Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

Why not? There wouldnt be anything remarkable about that.
A coin has no memory. you're just as likely to get two tails as tails and heads.
Your just as likely to get two kids of the same gender as one boy and one girl.

you're implying that the sun is giving out more heat. Certainly possible, but that would be easy for scientists to detect and you dont hear about such a discovery.

On the other hand- why would mars' climate suddenly warm up "because of the high carbon in its atmosphere"?

It always had high carbon in its atmosphere.

So the majority of experts can sometimes be wrong.
Whats your point?
Ofcourse they could be wrong, but you have the burden of proof to explain why you think they are wrong not others for thinkng theyre right.

They thought Copernicus was crazy. But they also thought Charles Manson was Crazy.
There are a millions of Charles Mansons for every Coperincus.

Actually one does. Right now the sun may be giving out less heat and we (and presumably Mars) are soon due for a cooling. Consider the younger dryas and the fairly recent Little Ice Age (1350 - 1750 approximately).

When the sunspots go away, it could indicate less output from the Sun.

ruveyn

fer cryin' out loud.

WE ARE CURRENTLY IN A SOLAR MINIMUM.
We are at the TROUGH in the solar cycle.
The sun is putting out the LEAST amount of energy now of any point in its cycle - that's total solar irradiance, btw, not just a lack of sunspots.

Please, please, go check out NASA's sun pages before blowing your mouth off about s**t you have no clue about.

We have less than 40 years of direct measurement of total solar irradiance and even less if spectrum is to be taken into account. Even NASA agreed that 1/4 of the temperature change in this period can be attributed to the sun's varying output and there are theories that suggest more. I just don't see how you think the sun can be ruled out as the major source of recent temperature changes.

On the other hand, CO2 level change has always lagged behind temperature change and they don't even correlate in the last decade. Of course it's possible that the lower output from the sun stalled the temperature raise, but no one can say for sure until the sun ups its output again. The most important question is how much CO2 contributes to the whole picture, if it has just minute effect like the last decade seems to imply, then regulating CO2 is just chasing ghost.

Since sunspot is at least related to the sun's output, it's a reasonable proxy for TSI. Historical records show an extended period of below average number of sunspots in the Little Ice Age, which coincides with the below average temperature of that period. All things considered, sunspot is much better quality proxy than tree rings and overall the sun's output correlates better to temperature than CO2.

Another dark horse to consider is the solar wind. Earth's magnetosphere should shield us from most of its energy. But most sources point to a 10% reduction of Earth's magnetic field in the past 150 years. That is another source of energy that most climate model ignored.

Don't forget variations in secondary and tertiary cosmic radiation. Cosmic rays affect cloud formation.

ruveyn

I seriously doubt that he is, guy is lock, stock, and barrel in the pocket of carbon-based fuel interests; check the numbers if you doubt that he is no more neutral on this issue than Al Gore. Like grandma always said, "James M Inhofe and Crap M D'Other, see which fills up first..."

Global warming is most certainly a myth. I did a speech on this in 9th grade Speech. Most of the evidence surrounding global warming is not universally acepted by all scientists. In fact, many oppose the very idea that Earth is heatig up due to ourselves. The Earth has gone through many climate changes before we even existed and will exist long after we're gone. In fact, here's a little food for thought: water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, and changes in Co2 are closely associated with it. So if climate change is real then it caused by water vapor. Therefore there's nothing we can do about it

Yes, that direction is interesting too. The proposed theories seem a bit far fetched now but the long term correlations just look too good to ignore. The only problem I see is that the short term variations aren't really reflected in temperature change or cloud formation.

It's probably something in between. I'm convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but I doubt that it's because of human activity. Only 3% of the carbon dioxide emissions are man-made.

The global warming theory overshadows more important environmental issues, with the Bhopal disaster (and similar accidents) beeing the prime example.

BECAUSE WE ARE CURRENTLY IN SOLAR MINIMUM. If the sun were the *major* factor affecting global temperatures, firstly the earth would be warming and cooling in a 20-year cycle, just like the sun does, and secondly we would be COOL right now, not warming.

DUH.

It's really, really simple. The 'it's caused by the sun' trope is the easiest denialist claim to refute.

You all just keep on repeating the same canards without posting evidence, and acting like the evidence that's posted to contradict you doesn't exist. You might as well be in denial of the existence of Teddy Roosevelt.

As far as climate scientists not being universally on the climate change bandwagon, NO: they're not. The fact remains, however, that better than 98% of them are.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... consensus/

Even so I would prefer we break ourselves of the Filthy Oil Habit. I do not want our energy dependent on the whims of our enemies. I want to see North America paved over with fast breeder reactors. Hardly any residual radioactive waste and all the electricity we can ever use. And with no pollution or excessive CO2 emission.

Petroleum should be used as a chemical feed stock for long chain polymers, not stuff we burn.

ruveyn

So here's what I believe as far as this matter goes: Some of the things said here seem to imply that it may be a natural thing for the Earth to not have polar icecaps.

Here's the thing: I come from Reno, and for several years, we were having a drought. Then, some guy in a lab somewhere crunched some numbers and realized something: The rainfall for Reno during this "drought" is actually what's normal. It's the time before that that was weird: It was way too wet.

Is it not possible that we're not getting too warm, but rather, we've been too cold? From what I can gather, Earth has had much higher temperatures than what we now experience. I wonder if that isn't left over from one of our previous ice ages.

That said, I don't like breathing poison in on a regular basis. CO bad.

We have been this warm before (but not warmer), during the carbonaceous period; however, the *rate* of change right now is unnatural, and increasingly scary in that it is occurring *before* most of the feedback mechanisms that drove earlier warming periods kicked in. If we're going to increase the temperature by 2-6 degrees C in a century by ourselves, what's going to happen when those positive feedback mechanisms kick in?

Pray tell, who told you that (scroll down to the third image under Mesozoic Climate)? Also go ahead and read how CO2 levels don't explain the 10 degree difference in temperature. (edit: That's to help you understand how little we actually know about how the climate works)

Yeah, tropical plant and animal life where Alaska is now.

The assumption people have always made is that, because people exist during this time, this is the way things should be. But they've been that way for a relatively short time. We, as a species, really are not as special as conventional wisdom tells us.

Edit: BTW, look up PETM, and remember that just because we may hit it faster doesn't mean that it's incredibly unnatural. It just means that it hasn't happened before.