minimum period to observe climate changes, it was mentioned in a class I took this summer but it has slipped my mind.

About deciding witch factor is relevant. Its possible to exclude alot of causes by different methods. I dont know enough about the methods to comment.




The more important question is for how long do we need data to be able to say anything. What happened with the climate 1 billion years ago or 100 million years ago doesnt effect what happens to the climate today. For instance the entire earth was covered in ice a few billions years ago. 200 million years ago the antartic was covered in vegitation.
That tells us nothing of what will happen tomorrow. The only thing that old records tell us is what can happen. Not what will happen.

Is it it relevant to have records for more than say 20 000 years? We have atleast that from tree rings, greenland ice, antartic ice ect.

I agree 1000% Thank you.

[Kärnfysikern]

I agree 1000% Thank you.

Now Im confused

[RA]

Now Im confused

The only thing that old records tell us is what can happen. Not what will happen.


I picked a line out and agreed. If you are to believe this line then you cant be 100% sure of global warming

[Kärnfysikern]

The only thing that old records tell us is what can happen. Not what will happen.


I picked a line out and agreed. If you are to believe this line then you cant be 100% sure of global warming

I was refering to the ultra old records Not the one in the close past of 100 000 years or so