An Inconvenient Truth

[slash196]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It cannot be replicable on a global scale nor has Man's influence been statistically proven. It just cannot be. Why? Because the current Co2 and temperature peak started tens of thousands of years ago.

CO2 levels did start rising about 10-20 thousand years ago, however this was following the normal trend of CO2 variations along with ice age cycles. The CO2 levels did not dramatically rise until the Industrial Revolution.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You people are so gullible, you swallow and head in the direction that anybody points you in, forgetting reason, statisitics, and truthful science.

This is a very interesting claim since your views are at odd with the vast majority of scientists in this world.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You refuse to acknowledge that the ice caps weren't in existance before nor will they always be there in the global cyclical pattern.

This is irrelevant, because the current rate of melting will end up putting a much larger strain on humans than a long-term gradual melting would.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You refuse to acknowledge that the ice caps are getting thicker in the middle but smaller along the periphery.

Again, this is irrelevant. All that matters is that the ice caps are melting faster than they are growing. At the current rate of warming, the global sea level could rise 20-40 feet within a century. This would displace hundreds of millions of people.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You fail to acknowledge that the Sun's ouput has increased over the past 30 years when we finally have had accurate readings.

This is true, however, unlike the warming trend, there is no reason to believe it is unusual. Based on a longer record provided by tree rings and sunspots, fluctuations in the sun's output appear to be related to past warming/cooling cyclesl.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You fail to acknowledge that the Vostok cores show that peaks and valleys existed long before man.

I believe there is only one Vostok Core, and it provides the exact data that has led scientists to conclude that the current warming trend is out of the ordinary. The current warming trend is not consistent with the temperature cycles over the past 400,000 years.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I just refuse to acknowledge that man's Co2 = GW, because no matter what you say, it is *NOT* scientifically nor statistically proven.

Scientifically the evidence is extremely strong. The current warming trend coincides with the current skyrocketing of CO2 levels AND with the Industrial Revolution. Graphs of the data are easy to find and the correlation between them is clear. The chance that this is all happening by coincidence (as you claim) is so small, that no rational human with knowledge of all the facts would consider it.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
blind to the reality that the Earth has been doing this stuff long before we got here.

The sad thing about this claim is that even a thirty second glance at the data shows that the current warming trend is not consistent with any past climate activity on earth.

1. Co2 levels haven't raised dramatically outside the normal variation that has been seen through history. Furthermore, a deviation from a highly variable measurement isn't amazing.

2. I couldn't care less about what the "vast majority of scientists" believe. They get into a group-think mindset and just follow the flock instead of thinking about other things, like statistical proof. This is no different than fools who think the housing market isn't going to crash, which I said 2 years ago. Group-think rules logic and reasoning, if you let it.

3. I doubt you will see 20-40' raise in 100 years.

4. Again, you are assuming that history is a perfect predictor of the present and future. This is complete crap, as history can only be used as a guide and has to be acknowledged as an imperfect one.

5. You are saying that the industrial revolution has played a huge part, yet CO2 levels, measurable and extrapolated by man, have only increased dramatically in the last 80 years. How can you automatically assume that they are what has caused an increase? You can assume but you can't prove, yet you preach like it is proven.

6. It doesn't have to be consistant. No past cycle was the same as the previous, and IIRC, the last wasn't as high as the one before. It's called a "random walk", whereby you cannot predict it and the variations aren't explainable by any normal means.

Seriously, as I have mentioned before, show me an R2 of man's output of CO2 that can be directly measured and attributed and if it is high, then I might believe you. However, the independant and replicatable tests I have seen do not even come close. The one variable that people focus on is man, and that R2 has been low.

So it's impossible that these thousands of people with decades of training in statistical analysis and scientific method are right, and you are (gasp!) wrong? You dismiss the opinions of people who actually know what the f*ck they're talking about just because you don't like the conclusion they've reached? Yeah, real rational.

 

[maluckey]

So it's impossible that these thousands of people with decades of training in statistical analysis and scientific method are right, and you are (gasp!) wrong? You dismiss the opinions of people who actually know what the f*ck they're talking about just because you don't like the conclusion they've reached? Yeah, real rational.

You said the right word..."opinions of people". Thus far there is no evidence that supports the argument for man caused global warming, that is concrete. Twenty years ago the same scientists were predicting an Ice Age.

If the Gulf Stream fails, Europe will freeze. That's one thing that they (those with opinions) can agree on. If the salinity of the oceans drops because of polar melting, this will at some point occur. At what point will it interrupt the flow? No hard numbers. No hard numbers about at what point the earths temperature will raise the temperature of the oceans enough to cause a blue-green algae bloom. Blue green algae makes most of the earths O2, not forests. It thrives in warm waters. Will the algae bloom offset the C02 levels? Who knows?

That's the point. Nobody knows if there will be cooling, warming or anything else as a side effect of elevated C02 levels. They all agree than mans input is VERY low in the equation. Should we clean up? Certainly. We are killing everyhing at a rapid pace. I cannot forsee it getting better in the next thirty or so years. Is that enough time to figure this out? I doubt it.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: maluckey
You said the right word..."opinions of people". Thus far there is no evidence that supports the argument for man caused global warming, that is concrete.

:frown:

It is rather more than "opinions". There is very strong corellational evidence to suggest that man is a significant factor in the climate shift. How would you prove that humans are causing global warming anyway? So, it could be a coincidence, but is it really worth the risk when we know we can avoid making things worse by being smart with our resources?

 

[maluckey]

Anecdotal evidence and "strong correlational" evidence is by no means concrete. I can show you correlational evidence tha my cat takes a dump every time that the show Supernatural is on. Does that mean that the show causes my cat to defecate? Or does it mean that I let my cat in every night at that time? Cause and effect MUST be proven for corollaries to mean anything. To date there is no proof of man causing global warming. There IS proof that warming is occurring There is also proof that mans contribution is less than one percent. Do the math. It doesn't look good for man.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet? What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

Now, I am sure people are saying "Wow, what a right wing nutjob". Sorry, but that won't work. I am firmly for cutting greenhouse gasses and wasteful stuff like SUVs. Going for alt-energy and very pro-nuclear. Because I acknowledge that what we are doing *IS* bad and we shouldn't be doing it. I just disagree on the size of the impact we are having.

And you base your opinion on what?

He's right. The only thing we can say for sure is that global warming is happening. Some deny that, but it is happening. It's easy: just look at temperature data over a lot of areas over a long period of time. Now, identifying what caused that has not been done. Far too much faith is granted to science. We have seen more money thrown into cancer research than global warming studying. Cancer is in a controlled environment and the planet is not and yet the cure for cancer continues to elude our grasp. Weather forecasters can't even tell me what the weather will be in Alabama in two weeks, or even with much confidence what it will be in two days and yet people seem to think scientists can accurately model the environment on a global scale. It's funny, if not sad.

You think cancer is in a controlled Environment?

 

[ProfJohn]

Just two points to add:

1. Does everyone know that we are actually in an ?ice age? right now? And I don?t mean the movie.
2. Current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 Do you relieze how small .28 C is? Right now the variation between one year to the next is WAY more than that, I read in a recently article that the HOTEST summer EVER was nearly .7 C hotter than this year, or three times greater than what Kyoto would do at its BEST. So we are to take on all this expense and inconvenence so that we can reduce the rise in tempature over the next 50 years by less than the tempature between this summer and some summer 40+ years ago? HUH?

Ps. Check out this?. Global Cooling!!! Yes you read that right

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.

Read this and ask what the hell is going on with these scientists. First global cooling, now global warming what is next? Global obbesity? oh wait, already have that, dang.
Global Cooling

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Ps. Check out this?. Global Cooling!!! Yes you read that right

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.

Read this and ask what the hell is going on with these scientists. First global cooling, now global warming what is next? Global obbesity? oh wait, already have that, dang.
Global Cooling

Search here for Global Cooling , good thing Professors are always up for some education

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Ps. Check out this?. Global Cooling!!! Yes you read that right

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.

Read this and ask what the hell is going on with these scientists. First global cooling, now global warming what is next? Global obbesity? oh wait, already have that, dang.
Global Cooling

Search here for Global Cooling , good thing Professors are always up for some education

What you said makes no sense.

ProfJohn was pointing out that there is always a fad of some sort whether it be global cool, global warming, etc. etc....

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet? What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

Now, I am sure people are saying "Wow, what a right wing nutjob". Sorry, but that won't work. I am firmly for cutting greenhouse gasses and wasteful stuff like SUVs. Going for alt-energy and very pro-nuclear. Because I acknowledge that what we are doing *IS* bad and we shouldn't be doing it. I just disagree on the size of the impact we are having.

And you base your opinion on what?

He's right. The only thing we can say for sure is that global warming is happening. Some deny that, but it is happening. It's easy: just look at temperature data over a lot of areas over a long period of time. Now, identifying what caused that has not been done. Far too much faith is granted to science. We have seen more money thrown into cancer research than global warming studying. Cancer is in a controlled environment and the planet is not and yet the cure for cancer continues to elude our grasp. Weather forecasters can't even tell me what the weather will be in Alabama in two weeks, or even with much confidence what it will be in two days and yet people seem to think scientists can accurately model the environment on a global scale. It's funny, if not sad.

You think cancer is in a controlled Environment?

Yeah, not sure where he got that. My wife's caner surely wasn't controlled. 26, no family history, no radiation exposure, healthy living.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

latest computer models estiamte that het polar ice cap will be gone in 50 years. Good bye polar bears!!!!!

Oh, and even if we stop all carbon dioxide emissions today .. the effects of old emissions will probably linger for another 10 years (meaning globabl warming won't stop).

Oh ... and if some ice sheets melt, CO2 deposites and methane gas might be released in process. Methane gas is much worse than CO2, but luckily we get the double whammy.

Oh ... I forget if it's 50 or 100 years .... but the sea levels are going to rise 15 meters. COmputer models by people that study this stuff mind you.

To bad Bush will not put CO2 regulations in place since it might cost America jobs. Yes, this is what he said.

Get rid of the Republican morons so someone will actualyl change the way we create energy in this damned country. .... and so developing third world countries adopt that tech before becoming dependant on fossil fuels.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It cannot be replicable on a global scale nor has Man's influence been statistically proven. It just cannot be. Why? Because the current Co2 and temperature peak started tens of thousands of years ago.

CO2 levels did start rising about 10-20 thousand years ago, however this was following the normal trend of CO2 variations along with ice age cycles. The CO2 levels did not dramatically rise until the Industrial Revolution.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You people are so gullible, you swallow and head in the direction that anybody points you in, forgetting reason, statisitics, and truthful science.

This is a very interesting claim since your views are at odd with the vast majority of scientists in this world.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You refuse to acknowledge that the ice caps weren't in existance before nor will they always be there in the global cyclical pattern.

This is irrelevant, because the current rate of melting will end up putting a much larger strain on humans than a long-term gradual melting would.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You refuse to acknowledge that the ice caps are getting thicker in the middle but smaller along the periphery.

Again, this is irrelevant. All that matters is that the ice caps are melting faster than they are growing. At the current rate of warming, the global sea level could rise 20-40 feet within a century. This would displace hundreds of millions of people.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You fail to acknowledge that the Sun's ouput has increased over the past 30 years when we finally have had accurate readings.

This is true, however, unlike the warming trend, there is no reason to believe it is unusual. Based on a longer record provided by tree rings and sunspots, fluctuations in the sun's output appear to be related to past warming/cooling cyclesl.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You fail to acknowledge that the Vostok cores show that peaks and valleys existed long before man.

I believe there is only one Vostok Core, and it provides the exact data that has led scientists to conclude that the current warming trend is out of the ordinary. The current warming trend is not consistent with the temperature cycles over the past 400,000 years.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I just refuse to acknowledge that man's Co2 = GW, because no matter what you say, it is *NOT* scientifically nor statistically proven.

Scientifically the evidence is extremely strong. The current warming trend coincides with the current skyrocketing of CO2 levels AND with the Industrial Revolution. Graphs of the data are easy to find and the correlation between them is clear. The chance that this is all happening by coincidence (as you claim) is so small, that no rational human with knowledge of all the facts would consider it.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
blind to the reality that the Earth has been doing this stuff long before we got here.

The sad thing about this claim is that even a thirty second glance at the data shows that the current warming trend is not consistent with any past climate activity on earth.

1. Co2 levels haven't raised dramatically outside the normal variation that has been seen through history. Furthermore, a deviation from a highly variable measurement isn't amazing.

2. I couldn't care less about what the "vast majority of scientists" believe. They get into a group-think mindset and just follow the flock instead of thinking about other things, like statistical proof. This is no different than fools who think the housing market isn't going to crash, which I said 2 years ago. Group-think rules logic and reasoning, if you let it.

3. I doubt you will see 20-40' raise in 100 years.

4. Again, you are assuming that history is a perfect predictor of the present and future. This is complete crap, as history can only be used as a guide and has to be acknowledged as an imperfect one.

5. You are saying that the industrial revolution has played a huge part, yet CO2 levels, measurable and extrapolated by man, have only increased dramatically in the last 80 years. How can you automatically assume that they are what has caused an increase? You can assume but you can't prove, yet you preach like it is proven.

6. It doesn't have to be consistant. No past cycle was the same as the previous, and IIRC, the last wasn't as high as the one before. It's called a "random walk", whereby you cannot predict it and the variations aren't explainable by any normal means.

Seriously, as I have mentioned before, show me an R2 of man's output of CO2 that can be directly measured and attributed and if it is high, then I might believe you. However, the independant and replicatable tests I have seen do not even come close. The one variable that people focus on is man, and that R2 has been low.

So it's impossible that these thousands of people with decades of training in statistical analysis and scientific method are right, and you are (gasp!) wrong? You dismiss the opinions of people who actually know what the f*ck they're talking about just because you don't like the conclusion they've reached? Yeah, real rational.

:thumbsup:

Some people ignore the truth because they are afraid of it.

FACT 1:
CO2 causes global warming

FACT 2:
CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and other "sinks"

FACT 3:
The world produces more than twice the CO2 that the Earth can handle

Anyone see the conclusion here? OPr are you blind?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Anecdotal evidence and "strong correlational" evidence is by no means concrete. I can show you correlational evidence tha my cat takes a dump every time that the show Supernatural is on. Does that mean that the show causes my cat to defecate? Or does it mean that I let my cat in every night at that time? Cause and effect MUST be proven for corollaries to mean anything. To date there is no proof of man causing global warming. There IS proof that warming is occurring There is also proof that mans contribution is less than one percent. Do the math. It doesn't look good for man.

Co2 causes global warming. THIS IS A PROVEN FACT

The earth can handle sopmethign like 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

CO2 is currently being produced at a rate of soemthing like 5 billion tonnes per year.

Notice a problem here with the afformentioned FACT? SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
latest computer models estiamte that het polar ice cap will be gone in 50 years. Good bye polar bears!!!!!

Oh, and even if we stop all carbon dioxide emissions today .. the effects of old emissions will probably linger for another 10 years (meaning globabl warming won't stop).

Oh ... and if some ice sheets melt, CO2 deposites and methane gas might be released in process. Methane gas is much worse than CO2, but luckily we get the double whammy.

Oh ... I forget if it's 50 or 100 years .... but the sea levels are going to rise 15 meters. COmputer models by people that study this stuff mind you.

To bad Bush will not put CO2 regulations in place since it might cost America jobs. Yes, this is what he said.

Get rid of the Republican morons so someone will actualyl change the way we create energy in this damned country. .... and so developing third world countries adopt that tech before becoming dependant on fossil fuels.

I think this whole thing is a government conspiracy? notice you say by 2050 right? What else will happen at that same time??? Social Security will cause the country to go bankrupt!!! The politicians know this and in order to hide their inability to save Social Security they are instead engaged in a plan to increase the rate of global warming so that when we can no longer afford SS they can blame it on global warming!!! Amazing how smart these guys are? Don?t believe me? Just look at all the hot air coming out of Washington!! Yet more proof

On CO2 regulations... is there proof that these regulations will do anything? Second, people complain about the job market now and you want to put in place a plan that will take jobs away from people? Are you willing to go on welfare and work at McDonalds cause you can't find a better job?
Wait... if all the enviromentalists give up their cars and houses and go live in the jungle "off the land" how much CO2 emmisions would that stop?

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just two points to add:

1. Does everyone know that we are actually in an ?ice age? right now? And I don?t mean the movie.
2. Current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 Do you relieze how small .28 C is? Right now the variation between one year to the next is WAY more than that, I read in a recently article that the HOTEST summer EVER was nearly .7 C hotter than this year, or three times greater than what Kyoto would do at its BEST. So we are to take on all this expense and inconvenence so that we can reduce the rise in tempature over the next 50 years by less than the tempature between this summer and some summer 40+ years ago? HUH?

Ps. Check out this?. Global Cooling!!! Yes you read that right

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.

Read this and ask what the hell is going on with these scientists. First global cooling, now global warming what is next? Global obbesity? oh wait, already have that, dang.
Global Cooling

The way I look at it is not really about "global warming" or "global cooling", it is about climate change and the balance of the gulf stream, the ice caps, etc.

I was in fact aware that we are in the middle of an ice age. Quite interesting to think that the rise of human civilization occured within a comparatively warm spot amidst a very long ice age.

We could tip back into proper ice age at any time. To be honest, even if there isn't "concrete" evidence, I don't really want to take that risk. If nature is going go that way, fine, but let's not help it along.

In short, "Better safe than sorry".

 

[imported_Infidel]

I think libs/dems care about global warming and the effects on the environment. I thing the repubs/conservatives just hate the libs/dems, therefore they have to disagree with the global warming hypothesis. Their hatred for the left prevents them from objectively evaluating the situation, they just take their talking points from Limbaugh et al and parrot them endlessly.

Yes, your hatred for the left makes you look like a comic book characters. Caring about the environment does not make you a bad conservative, supporting Bush policies does.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: JD50

What you said makes no sense.

ProfJohn was pointing out that there is always a fad of some sort whether it be global cool, global warming, etc. etc....

Sorry, what I meant was that the cooling/heating thing has already been discussed several times here at anandtech

 

[kingtas]

I don't know, it was pretty freaking hot in South Texas this year. Maybe we are doomed?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Infidel
I think libs/dems care about global warming and the effects on the environment. I thing the repubs/conservatives just hate the libs/dems, therefore they have to disagree with the global warming hypothesis. Their hatred for the left prevents them from objectively evaluating the situation, they just take their talking points from Limbaugh et al and parrot them endlessly.

Yes, your hatred for the left makes you look like a comic book characters. Caring about the environment does not make you a bad conservative, supporting Bush policies does.

Wow, in describing those you hate, you simply just hate some more. You apply blanket statements with no logic or fact. You are, in fact, the person you are talking about.

I don't believe in the direct connection of Humans = global warming, because statistically speaking you cannot make that connection. Scientifically we know Co2 = heat. However, we do not know that humans = Co2 = heat. To say that we can definitely tie those two togeather in a measurable and directly attributable manner is not only false, but misleading and stupid.

I am not a conservative, or a republican, or a liberal. In fact, I hate Suv's, love alternative energy and wish the world would wake up. However, fearmongering and the lunacy of people like you in the above post, does nothing to make your case.

You are polarizing and illogical.

 

[maluckey]

Co2 causes global warming. THIS IS A PROVEN FACT

The earth can handle sopmethign like 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

CO2 is currently being produced at a rate of soemthing like 5 billion tonnes per year.

Notice a problem here with the afformentioned FACT? SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN?

Point 1: not even close. There is no fact here. Some "in the know" say CO2 leads to cooling. Google CO2 and cooling, also read other AT threads where this is mentioned.

Point 2: Mans contribution is insignificant compared to natural production. Thats a fact. Math does not lie when it's a simple ratio of man versus earth.

Look up the definition of fact. Scientific Hypothesis are NOT facts. Also read the rest of the thread. You are in your own world here. Not one shred of fact has emerged in this thread showing man has any real effect on global climate change.

 

[Grabo]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Of course everyone failed to mention that seismic activity and vulcanism is steadily increasing since 1875, and shows a VERY consistent overall pattern of increasing. Polar tilt (Chandlers Wobble) roughly correlates to the increase, though cause and effect are not entirely clear at the moment. It is not inconceivable that the wobble of he Earth on it's axis is the cause, and mans involvement though a nuisance, cannot change the inevitable.

Gases released from volcanoes dwarfs mans output in any comparison. The ratio is such that man is basically insignificant...at least statistically. We sure do think that we are important though. the Earth will survive with or without man. It doesn't care which.

So do you want to blame Chandler's Wobble or volcanoes, or both?

Regarding the Wobble: from Wikipedia:

"The Chandler wobble is a factor considered by satellite navigation systems (especially military systems). It is also claimed to be the cause of major tectonic activity, including earthquakes, volcanism, El Niño, and global warming phenomenon, however there is no actual data which supports such a claim."



From 'How Volcanoes Work"
(http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html)

"Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."




And by the way, who says co2 in the atmosphere leads to cooler temperatures?? I..just begin to wonder if we're speaking about the same planet/dimension.

 

[maluckey]

Wallace Broecker, who in 1975 claimed that elevated CO2 would cause global warming has recently (in the nineties) modified his initial study to state that cooling is also a likely outcome. How's that for "FACTS". This is the best he can do is to predict cooling or warming? Hell! I could do the same.

Scientist that mentions that insufficient data is an issue

John R. Christy, above scientist, also mentions volcanoes as major players.

As I stated..recent ice core sample show that until around 8000 years ago that the CO2 levels roughly corresponded to Chandlers wobble, and that all averaved out to a constant global cooling. Then that changed. Why? My guess is that multiple natural factors changed things. It is not inconceivable that man helped it out as well (at least since the 18th century). If we can find why it all started, we might be able to find a method to counteract it's effects.

 

[DrPizza]

maluckey... are you going to continue to cite sources that have no information less than a decade old? Check the references at the bottom of the page you just cited. Furthermore, that most recent link you gave is little different than a geocities site. May I suggest that if you want any of us to consider your side, that you provide some links to peer reviewed articles in scientific journals; not the "official testimony" of some college professor located at some mediocre university.

To assist you in locating more scholarly sources, may I suggest scholar.google.com to help weed out some of the crap sites? And, while you're there, heed your own suggestion and scholar.google CO2 and cooling... It seems that most of the bullshit sites have vanished from the search.

I'd bother to provide links supporting global warming, but consider it sufficient to suggest that you simply go to scholar.google and search for global warming. You can see how many people have cited the papers, and tons of the stuff has been peer reviewed. I'm not going to cherry pick specific articles - it's completely unnecessary. Virtually every article is supportive of a global warming hypothesis with a major cause being green-house gas emissions produced by man. I'll give you first dibs on cherry picking scholarly articles that support your side. BTW, when/if you find some, please let us know what the search terms are that you used... It's always amusing to see that only 1 or 2 articles meet your specific search criteria, while 1000's of articles are found when using search criteria which is contradictory to the conclusions reached by those very few.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Get rid of the Republican morons so someone will actualyl change the way we create energy in this damned country. .... and so developing third world countries adopt that tech before becoming dependant on fossil fuels.

Clinton and Gore had 8 years to do something, and what happened? ummm Nothing....
What ever happened to this great campaign promise? ""We'll seek to raise the average goal for automakers to 45 miles per gallon." - Philadelphia, April 22, 1992" hmmmm still not at that level... what makes you think a Democrat now will do anything different?

 

[umbrella39]

But but but Clinton. Yawn.

 

[sandorski]

As I recall Clinton tried to do something, but Congress had some power back then(or the President didn't assume total power) and they nixed any attempts to do something.