And the graph is far to coarse to make the sweeping claim that it "fits with the industrial revolution".. this is wishful thinking.
As I said some posts before, I am not out to evangelize people who deny fact after fact. Unfortunately, you seem to belong to that category, not the curious sceptic you paint yourself.
Because if you were, you would at least take the data serious instead of shrugging it off.
If you combine the coarse graph and the fine graph above, can you deny that the jump in CO2 concentration is:
- unpreceded in size over the last 150k years
- unpreceded in how fast it developed over the last 150k years
you seem to be able to read in between lines better than most.. Claiming that I deny "evidence" when I clearly stated I am sceptical of "evidence". The original data you presented did not include your latest graph.
You imply that I don't want to hear the truth..well I put it to you, that you don't question your imformation. You should realise that science is based on scepticism..
Getting back to your latest chart.
Yes, Co2 levels are up...but the compression style graph utilised makes it look more dramatic, when in actual fact it is about a 5% increase over the last 250 years.
And how do you explain, the extraordinary transmigratory function of Co2 from the largely industrial northern hemisphere to the South Pole.? Co2 Graphs relating to North Pole core samples are missing. Please present them for comparison.
The fact is most climatalogical models produced so far, are incapable of factoring in significant variables such as water vapor, cloud & snow cover,( albedo), infra-red/carbon absorption ratios etc. One of the principal graphs often used by " enviromentalists ", completely denies the historical existence of the "little ice" age that occured in Europe during the 17th century, despite enormous quantities of historical evidence !
How's that for dumb modelling !
Smircle, likewise, I won't preach, but simply urge you to question data as I have over the last 20 years. Go back to sources, and don't be scared to make up your own mind on these issues. Remember....."the first duty of scientists is to be sceptical"
Ps read this..if you like...it should give you a broader frame reference.
you seem to be able to read in between lines better than most.. Claiming that I deny "evidence" when I clearly stated I am sceptical of "evidence". The original data you presented did not include your latest graph.
OK, sorry if I was a bit harsh. However, since it took me one shot at google to find the version showing only the last 1000 years, I was a bit peeved. It is really not that hard to do some googling before dismissing a piece of information.
Quote:
Yes, Co2 levels are up...but the compression style graph utilised makes it look more dramatic, when in actual fact it is about a 5% increase over the last 250 years.
Hmmm
(340ppm - 280ppm) / 280ppm = 21.4%. I fail to see how you reach 5%.
Quote:
And how do you explain, the extraordinary transmigratory function of Co2 from the largely industrial northern hemisphere to the South Pole.? Co2 Graphs relating to North Pole core samples are missing. Please present them for comparison.
If you are not: Antarctica is the only place on the globe where you can obtain ice cores over the last thousands of years, neither the arctic nor the Himalaya go back that far. CO2 is a *gas* with a natural tendency to reach the same partial pressure all over the globe.
Quote:
You imply that I don't want to hear the truth..well I put it to you, that you don't question your imformation. You should realise that science is based on scepticism..
I know, I happen to be a scientist. There is a corollary to that sentence however: if reasonable doubt is explained, further disbelief is no longer scientific. There are maveric scientists doubting atoms are fissible, cells have membranes, evolution is happening etc. They often are highly intelligent and cling to some minor point they observe as a weakness and present alternative models that explain this point much better. Unfortunately, those models fail in nearly every other respect while the traditional models simply work and can be put to use, eg. to build A-Bombs.
Climate research (like evolution theory) has an additional problem: it is an observing science and you cannot make any large-scale experiments. Thus, you can never prove a theory with the same exactness as you can with physics. Because of this, you can continue doubting anything anyone tells you about climate ad libidum - he'll never be able to prove you wrong. If a tendency works against you, well, just point to solar activity, periodic changes or interglacial warm-ups.
Politicians, on the other hand, have to make decisions at some point. They cannot wait until the ivory tower has reached a conclusion. 150 years debate over evolution theory, 70 about quantum physics. IF climate change is happening, it would probably unwise to wait that long.
Thanks for the link, it contains interesting information, although some is obviously bogus: "The core of the modern global warming argument is that elevated CO2 levels will trap more of Earth's outgoing radiation, thus increasing the greenhouse effect and raising the surface temperature._ Implicit in this argument is the notion that more CO2 will absorb more radiation, but many researchers believe the present levels of CO2 are absorbing all of Earth's infra-red radiation, "
Satellite cameras are always working at least partly in the infrared spectrum. If the assertion was true, they would be unable to take any picture from earth.
And concerning the sun spots:
"They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980. " (Link )
With regards your final point. re temperature rise. I was talking to a meteorologist friend of mine about this very issue.
In the course of asking him about how various climatogogical field readings are taken, I asked him where the weather stations around the world are mostly located ?
His answer was revealing..he said most of the world's "weather stations" are located alongside airports. Others he said, were originally located on the outskirts of towns, which have now become surrounded by suburbs, or worse, skyscrapers etc. The worrying point he made, was that having such equipment stationed in the midst of highly bituminised, concreted expanses, would in consequence throw all measurements off..by a good margin. He added that cities create their own temperature spikes that can be hotter or colder than the surrounding countryside by a few degrees.
Now when you add all of those sites across the world together, it is quite within the realms of possibilty that this noted temperature increase is an enviromental discrepancy of the kind that he was refering to.
You might also appreciate that sattelite data shows vitrually no temperate increase.
yeah, guy at my work who does tons of air pollution research has commented specifically on the sensor problem.
he has an impossible time using over 95% of the weather/air sensors around the globe because they're now much to close to urban centers and all of the data is crap.
yeah, guy at my work who does tons of air pollution research has commented specifically on the sensor problem.
he has an impossible time using over 95% of the weather/air sensors around the globe because they're now much to close to urban centers and all of the data is crap.
Yep, from what my friend was saying, a lot of the readings are skewed. Our main weather station is now squeezed into a inner suburb ( less than a mile ) from the city. Most of the prevailing winds are blowing over mile after mile of concrete,road bitumen and tin roofs.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise it will affect the readings...
Excuse the strange sentences...I am using a crappy windows machine...(public hammering brand )
You might also appreciate that sattelite data shows vitrually no temperate increase.
Sorry, but I have to disagree heavily:
"A NASA satellite survey of the Arctic has revealed just how rapidly the region is warming. The overall trend of rising temperature over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century.
[...]
Annual land-surface temperatures increased most over North America - 1.06°C per decade - and rose 0.50°C per decade over Eurasia."
October 03 report based on satellite data of the Arctic and northern parts of N. America and Eurasia.
"Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover [...] shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.
[...]
In related NASA-funded research that observes perennial sea-ice trends, Mark C. Serreze, a scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that in 2002 the extent of Arctic summer sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, suggesting this is part of a trend."
Obviously there are no big cities in the arctic. Interestingly enough, a reading you proposed contains the following section:
"IPCC forecasts of temperature changes in polar regions have been incorrect._ They predicted that global warming effects would be felt first at the poles because CO2 exerts its greatest warming effect in cold air._"
Back in 2000 when the page was written, there was no evidence supporting the IPCC forecasts. Three years later, there is now. Which means that the IPCC modeling (which is heavily critized in the page) was spot on at least in this regard.
Like I stated in my title Smircle..my position is one of questioning...
Thanks for the links, they are interesting.
But did you go to the section on the same page titled :
" Sun more active than for a millenium " ?
Notice the trends between your Co2 graph & the Sunspot activity graph..?
A little more than just coincidence wouldn't you say ?
activity[/url]
PS I had to smile to myself when I read that Usoskin and his team were reluctant to get involved in the global warming debate... Little wonder...with so much money being attached to enviromental PC "strings"
Like I stated in my title Smircle..my position is one of questioning...
Thanks for the links, they are interesting.
But did you go to the section on the same page titled :
" Sun more active than for a millenium " ?
Notice the trends between your Co2 graph & the Sunspot activity graph..?
A little more than just coincidence wouldn't you say ?
Absolutely. I am not going to debate that the fate of the earth's climate depends on the solar activity. The important question is if human activity is influencing the climate too.
The graph gets a bit more interesting if you look at it with a different scale:
This is from the same guys who discovered the solar activity cycle induced climate changes in the first place. They re-evaluated their data in '99 or 2000, added the additional years that had passed and discovered:
"They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980. "
So, summing up the data, it seems we are worsening problem: earth is recovering from the last ice age and human-produced climate change is pushing it in the same direction.
Aquafire, you're going to argue that sunspots are causing global warming?
( Actually Bunge, I am waiting for enviromentalists to suggest that human activity is influencing sunspot cycles.)
The thing about meteorology is that it's an evolving science. Not only is it becoming more global in its reach, but it is also becoming more cosmological in perspective. Meteorologists world wide all acknowledge the the effect of solar activity in relation to the earth's weather cycles.
There is no doubt this such new imformation is going to throw a spanner into the enviromentalists camp.
But I know enough about their mind set to suggest they'll dimiss it out of hand.
And Smircle......shame on you, your playing dirty poker...
Fancy introducing " Olde " 2000 graphs as "evidence" over and above the latest 2003 findings...?
If I was your professor, I'd tell you to get more up to date data.
For what it is worth that olde BBC report is nice wallpaper that's all...
Fancy introducing " Olde " 2000 graphs as "evidence" over and above the latest 2003 findings...?
If I was your professor, I'd tell you to get more up to date data.
For what it is worth that olde BBC report is nice wallpaper that's all...
google really let me down this time, I was not able to find more recent data - and the graph covering some 10.000s of years is not exactly helpful when judging the development over the last 20 years or so *G*
bunge: sunspots are not changing the climate, but they are an indication of solar activity. The more active the sun, the more spots.
You know, this is one of the problems with the way the media handles scientific issues. In an effort to be "fair", most media feels obligated to present equal time to opposing views. The problem is, of course, this leads the public ot think that both sides have equal standing in the scientific community, or are considered equally viable.
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists recognize that global warming is happening, and is related to anthropogenic activity. These are not by and large environmentalists, or advocates, but research scientists who study climate change.
Sadly, the few who disagree are sought by the media for "equal time", and promoted by those who DO have an agenda (and, undoubtedly, those who recognize global warming also get used in such a fashion). This makes it so the public, even the educated public, has trouble seeing the difference between the scientific concensus and the advocate/media discussion.
Aquafire, if you are truly interested in the truth of the issue, I urge you to look to the primary scientific literature. Science Daily is actually one decent source for the public, but I note that you impart meaning to the article you cited that the authors did not - they were speaking about ENSO events and volcanos, not global warming patterns. These are completely different (albeit related) mechanisms and issues, occurring over different timescales.
Try Journals like Climate Dynamics, Nature, Science, and then actually follow up by reading the references cited in articles about climate change. Yes, it is difficult work, but if you really are interested in truth about a science issue, that is the way to go. Your discussion here about global warming suggests you need to learn a bit more about what actual researchers think about the issue.
For your interest I originally studied science at university where I specialised in botany. I subscribe to plenty of scientific journals..the others I read on the web.
In response to your post:
The danger with a lot of "enviromentalist " rhetoric is that it can shoot you in the foot. The grandious presumption to righteousness is a growing weakness that almost all "enviromentalists" suffer from. It stops them from questioning their own sources or applying a strict methodology to all presented "evidence".
This is despite the fact that time and again over the last 25 years we have all heard such enviromentalists proclaiming a coming ice age, the coming hothouse, the total destruction of the ozone layer etc . Without exception, all have proved to be either seroiusly flawed, exaggerated, misunderstood or utterly wrong.
Yet people refuse to question their "proofs".
Enviromentalism has all the hallmarks of a cult..
Do you genuinely believe such "authorities" know more about the issues than their less glamorous scientific cousins :meteorologists, oceanographers, paleoclimatologists, dendrologists etc ?
In the end Fishdoc, it should be pointed out that narrowmindedness is not limited to one side of this argument, but has a vociferously rabid following in the enviromental community. ( think of all those "peace loving demonstrators" running wild, burning cars, detroying public property etc } all in the name of "enviromentalism".
Your welcome to join our little discussion group Fishdoc. Please feel free to present your evidence.
The danger with a lot of "enviromentalist " rhetoric is that it can shoot you in the foot. The grandious presumption to righteousness is a growing weakness that almost all "enviromentalists" suffer from. It stops them from questioning their own sources or applying a strict methodology to all presented "evidence".
Quit with this strawman bull crap. Millions of people have come and gone and everyone has an opinion on something. Stick to the topic at hand. Or, should we talk about all of the things environmentalists got right to counter balance your unsubstantiated bullshit? Should we talk about how much they get right so we should just trust them?
This "argument" you made is pathetic.
There's more evidence to support the claim that the pollution we create is killing us than there is evidence to support the claim that we're all going to be fine. The Greenhouse Effect is not proven, but then again neither are a lot of things. You can't just pretend there's no effect until there's 100% proof positive that the effect meets criteria X, Y or Z.
The Greenhouse Effect is not proven, but then again neither are a lot of things. You can't just pretend there's no effect until there's 100% proof positive that the effect meets criteria X, Y or Z.
Wow..Bunge..Well done..
Your above comments show a total disregard for proper scientific methodology...
Don't take this is personally, but you remind me of other scientifically "proven" theories of the past.
It wasn't very long ago that the vast majority of scientists believed in "Ether" ..the mysterious life force that made fire "alive" etc...( we have good olde Plato to thank for that one ).
How about Phrenology ? It led to Eugenic "Sciences" of race "purity" and the systematic slaughter of Jews by the Nazi's. This was a legitimate science & politically correct for the vast majority of believers of that era.
Or how about the use of Chemical agents like DDT to rid Africa & America of Mosquitoes...all perfectly legitimate science..
Then of course there are the latest trendies like Neurolinguistic programming, or the Crosseley method of Austistic communications.. etc etc.
Bunge, I have never said we are not dealing with serious enviromental issues. How about re-reading my title ?
I have maintained ( & will to my dying breathe ) the right to distinguish between man-made, man-influenced or entirely natural processes..as is my right.
I am skeptical by nature..pure & simple..but then so would you be if you took the time to do the research..
If you are not: Antarctica is the only place on the globe where you can obtain ice cores over the last thousands of years, neither the arctic nor the Himalaya go back that far. CO2 is a *gas* with a natural tendency to reach the same partial pressure all over the globe.
The Antarctic is by no means the only place where ice cores covering the last >100 kyr are available. The GRIP and GISP cores from Greenland, for instance, cover relatively long time periods, although dating uncertainties become problematic in the lowest sections of the cores.
That being said, increases in various atmospheric gasses (including CO2) are recorded roughly synchronously in the N. and S. hemispheres.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
And the graph is far to coarse to make the sweeping claim that it "fits with the industrial revolution".. this is wishful thinking.
As I said some posts before, I am not out to evangelize people who deny fact after fact. Unfortunately, you seem to belong to that category, not the curious sceptic you paint yourself.
Because if you were, you would at least take the data serious instead of shrugging it off.
If you combine the coarse graph and the fine graph above, can you deny that the jump in CO2 concentration is:
- unpreceded in size over the last 150k years
- unpreceded in how fast it developed over the last 150k years
- developing since the industrial revolution?
you seem to be able to read in between lines better than most.. Claiming that I deny "evidence" when I clearly stated I am sceptical of "evidence". The original data you presented did not include your latest graph.
You imply that I don't want to hear the truth..well I put it to you, that you don't question your imformation. You should realise that science is based on scepticism..
Getting back to your latest chart.
Yes, Co2 levels are up...but the compression style graph utilised makes it look more dramatic, when in actual fact it is about a 5% increase over the last 250 years.
And how do you explain, the extraordinary transmigratory function of Co2 from the largely industrial northern hemisphere to the South Pole.? Co2 Graphs relating to North Pole core samples are missing. Please present them for comparison.
Even so, Co2 levels are up...so what ?
Methane is down...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s996930.htm
The fact is most climatalogical models produced so far, are incapable of factoring in significant variables such as water vapor, cloud & snow cover,( albedo), infra-red/carbon absorption ratios etc. One of the principal graphs often used by " enviromentalists ", completely denies the historical existence of the "little ice" age that occured in Europe during the 17th century, despite enormous quantities of historical evidence !
How's that for dumb modelling !
Smircle, likewise, I won't preach, but simply urge you to question data as I have over the last 20 years. Go back to sources, and don't be scared to make up your own mind on these issues. Remember....."the first duty of scientists is to be sceptical"
Ps read this..if you like...it should give you a broader frame reference.
http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/climate2.html
Originally posted by Aquafire
Bunge,
No disrespect intended...but did actually read what I wrote...?
Of course I did. Smircle is doing a fine job of illuminating my point.
Originally posted by bunge
Of course I did. Smircle is doing a fine job of illuminating my point.
Yep...
Originally posted by Aquafire
you seem to be able to read in between lines better than most.. Claiming that I deny "evidence" when I clearly stated I am sceptical of "evidence". The original data you presented did not include your latest graph.
OK, sorry if I was a bit harsh. However, since it took me one shot at google to find the version showing only the last 1000 years, I was a bit peeved. It is really not that hard to do some googling before dismissing a piece of information.
Yes, Co2 levels are up...but the compression style graph utilised makes it look more dramatic, when in actual fact it is about a 5% increase over the last 250 years.
Hmmm
(340ppm - 280ppm) / 280ppm = 21.4%. I fail to see how you reach 5%.
And how do you explain, the extraordinary transmigratory function of Co2 from the largely industrial northern hemisphere to the South Pole.? Co2 Graphs relating to North Pole core samples are missing. Please present them for comparison.
Now you are kidding me, right ( North pole ice turns to water)?
If you are not: Antarctica is the only place on the globe where you can obtain ice cores over the last thousands of years, neither the arctic nor the Himalaya go back that far. CO2 is a *gas* with a natural tendency to reach the same partial pressure all over the globe.
You imply that I don't want to hear the truth..well I put it to you, that you don't question your imformation. You should realise that science is based on scepticism..
I know, I happen to be a scientist. There is a corollary to that sentence however: if reasonable doubt is explained, further disbelief is no longer scientific. There are maveric scientists doubting atoms are fissible, cells have membranes, evolution is happening etc. They often are highly intelligent and cling to some minor point they observe as a weakness and present alternative models that explain this point much better. Unfortunately, those models fail in nearly every other respect while the traditional models simply work and can be put to use, eg. to build A-Bombs.
Climate research (like evolution theory) has an additional problem: it is an observing science and you cannot make any large-scale experiments. Thus, you can never prove a theory with the same exactness as you can with physics. Because of this, you can continue doubting anything anyone tells you about climate ad libidum - he'll never be able to prove you wrong. If a tendency works against you, well, just point to solar activity, periodic changes or interglacial warm-ups.
Politicians, on the other hand, have to make decisions at some point. They cannot wait until the ivory tower has reached a conclusion. 150 years debate over evolution theory, 70 about quantum physics. IF climate change is happening, it would probably unwise to wait that long.
Thanks for the link, it contains interesting information, although some is obviously bogus: "The core of the modern global warming argument is that elevated CO2 levels will trap more of Earth's outgoing radiation, thus increasing the greenhouse effect and raising the surface temperature._ Implicit in this argument is the notion that more CO2 will absorb more radiation, but many researchers believe the present levels of CO2 are absorbing all of Earth's infra-red radiation, "
Satellite cameras are always working at least partly in the infrared spectrum. If the assertion was true, they would be unable to take any picture from earth.
And concerning the sun spots:
"They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980. " (Link )
With regards your final point. re temperature rise. I was talking to a meteorologist friend of mine about this very issue.
In the course of asking him about how various climatogogical field readings are taken, I asked him where the weather stations around the world are mostly located ?
His answer was revealing..he said most of the world's "weather stations" are located alongside airports. Others he said, were originally located on the outskirts of towns, which have now become surrounded by suburbs, or worse, skyscrapers etc. The worrying point he made, was that having such equipment stationed in the midst of highly bituminised, concreted expanses, would in consequence throw all measurements off..by a good margin. He added that cities create their own temperature spikes that can be hotter or colder than the surrounding countryside by a few degrees.
Now when you add all of those sites across the world together, it is quite within the realms of possibilty that this noted temperature increase is an enviromental discrepancy of the kind that he was refering to.
You might also appreciate that sattelite data shows vitrually no temperate increase.
he has an impossible time using over 95% of the weather/air sensors around the globe because they're now much to close to urban centers and all of the data is crap.
Originally posted by alcimedes
yeah, guy at my work who does tons of air pollution research has commented specifically on the sensor problem.
he has an impossible time using over 95% of the weather/air sensors around the globe because they're now much to close to urban centers and all of the data is crap.
Yep, from what my friend was saying, a lot of the readings are skewed. Our main weather station is now squeezed into a inner suburb ( less than a mile ) from the city. Most of the prevailing winds are blowing over mile after mile of concrete,road bitumen and tin roofs.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise it will affect the readings...
Excuse the strange sentences...I am using a crappy windows machine...(public hammering brand )
Originally posted by Aquafire
You might also appreciate that sattelite data shows vitrually no temperate increase.
Sorry, but I have to disagree heavily:
"A NASA satellite survey of the Arctic has revealed just how rapidly the region is warming. The overall trend of rising temperature over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century.
[...]
Annual land-surface temperatures increased most over North America - 1.06°C per decade - and rose 0.50°C per decade over Eurasia."
October 03 report based on satellite data of the Arctic and northern parts of N. America and Eurasia.
"Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover [...] shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.
[...]
In related NASA-funded research that observes perennial sea-ice trends, Mark C. Serreze, a scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that in 2002 the extent of Arctic summer sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, suggesting this is part of a trend."
Same story, but corroberated by NASA
Obviously there are no big cities in the arctic. Interestingly enough, a reading you proposed contains the following section:
"IPCC forecasts of temperature changes in polar regions have been incorrect._ They predicted that global warming effects would be felt first at the poles because CO2 exerts its greatest warming effect in cold air._"
http://www.ecwa.asn.au/info/climate2.html
Back in 2000 when the page was written, there was no evidence supporting the IPCC forecasts. Three years later, there is now. Which means that the IPCC modeling (which is heavily critized in the page) was spot on at least in this regard.
Thanks for the links, they are interesting.
But did you go to the section on the same page titled :
" Sun more active than for a millenium " ?
Notice the trends between your Co2 graph & the Sunspot activity graph..?
A little more than just coincidence wouldn't you say ?
activity[/url]
PS I had to smile to myself when I read that Usoskin and his team were reluctant to get involved in the global warming debate... Little wonder...with so much money being attached to enviromental PC "strings"
see link...
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...?id=ns99994321
Originally posted by Aquafire
Like I stated in my title Smircle..my position is one of questioning...
Thanks for the links, they are interesting.
But did you go to the section on the same page titled :
" Sun more active than for a millenium " ?
Notice the trends between your Co2 graph & the Sunspot activity graph..?
A little more than just coincidence wouldn't you say ?
Absolutely. I am not going to debate that the fate of the earth's climate depends on the solar activity. The important question is if human activity is influencing the climate too.
The graph gets a bit more interesting if you look at it with a different scale:
This is from the same guys who discovered the solar activity cycle induced climate changes in the first place. They re-evaluated their data in '99 or 2000, added the additional years that had passed and discovered:
"They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980. "
Link
So, summing up the data, it seems we are worsening problem: earth is recovering from the last ice age and human-produced climate change is pushing it in the same direction.
Originally posted by bunge
Aquafire, you're going to argue that sunspots are causing global warming?
( Actually Bunge, I am waiting for enviromentalists to suggest that human activity is influencing sunspot cycles.)
The thing about meteorology is that it's an evolving science. Not only is it becoming more global in its reach, but it is also becoming more cosmological in perspective. Meteorologists world wide all acknowledge the the effect of solar activity in relation to the earth's weather cycles.
There is no doubt this such new imformation is going to throw a spanner into the enviromentalists camp.
But I know enough about their mind set to suggest they'll dimiss it out of hand.
And Smircle......shame on you, your playing dirty poker...
Fancy introducing " Olde " 2000 graphs as "evidence" over and above the latest 2003 findings...?
If I was your professor, I'd tell you to get more up to date data.
For what it is worth that olde BBC report is nice wallpaper that's all...
Originally posted by Aquafire
Fancy introducing " Olde " 2000 graphs as "evidence" over and above the latest 2003 findings...?
If I was your professor, I'd tell you to get more up to date data.
For what it is worth that olde BBC report is nice wallpaper that's all...
google really let me down this time, I was not able to find more recent data - and the graph covering some 10.000s of years is not exactly helpful when judging the development over the last 20 years or so *G*
bunge: sunspots are not changing the climate, but they are an indication of solar activity. The more active the sun, the more spots.
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists recognize that global warming is happening, and is related to anthropogenic activity. These are not by and large environmentalists, or advocates, but research scientists who study climate change.
Sadly, the few who disagree are sought by the media for "equal time", and promoted by those who DO have an agenda (and, undoubtedly, those who recognize global warming also get used in such a fashion). This makes it so the public, even the educated public, has trouble seeing the difference between the scientific concensus and the advocate/media discussion.
Aquafire, if you are truly interested in the truth of the issue, I urge you to look to the primary scientific literature. Science Daily is actually one decent source for the public, but I note that you impart meaning to the article you cited that the authors did not - they were speaking about ENSO events and volcanos, not global warming patterns. These are completely different (albeit related) mechanisms and issues, occurring over different timescales.
Try Journals like Climate Dynamics, Nature, Science, and then actually follow up by reading the references cited in articles about climate change. Yes, it is difficult work, but if you really are interested in truth about a science issue, that is the way to go. Your discussion here about global warming suggests you need to learn a bit more about what actual researchers think about the issue.
Fish
For your interest I originally studied science at university where I specialised in botany. I subscribe to plenty of scientific journals..the others I read on the web.
In response to your post:
The danger with a lot of "enviromentalist " rhetoric is that it can shoot you in the foot. The grandious presumption to righteousness is a growing weakness that almost all "enviromentalists" suffer from. It stops them from questioning their own sources or applying a strict methodology to all presented "evidence".
This is despite the fact that time and again over the last 25 years we have all heard such enviromentalists proclaiming a coming ice age, the coming hothouse, the total destruction of the ozone layer etc . Without exception, all have proved to be either seroiusly flawed, exaggerated, misunderstood or utterly wrong.
Yet people refuse to question their "proofs".
Enviromentalism has all the hallmarks of a cult..
Do you genuinely believe such "authorities" know more about the issues than their less glamorous scientific cousins :meteorologists, oceanographers, paleoclimatologists, dendrologists etc ?
In the end Fishdoc, it should be pointed out that narrowmindedness is not limited to one side of this argument, but has a vociferously rabid following in the enviromental community. ( think of all those "peace loving demonstrators" running wild, burning cars, detroying public property etc } all in the name of "enviromentalism".
Your welcome to join our little discussion group Fishdoc. Please feel free to present your evidence.
But in future..leave your assuptions behind.
Originally posted by Aquafire
The danger with a lot of "enviromentalist " rhetoric is that it can shoot you in the foot. The grandious presumption to righteousness is a growing weakness that almost all "enviromentalists" suffer from. It stops them from questioning their own sources or applying a strict methodology to all presented "evidence".
Quit with this strawman bull crap. Millions of people have come and gone and everyone has an opinion on something. Stick to the topic at hand. Or, should we talk about all of the things environmentalists got right to counter balance your unsubstantiated bullshit? Should we talk about how much they get right so we should just trust them?
This "argument" you made is pathetic.
There's more evidence to support the claim that the pollution we create is killing us than there is evidence to support the claim that we're all going to be fine. The Greenhouse Effect is not proven, but then again neither are a lot of things. You can't just pretend there's no effect until there's 100% proof positive that the effect meets criteria X, Y or Z.
Originally posted by bunge
The Greenhouse Effect is not proven, but then again neither are a lot of things. You can't just pretend there's no effect until there's 100% proof positive that the effect meets criteria X, Y or Z.
Wow..Bunge..Well done..
Your above comments show a total disregard for proper scientific methodology...
Don't take this is personally, but you remind me of other scientifically "proven" theories of the past.
It wasn't very long ago that the vast majority of scientists believed in "Ether" ..the mysterious life force that made fire "alive" etc...( we have good olde Plato to thank for that one ).
How about Phrenology ? It led to Eugenic "Sciences" of race "purity" and the systematic slaughter of Jews by the Nazi's. This was a legitimate science & politically correct for the vast majority of believers of that era.
Or how about the use of Chemical agents like DDT to rid Africa & America of Mosquitoes...all perfectly legitimate science..
Then of course there are the latest trendies like Neurolinguistic programming, or the Crosseley method of Austistic communications.. etc etc.
Bunge, I have never said we are not dealing with serious enviromental issues. How about re-reading my title ?
I have maintained ( & will to my dying breathe ) the right to distinguish between man-made, man-influenced or entirely natural processes..as is my right.
I am skeptical by nature..pure & simple..but then so would you be if you took the time to do the research..
cheers
Originally posted by Smircle
If you are not: Antarctica is the only place on the globe where you can obtain ice cores over the last thousands of years, neither the arctic nor the Himalaya go back that far. CO2 is a *gas* with a natural tendency to reach the same partial pressure all over the globe.
The Antarctic is by no means the only place where ice cores covering the last >100 kyr are available. The GRIP and GISP cores from Greenland, for instance, cover relatively long time periods, although dating uncertainties become problematic in the lowest sections of the cores.
That being said, increases in various atmospheric gasses (including CO2) are recorded roughly synchronously in the N. and S. hemispheres.