More Experts Agree...

More experts agree that there are many, less subtle reasons for global warming then mankind.

The truth is forcing it's way out in the formerly one sided debate about global warming. There are more stories everyday about credable scientists and experts with the alternative view and evidence that man is not creating the phenomina of global warming, he is creating the hype...

This from the former Editor of New Scientist:
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Is the Daily Telegraph credible? I think it is but I don't know it....
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

its amazing these days nothing we are told, can be taken as truth. the geezer last thursday on c2csaid it perfectly. the recent report on gw, had to leave out the amount that the sun impacts the earth, because if they showed the amount the sun has on climate change, then the general public will just ignore them and say the sun is responsible.

stats can be twisted to show any result people want. the truth is the sun is responsible, seeing as we cannot control the sun, we have to emphasize the amount the co2 has because thats the only real contributer that we acknowledge(they will not talk about things like harrp). so stick all the balme on co2, and then at least the public can do something, though scientists that say that co2 is not the main cause, the sun is are correct

[edit on 2/12/2007 by andy1033]

Originally posted by andy1033
its amazing these days nothing we are told, can be taken as truth. the geezer last thursday on c2csaid it perfectly. the recent report on gw, had to leave out the amount that the sun impacts the earth, because if they showed the amount the sun has on climate change, then the general public will just ignore them and say the sun is responsible.

How much effect is the sun having on current climate change?

No-one denies that solar variations have the ability to effect the climate of the earth. But is there any real evidence that solar variations are the major cause of the current warming?

[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]

There's no question the sun is the cause of gw. Without the sun; the earth would be cold and lifeless.

The argument is: What's causing the variation in CO2 that allows the heat to be trapped in the atmosphere?

Ice core studies have revealed several periods of time (millions of years) when CO2 levels have risen and corresponded with increases in global temperatures. Humans weren't around then to "cause" gw. My question is: What's so different now? It's irresponsible to automatically attribute gw to humans when it's happened before without humans. I believe its cyclical.

Originally posted by melatonin
No-one denies that solar variations have the ability to effect the climate of the earth. But is there any real evidence that solar variations are the major cause of the current warming?
[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]

The other planets, ie Venus and Mars are also getting slightly warmer. Is my SUV causing that too or maybe it's the sun doing it's thing?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's irresponsible to automatically attribute gw to humans when it's happened before without humans. I believe its cyclical.

I don't think anyone has automatically attributed the current warming to human activity. The science has been around for over 20 years, with tentative suggestions of the impact of human activities. The evidence has been collecting since then.

The other mechanisms that we know are important to climate seem to be of minor consequence for this current rapid warming. For example, Solar variation has essentially been minimal for 50 years, however, the IPCC still allow an attribution of 10-15% for this forcing (it is half of the previous attribution, the evidence suggests it is even less).

I just found this article that has evidence that Mars isn't warming...

www.realclimate.org...

How can mere mortals sort through all the info and dis-info from both sides on this issue?

Originally posted by Gatordone
I just found this article that has evidence that Mars isn't warming...

www.realclimate.org...

How can mere mortals sort through all the info and dis-info from both sides on this issue?

I would try to stick to the peer-reviewed science. Which is the good thing about the realclimate site, they are practicing climate scientists and rely on the evidence. It's hard if you don't have access to the journals in which the evidence is published.

For instance, Svensmark has an interesting hypothesis about galactic cosmic rays, but we see absolutely no evidence that they have been changing over the last 100 years in a way that could effect climate. Even his own study shows this constant level. So, it could well be true that GCRs effect cloud cover, but if GCR is relatively constant, what does that mean?

Originally posted by Gatordone
How can mere mortals sort through all the info and dis-info from both sides on this issue?

I totally agree with that.

It would seem, however, the people that have chosen whichever side seem to have done so right along the party line. At least thats what I hear from people who try to pass out copies of Gore's movie to me. Theyre on the left, Gore's on the left so its become a left cause.

Instinctually the right must refute the left. The left knows this so any figures or studies coming from the right is immediatley dismissed as Exxon paid for lies and promptly ignored no matter how true they may be.

If humans are to blame and if its indeed happening its probably very important but once again politics and idiotic bickering have reduced what could potentially reshape the world into a ballot issue to be used for votes.

Originally posted by melatonin

No-one denies that solar variations have the ability to effect the climate of the earth. But is there any real evidence that solar variations are the major cause of the current warming?

[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]

The simple fact that if CO2 was the cause for global warming, then every year it would get warmer, and it should really get warmer all over the globe, yet it doesnt. It gets warmer in some places, while others there is a cooling trend. For example, in the northern latitutes glaciers are melting, while in the southern seas there has been an 8% increase in ice.

Looking at the temperature trends on the layers of Earth's atmosphere you also see a curious trend, meanwhile in one year there is a cooling trend, the next there is a warming trend, then a cooling, then two years of warmer, and cooling again.

If you look at the past 10 years you will find that warming trends have happened when there have been massive solar flares, but it was not only the sun which went beserk in those years.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
John Roach
for National Geographic News

September 9, 2004
Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

If the trend continues, the field may collapse altogether and then reverse. Compasses would point south instead of north.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Earth's field weakening in stages might account for part of the variations in temperature, this plus the fact that when the sun goes beserk, it stops cosmic rays from coming in contact with Earth's atmosphere. When the sun is "in relative calm" more cosmic rays reach the Earth, which produce more clouds which cools the planet.

One thing is clear, if global warming was dominated by anthropogenic CO2, there wouldn't be the variations in temperature trends we keep seeing. There would have been a steady increase in temperatures all over the planet, what we actually see is regional warming and regional cooling.



[edit on 12-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

I would try to stick to the peer-reviewed science. Which is the good thing about the realclimate site, they are practicing climate scientists and rely on the evidence. It's hard if you don't have access to the journals in which the evidence is published.

That site was created by Mann for a reason, he has been trying to defend his hockey Stick graph to no avail.

Sorry to tell you this but that "peer-reviewed sicence site" is based in nothing more than a lie...

Anyways, if you want to check how ice coverage has increased from 1994 to 2006 on the southern latitutes, I made an animation using NASA's data on ice coverage for those years.

The result is very interesting. You can see a steady increase in ice coverage on the Antartic, and a sudden increase in ice coverage around 2004-2005.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

You can also play around with the program in that site and see ice coverage on Earth throughout the years NASA has been keeping data on global ice coverage.

Here is the link if you want to check it out, the one above is not working.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

You can fill in with the dates you want to watch ice coverage on Earth.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
That site was created by Mann for a reason, he has been trying to defend his hockey Stick graph to no avail.

We've already been through this muaddib. Mann's original 1998 study has been replicated by other studies using more rigorous statisitical methods.

You're just being disingenuous, again...but at least you didn't repeat the roman warming period rubbish

Here's the 10 studies I posted in t'other thread, including Mann et al's 1998 study:

Sorry to tell you this but that "peer-reviewed sicence site" is based in nothing more than a lie...

No, the site uses evidence from peer-reviewed scientific studies, the very basis of science. The blog is not peer-reviewed, there's no such thing.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The simple fact that if CO2 was the cause for global warming, then every year it would get warmer, and it should really get warmer all over the globe, yet it doesnt. It gets warmer in some places, while others there is a cooling trend. For example, in the northern latitutes glaciers are melting, while in the southern seas there has been an 8% increase in ice.

No, we expect there to be a global trend over periods of many years, that is what we are seeing.



[observed is the black line]

Earth's field weakening in stages might account for part of the variations in temperature, this plus the fact that when the sun goes beserk, it stops cosmic rays from coming in contact with Earth's atmosphere. When the sun is "in relative calm" more cosmic rays reach the Earth, which produce more clouds which cools the planet.

Yeah, sounds great. But we see no trend in galactic cosmic rays, even Svensmark's paper shows this. If this was an important effect for the current warming we would see a trend in GCRs. We don't...

One thing is clear, if global warming was dominated by anthropogenic CO2, there wouldn't be the variations in temperature trends we keep seeing. There would have been a steady increase in temperatures all over the planet, what we actually see is regional warming and regional cooling.

What we are looking for is a global trend in temperatures, regional effects are exactly what they say they are - regional.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, if you want to check how ice coverage has increased from 1994 to 2006 on the southern latitutes, I made an animation using NASA's data on ice coverage for those years.

The result is very interesting. You can see a steady increase in ice coverage on the Antartic, and a sudden increase in ice coverage around 2004-2005.

Yet, amazingly...

Originally published in Science Express on 2 March 2006
Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1754 - 1756
DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna1,2* and John Wahr1*

Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

www.sciencemag.org...

There's not only global warming, there's also global dimming which ties in with global warming. Here's a documentary...

Google Video Link

[edit on 2/13/2007 by mulder762002]

Originally posted by Gatordone
More experts agree that there are many, less subtle reasons for global warming then mankind.

The truth is forcing it's way out in the formerly one sided debate about global warming. There are more stories everyday about credable scientists and experts with the alternative view and evidence that man is not creating the phenomina of global warming, he is creating the hype...

I work with PhD physicists and chemists everyday and I can tell you that few of them truly believe that global warming is solely caused by man. In fact, several of them believe that GW is hyped for political reasons. I myself will be graduating in May with a degree in chemistry and I am growing more and more skeptical all the time.

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
I work with PhD physicists and chemists everyday and I can tell you that few of them truly believe that global warming is solely caused by man. In fact, several of them believe that GW is hyped for political reasons. I myself will be graduating in May with a degree in chemistry and I am growing more and more skeptical all the time.

However, as an 'almost' graduate, you should know that belief has little sway in science, only the evidence counts.

Unless these physicists and chemists you know can show another cause for the current warming trend, or show the current evidence to be unreliable, human-derived CO2 will be attributed as the major cause - as the evidence currently suggests.

Also, no-one thinks that man is the sole cause of the current trend, just the most significant one.


[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by MooneyBravo

I work with PhD physicists and chemists everyday and I can tell you that few of them truly believe that global warming is solely caused by man.

I don;t know any atmospheric scientist who believe it's solely down to man - they accept various natural factors which have an influence as well.

The question is whether human activity has amplified natural variations and if so, how much. Most scientists who propose alternatives to carbon emissions as the main driving force in recent climate change still accept that human activities, including carbon emissions, have some role: they simply believe that other natural factors are more significant and being overlooked for political ends.

A linear temp increase would not be expected because of the complexities of the atmosphere and the various other factors which contribute to annual global temperatures (el nino for example).

And human activity affecting climate is not limited to carbon emissions, despite what the media etc may lead you to believe. Land change use is a significant factor on regional climates. If you're really concerned about climate change, you might want to think about how much palm oil you use ......

Originally posted by mulder762002
There's not only global warming, there's also global dimming which ties in with global warming. Here's a documentary...

Watch the documentary with extreme scepticism. The producers of that film drew many conclusions that the scientists did not such as the drought in Ethiopia. The scientists stated that dimming may have been the cause while the film implied a "direct link". The film fails to address questions such as: What about other civilizations that disappeared thousands of years ago as a result of drought? It continues to conclude that gw is the direct result of CO2 emissions from human sources; which no responsible scientifc organization has concluded. The jury's still out and that film is....right out!!