The consensus on GW

[Kärnfysikern]

Logan likes to claim there is no real consensus among scientists concerning global warming.

This is a nice link to debunk that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

IPCC
the National Academy of Science
The American Meteorological Society
the American Geophysical Union
the American Association for the Advancement of Science

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Not one single published paper claiming the consensus is wrong. Not one! if there was a large body of strong sceptics with research to back up there oppinion they would surely atleast publish a few papers.
If it isnt published its rubbish that simple. A scientific oppinion isnt credible or worth shit until it is published.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

[Kärnfysikern]

A nice article from someone that went from sceptic to non sceptic(the science editor for Reason magazine)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

[RA]

Ok johan, then why have we had a warmer than usual winter so far and the southern states are getting slammed? Not one friggen "expert" has been able to tell me that.

This happens about once every 5-8 years.

[Kärnfysikern]

Ok johan, then why have we had a warmer than usual winter so far and the southern states are getting slammed? Not one friggen "expert" has been able to tell me that.

This happens about once every 5-8 years.

Weather is a chaotic and unpredictable system. You can not pinpoint a specific reason for a specific weather period.

Dont confuse weather with climate. Climate deals with statistic over atleast 10 year periods. Those statistics are not chaotic and unpredicable.

If the avarage temperature for a single winter or even 3 winters in a row happen to be 5 degress above normal it doesnt mean much at all, no conclusions can be drawn.
If the avarage winter temperature over a 20 year period has increased it means a whole lot more.

We will never be able to predict weather more than at most a few weeks in advance. But we can roughly predict climate for 100 years to come. Those modells have reproduced the last century so they seem accurate.

[RA]

Weather is a chaotic and unpredictable system. You can not pinpoint a specific reason for a specific weather period.

Dont confuse weather with climate. Climate deals with statistic over atleast 10 year periods. Those statistics are not chaotic and unpredicable.

If the avarage temperature for a single winter or even 3 winters in a row happen to be 5 degress above normal it doesnt mean much at all, no conclusions can be drawn.
If the avarage winter temperature over a 20 year period has increased it means a whole lot more.

We will never be able to predict weather more than at most a few weeks in advance. But we can roughly predict climate for 100 years to come. Those modells have reproduced the last century so they seem accurate.

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

[RA]

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?

[Logan13]

Logan likes to claim there is no real consensus among scientists concerning global warming.

This is a nice link to debunk that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

IPCC
the National Academy of Science
The American Meteorological Society
the American Geophysical Union
the American Association for the Advancement of Science



Not one single published paper claiming the consensus is wrong. Not one! if there was a large body of strong sceptics with research to back up there oppinion they would surely atleast publish a few papers.
If it isnt published its rubbish that simple. A scientific oppinion isnt credible or worth shit until it is published.

This article is also on wikpedia. I can cut and paste parts of the same article that you did to counter.
Here's Johan's, it is from 2004. "In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view — the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change."
Here's the rest of it:
"The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years [13]. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10–30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output."
Pre-human global warming
"The Earth has experienced natural global warming and cooling many times in the past, and can offer useful insights into present processes. It is thought by some geologists that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University published in Geology (32: 157–160, 2004 [33]) indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release [34]. Instead, natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.

The greenhouse effect is also invoked to explain how the Earth made it out of the Snowball Earth period 600 million years ago. During this period all silicate rocks were covered by ice, thereby preventing them from combining with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level gradually increased until it reached a level that could have been as much as 350 times the current level. At this point temperatures were raised enough to melt the ice, even though the reflective ice surfaces had been reflecting most sunlight back into space. Increased amounts of rainfall would quickly wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and thick layers of abiotic carbonate sediment have been found on top of the glacial rocks from this period.

Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698–701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to carbon dioxide variations. Most paleoclimatologists believe this is because other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have larger effects in determining very long term climate. However, Shaviv and Veizer (2003, [35]) proposed that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the solar system's motion around the galaxy, and the ways in which this influences the atmosphere by altering the flux of cosmic rays received by the Earth. Afterwards, they argued that over geologic times a change in carbon dioxide concentrations comparable to doubling pre-industrial levels, only results in about 0.75 °C (1.3 °F) warming rather than the usual 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) reported by climate models [36]. They acknowledge (Shaviv and Veizer 2004) however that this conclusion may only be valid on multi-million year time scales when glacial and geological feedback have had a chance to establish themselves. Rahmstorf et al. 2004 [37] argue that Shaviv and Veizer arbitrarily tuned their data, and that their conclusions are unreliable."
Pre-industrial global warming
"Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued [38] that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation. He contends that forest clearing explains the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the current interglacial that started 8,000 years ago, contrasting with the decline in carbon dioxide levels seen in the previous three interglacials. He further contends that the spread of rice irrigation explains the breakdown in the last 5,000 years of the correlation between the Northern Hemisphere solar radiation and global methane levels, which had been maintained over at least the last 11 22,000-year cycles. Ruddiman argues that without these effects, the Earth would be nearly 2 °C cooler and "well on the way" to a new ice age. Ruddimann's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed."

[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]

"The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years [13]. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10–30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output."

But the important thing is that this hypothesis is unsuported by the majority. They need to invent processes that increase the effect of the solar radiation for it to be possible. Changes in the ammount of solar radiation alone isnt enough. They are realy realy smal. Another thing that in my (layman)book falsifie that is that the sun is over the long term getting hotter. It is hotter now than it was a billion years ago. Yet there seems to be no data to support that the avarage earth temperature is hotter now than a billion years ago. But offcourse those guys probably have a easy way to debunk my argument.

Pre-human global warming
"The Earth has experienced natural global warming and cooling many times in the past, and can offer useful insights into present processes. It is thought by some geologists that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University published in Geology (32: 157–160, 2004 [33]) indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.

This only underlines how important and dangerous co2 is. I dont se the point in this? its not a counter to the claim of man made global warming. We do know for a fact that humanity is the largest contributor of co2 today and from things as the above we do know that co2 increase temperature.
man made co2->temperature increase=man made temperature increase.

As I have said a million times before, NO scientists dispute the fact that the earth has been alot warmer before. So what? That does not exclude a man made warming today.
That is like saying that since humans dies of natural causes sadam must have died of natural causes. The rope around his neck had nothing to do with it.

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release [34]. Instead, natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.

last time I read about it I think the Milankovitch cycle was more or less ruled out as a major climate changer since it doesnt correlate good enough with the changes in the climate. But speaking of methane, if the temperature goes up the methane will be released adding to the gw.

The greenhouse effect is also invoked to explain how the Earth made it out of the Snowball Earth period 600 million years ago. During this period all silicate rocks were covered by ice, thereby preventing them from combining with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level gradually increased until it reached a level that could have been as much as 350 times the current level. At this point temperatures were raised enough to melt the ice, even though the reflective ice surfaces had been reflecting most sunlight back into space. Increased amounts of rainfall would quickly wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and thick layers of abiotic carbonate sediment have been found on top of the glacial rocks from this period.

I have mentioned the snowball earth before and how co2 changed that. that co2 was released from vulcanic activity caused by the breakup of the supercontinent that was present at that time of earths history. It is completely unrelated to anything that happens today except that it also underlines how important co2 is.

Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698–701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to carbon dioxide variations. Most paleoclimatologists believe this is because other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have larger effects in determining very long term climate. However, Shaviv and Veizer (2003, [35]) proposed that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the solar system's motion around the galaxy, and the ways in which this influences the atmosphere by altering the flux of cosmic rays received by the Earth.

That is completely unaccepted by most climatologist. It is a totaly unproven hypothesis. Also in the earlier segemtns you quote articles that underline the importance of co2 while this one tries to explain it away.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Logan13]

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




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

Well then, I sincerely hope that you have and will continue to refuse to ride in cars or anything else that contributes to global warming, since you are such a believer.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well then, I sincerely hope that you have and will continue to refuse to ride in cars or anything else that contributes to global warming, since you are such a believer.

well acctualy I only rode in cars like 5 times last year. I always take the tram or train everywhere and its driven by electricity and we get all our electricity from nuclear and hydropower.

But I dont avoid cars because of global warming that would be stupid. There is not much I can do on a individual level. EVERYTHING in my life is here becaue of fossile fuels, the food I buy in the store, the shipping of the compoments in my computer. The clothes I wear, the textbooks I buy for classes. But I would not go out and buy a hummer if I decided to buy a car.

What needs to be done is on a internationa level offcourse. Cutting down on co2 isnt hard. Just replace coal with nuclear and problem solved. Cutting down on co2 because of transportation will take alot longer, but if we make our electricity production non poluting half of the problem is solved.
What is so bad about that?


Your whole argument seems to be(and correct me if Im wrong).

1. The earth has been warmer in the past.
2. The earth seems to be warming up now.
3. Humanity wasnt around when it was warm in the past.
Therefor humanity can not possibly by any imaginable mechanism cause this warming. It absolutely HAS to be a natural variation no matter what.

But yet you accept that CO2 is a crucial part of the cycles of the climate and you accept that humanity is the largest releaser of CO2 today.

If you accept that a increase in co2 leads to a increase in temperature I can not possibly se how you can refuse to even entertain the possibility that humanity can effect the climate by releasing co2.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Logan13]

well acctualy I only rode in cars like 5 times last year. I always take the tram or train everywhere and its driven by electricity and we get all our electricity from nuclear and hydropower.

But I dont avoid cars because of global warming that would be stupid. There is not much I can do on a individual level. EVERYTHING in my life is here becaue of fossile fuels, the food I buy in the store, the shipping of the compoments in my computer. The clothes I wear, the textbooks I buy for classes. But I would not go out and buy a hummer if I decided to buy a car.

What needs to be done is on a internationa level offcourse. Cutting down on co2 isnt hard. Just replace coal with nuclear and problem solved. Cutting down on co2 because of transportation will take alot longer, but if we make our electricity production non poluting half of the problem is solved.
What is so bad about that?


Your whole argument seems to be(and correct me if Im wrong).

1. The earth has been warmer in the past.
2. The earth seems to be warming up now.
3. Humanity wasnt around when it was warm in the past.
Therefor humanity can not possibly by any imaginable mechanism cause this warming. It absolutely HAS to be a natural variation no matter what.

But yet you accept that CO2 is a crucial part of the cycles of the climate and you accept that humanity is the largest releaser of CO2 today.

If you accept that a increase in co2 leads to a increase in temperature I can not possibly se how you can refuse to even entertain the possibility that humanity can effect the climate by releasing co2.

As I have said in the past, I believe that many people who are crying that the sky is falling now were also in on the whole "at midnight, Jan. 01, 2000 all of the world's computers will fail" scare.
1. The earth has been warmer in the past.-yes
2. The earth seems to be warming up now.-yes
3. Humanity wasnt around when it was warm in the past.-obviously
Therefor humanity can not possibly by any imaginable mechanism cause this warming. It absolutely HAS to be a natural variation no matter what.-No, I never said that. I have more faith in mother nature to rebound by taking natural counter measures. The world is not going to end in 50 years because of this, no matter what the Al Gores of the world may think. I want clean air as much as the next guy, and this is not much-ado-about-nothing, but I believe that you and many on that side of the pond are blowing this out of proportion. In the end, the earth will survive.

[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.

[Kärnfysikern]

No, I never said that. I have more faith in mother nature to rebound by taking natural counter measures. The world is not going to end in 50 years because of this, no matter what the Al Gores of the world may think. I want clean air as much as the next guy, and this is not much-ado-about-nothing, but I believe that you and many on that side of the pond are blowing this out of proportion. In the end, the earth will survive.

Acctualy I dont realy say anything about how bad its going to be. I have no doubt we will survive and adapt even. Especialy in the western countries, might be worse for the third world.

I hate it when scientists go on popular scientific shows and start mongering about how elninio will become permanent, the amazon will dry out, the gulf stream will die and freeze northern europe, sealevels will rise 15meters and so on. Extrem fearmongering just make it look silly.

But imo the conservative estimates of 1-2 degrees warning, more frequent elninios and disturbed gulf stream is bad enough. Especialy when we can prevent it.

We can reduce co2 and get clean air at the same time without it beeing a economical disaster. With a few big gradual changes in society like:
Hydro and nuclear instead of coal
hydrogen fuel cells or lithium ion batteries instead of petrol
Smarter designs so buildings use natural convection as cooling

and small changes that individuals and companies all can do:
solar panels on the roofs of both private and comercial buildings
water tanks on the roof for water heating, atleast in the southern states and southern europe
better insulatin in homes
LED lights instead of incandescent bulbs
heat pumps in buildings.(they heat buildings 5-8 times as efficient as for instance electric heating).

Most of those things will even save companies and homeowners money in the long run.

Technology is obviously the solution to both polution and GW and when new technology is developed there is money to make. It just needs a kick in the ass to get started big time.

What buisness do you work with logan? Have you ever seen any analysis of how much money these above measures could save your company?

[Kärnfysikern]

I acctualy suspect that you and I more or less agree on what measures should be taken to get rid of polution and at the same time get rid of co2.

[Bigen12]

I've been hearing alot about the higher than normal solar activity, basicly the sun is hotter, from a local talk show host, Neil Bortz,,,

The Sun has released another powerful solar flare, hurtling billions of tons of energy toward Earth. We have strong scientific evidence .. not computer models, but actual evidence ... that the Sun has been unusually active for the past 30 years. More activity .. more heat. Leftist eco-morons continue with their program of blaming capitalism and industrial growth for global warming.

Thanks to the efforts of the media and the international community, people who question the existence of global warming, which is still an unproven scientific theory, are made to look like members of the Flat Earth Society. How could anyone possibly think there is no such thing as global warming? Forget the facts...forget the science...it's all about emotion, and the anti-capitalist agenda.

Look .. I'm not denying that the Earth's climate has warmed. It has. Perhaps by as much as one degree. Why, though, are so many people so eager to acknowledge that the earth is warmer, but they'll deny that the sun is and has been hotter than usual for the past 15 years or so? Why no acknowledgement of the increase sun activity? Because to admit that would be to admit that this may be the reason for what we call global warming.

There are really two elements to the global warming crowd. On the one hand we have the scientists, on the other hand the political activists. The scientists know that as soon as they acknowledge the role of increase solar activity in global warming their research funds will dry up. Much of these research funds are tied to the idea that global warming is caused by the actions of man. The political activists behind the man-made global warming idea have a goal .. .and that goal is to slow the evil machinery of free enterprise. They are, at their core, anti-capitalists; newbie socialists and remnants of the old world-wide communist movement.

[Kärnfysikern]

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2...4-08-03-03.asp

The influence of the Sun on the Earth was believed to be one cause of the global warming observed since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil.

But Professor Sami Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, is not convinced that the increased activity of the Sun is responsible for global warming.

Solar physicist Dr. Sami Solanki is director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Photo courtesy MPS)
He says that based on his team's research, the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20 to 30 years.
"Just how large this role is, must still be investigated," he says, "since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

They found that since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and 2.5 times higher than the long term average, as they report in the scientific journal, "Physical Review Letters."

Then they combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic.

In addition, the MPS scientists took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth.

"Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time," they said.

However, they said, "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."

[Logan13]

I've been hearing alot about the higher than normal solar activity, basicly the sun is hotter, from a local talk show host, Neil Bortz,,,

I really like Neil Bortz.

[Logan13]

I acctualy suspect that you and I more or less agree on what measures should be taken to get rid of polution and at the same time get rid of co2.

From my point of view:

If the Republicans would put more into lowering greenhouse gases, we could make progress.

If the Democrats would put half of the energy into winning the war on terror as they do into Al Gore's theorys, we would be kicking radical Islams ass all over the globe.

[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.

[Logan13]

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.

Perhaps it would finally put New Orleans out of it's misery..............

[singern]

Perhaps it would finally put New Orleans out of it's misery..............

That would make Arkansas beach front property

[Logan13]

That would make Arkansas beach front property

Bad aspect of New Orleans going under the ocean though, it would pollute the hell out of it!