Here we have a classic example of how to craft a tinfoil hat theory. I’ve seen it used for everything from “proving UFO’s are real” to “proving the moon landing is a hoax”, to “proving the earth is expanding” to “proving the US government was responsible for 9/11” No matter when you see it, it always takes the same form as windstrike1’s “CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm” argument.
To start off with you invent some alternative, and make it vague in the details.
This theory won’t have any supporting science, but that’s not an impediment because your next you claim is that the accepted science is either wrong or fraudulent, even if it’s just pointing to some meaningless detail. Making up your own “facts” also works.
You then proceed to say that since you have “proved mainstream science is a crock” the only alternative is to accept your completely unsupported statement as fact.
Go spend some time looking into conspiracy theories. Every single one of them takes this form.
Here we have a classic example of how to craft a tinfoil hat theory. I’ve seen it used for everything from “proving UFO’s are real” to “proving the moon landing is a hoax”, to “proving the earth is expanding” to “proving the US government was responsible for 9/11” No matter when you see it, it always takes the same form as windstrike1’s “CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm” argument.
To start off with you invent some alternative, and make it vague in the details.
This theory won’t have any supporting science, but that’s not an impediment because your next you claim is that the accepted science is either wrong or fraudulent, even if it’s just pointing to some meaningless detail. Making up your own “facts” also works.
You then proceed to say that since you have “proved mainstream science is a crock” the only alternative is to accept your completely unsupported statement as fact.
Go spend some time looking into conspiracy theories. Every single one of them takes this form.
There is so much documentation on UFO's you would have to be lunatic not to believe.
moon landings were real The US did not blow up any buildings on 09/11/01 Area 51 is just a highly classified experimentation base There is not batboy found in Guatmala Vampires, werewolves, and pixies do not exist Man made global warming does not exist
You got 5/6! Pretty good for random guessing!
Of course if you knew what science was and were to find it you would have got 6/6 without braking a sweat so you still fail.
moon landings were real The US did not blow up any buildings on 09/11/01 Area 51 is just a highly classified experimentation base There is not batboy found in Guatmala Vampires, werewolves, and pixies do not exist Man made global warming does not exist
You got 5/6! Pretty good for random guessing!
Of course if you knew what science was and were to find it you would have got 6/6 without braking a sweat so you still fail.
moon landings were real The US did not blow up any buildings on 09/11/01 Area 51 is just a highly classified experimentation base There is not batboy found in Guatmala Vampires, werewolves, and pixies do not exist Man made global warming does not exist
You got 5/6! Pretty good for random guessing!
Of course if you knew what science was and were to find it you would have got 6/6 without braking a sweat so you still fail.
I haven't even seen the term "Solar Variation" mentioned yet. I suggest people look that up before discussing further whether the heat increase is man made or not.
I haven't even seen the term "Solar Variation" mentioned yet. I suggest people look that up before discussing further whether the heat increase is man made or not.
It's been proven hundreds of times that that is NOT the cause of global warming because the solar variations are either too little or are not impacting earth because it's not in the direction of the earth. There's hundreds of articles and studies of solar imagery that debunks your claim.
If you don't wanna believe it, that's fine, go live in a cave then. You guys are idiots.
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
September 13, 2006
BOULDER—Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR’s primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.
In this image from an active solar period in March 2001, colors are shifted to highlight the contrast between sunspots (black and dark red) and the faculae that surround them (bright yellow). During the peak of the 11-year solar cycle, the expansion of faculae outweighs the darkening from increased sunspot activity. The result is a net increase in solar brightness. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image courtesy NASA.)
“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural internal variability of Earth’s climate system may also have played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun’s surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period, according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
“There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae,” says Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
About the article
Title: "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate."
Authors: P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit, and T.M.L. Wigley
LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.
Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.
There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.
A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
In order to unpick that possible link, Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.
The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.
lohmiller, Global Warming is the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
Lol once again you don't contribute to the argument as you have no facts to support your religious beliefs.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Man made global warming is complete myth. Anybody who is capable of reading or knows even a modicum of history understands this. Let all the end is nigh sheep keep dreaming. The world goes through change, extreme hot, extreme cold, such is life. If we had the next ice age tommorrow humans would be on the fringe of extinction. Worrying about carbon emissions is a joke. world govement doesn't give a shit about green issues, what they give a shit about is taxation. Best way to deal with supposed climate change? stop destroying the rain forests. That cost's money instead of generates it, so i guess thats off the list.
Man made global warming is complete myth. Anybody who is capable of reading or knows even a modicum of history understands this. Let all the end is nigh sheep keep dreaming. The world goes through change, extreme hot, extreme cold, such is life.
Wrong.
Go read before you look like a tool:
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
Man made global warming is complete myth. Anybody who is capable of reading or knows even a modicum of history understands this. Let all the end is nigh sheep keep dreaming. The world goes through change, extreme hot, extreme cold, such is life.
Wrong.
Go read before you look like a tool:
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
People who exhibit your kind of stupidity are dangerous. Your reading field is very narrow, this in turn creates naive, idiotic posts such as your own.
I cannot waith until i am 28, then i can play WoW all day like you. You are a follower who is completely incapable of thinking for yourself, every subject you post on goes further towards validating that point.
I just can't believe you people argue about this stuff to the point where you become frustrated...
I mean, who cares?
We're not going to live long enough to see the whole world underwater, so just live life and forget about the future, because you're not going to live long enough to see much of it.
Enjoy your lives and stop pissin yourselves about whats going to happen hundres and hundres of years from now..
People who think recent Global Warming is man made; SCIENTISTS. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. BASICALLY EVERY GOVERNMENT.
People who think recent Global Warming is part of a cycle; YOU. SEAN HANNITY.
There are just as many scientists who think man made global warming is retarded thinking just as there are those scientists who think those against it is retarded thinking.
Leaders who promote MUST BE CONSERVATIVE WITH GLOBAL WARMING because we are destroying it are the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever. Why? Because they don't even believe it. They promote it for political motives. If you guys don't see that then you guys are
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
I just can't believe you people care about this stuff... I mean, who cares? We're not going to live long enough to see the whole world underwater, so just live life and forget about the future, because you're not going to live long enough to see much of it.
It's not only a moral question.
If nothing is done to stop global warming, we will see the impacts in 20 years.
North India recieves it's water from the icy mountains up north, they will melt within 20 years if nothing is done, and that will mean no drinking water for those people.
Countries will flood, polar bears will die, diseases will break out if nothing is done.
I just can't believe you people care about this stuff... I mean, who cares? We're not going to live long enough to see the whole world underwater, so just live life and forget about the future, because you're not going to live long enough to see much of it.
It's not only a moral question.
If nothing is done to stop global warming, we will see the impacts in 20 years.
North India recieves it's water from the icy mountains up north, they will melt within 20 years if nothing is done, and that will mean no drinking water for those people.
Countries will flood, polar bears will die, diseases will break out if nothing is done.
I just can't believe you people care about this stuff... I mean, who cares? We're not going to live long enough to see the whole world underwater, so just live life and forget about the future, because you're not going to live long enough to see much of it.
It's not only a moral question.
If nothing is done to stop global warming, we will see the impacts in 20 years.
North India recieves it's water from the icy mountains up north, they will melt within 20 years if nothing is done, and that will mean no drinking water for those people.
Countries will flood, polar bears will die, diseases will break out if nothing is done.
and Luke Skywalker will come out of the X Wing fighter stationed on the humonoid face on the planet surface of Mars to vaporize us all
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
People who think recent Global Warming is man made; SCIENTISTS. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. BASICALLY EVERY GOVERNMENT.
People who think recent Global Warming is part of a cycle; YOU. SEAN HANNITY.
There are just as many scientists who think man made global warming is retarded
Proof?
You'll have a very very hard proving this.
just as you will have a very very hard proving your point. Man Made global warming does not exist. every link you provided. every picture you posted shows us crap. Its mere speculation. You would have better luck convincing an athiest that a diety control their lives versus convincing everyone this is man made.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Comments
Here we have a classic example of how to craft a tinfoil hat theory. I’ve seen it used for everything from “proving UFO’s are real” to “proving the moon landing is a hoax”, to “proving the earth is expanding” to “proving the US government was responsible for 9/11” No matter when you see it, it always takes the same form as windstrike1’s “CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm” argument.
To start off with you invent some alternative, and make it vague in the details.
This theory won’t have any supporting science, but that’s not an impediment because your next you claim is that the accepted science is either wrong or fraudulent, even if it’s just pointing to some meaningless detail. Making up your own “facts” also works.
You then proceed to say that since you have “proved mainstream science is a crock” the only alternative is to accept your completely unsupported statement as fact.
Go spend some time looking into conspiracy theories. Every single one of them takes this form.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
There is so much documentation on UFO's you would have to be lunatic not to believe.
lomiller, Global Warming is the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
This thread;
Guy 1: "GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT MAN MADE"
Guy 2: "Prove it. There's pretty much a scientific consensus saying that it is and there's countless credible sources verifying that it is man made."
Guy 2: *crickets*
You got 5/6! Pretty good for random guessing!
Of course if you knew what science was and were to find it you would have got 6/6 without braking a sweat so you still fail.
You got 5/6! Pretty good for random guessing!
Of course if you knew what science was and were to find it you would have got 6/6 without braking a sweat so you still fail.
lol science. riiiiiiiiiiiiight
More like www.coasttocoastam.com/
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
You got 5/6! Pretty good for random guessing!
Of course if you knew what science was and were to find it you would have got 6/6 without braking a sweat so you still fail.
lol science. riiiiiiiiiiiiight
More like www.coasttocoastam.com/
Good article on "Yellow Science"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html
I haven't even seen the term "Solar Variation" mentioned yet. I suggest people look that up before discussing further whether the heat increase is man made or not.
It's been proven hundreds of times that that is NOT the cause of global warming because the solar variations are either too little or are not impacting earth because it's not in the direction of the earth. There's hundreds of articles and studies of solar imagery that debunks your claim.
If you don't wanna believe it, that's fine, go live in a cave then. You guys are idiots.
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
September 13, 2006
BOULDER—Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR’s primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.
In this image from an active solar period in March 2001, colors are shifted to highlight the contrast between sunspots (black and dark red) and the faculae that surround them (bright yellow). During the peak of the 11-year solar cycle, the expansion of faculae outweighs the darkening from increased sunspot activity. The result is a net increase in solar brightness. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image courtesy NASA.)
“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural internal variability of Earth’s climate system may also have played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun’s surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period, according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
“There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae,” says Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
About the article
Title: "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate."
Authors: P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit, and T.M.L. Wigley
Publication: Nature, September 14, 2006
.
.
.
.
Solar variations not behind global warming: study
drawCon
Video
By Ben Hirschler
LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.
Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.
There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.
A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
In order to unpick that possible link, Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.
The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.
Lol once again you don't contribute to the argument as you have no facts to support your religious beliefs.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Man made global warming is complete myth. Anybody who is capable of reading or knows even a modicum of history understands this. Let all the end is nigh sheep keep dreaming. The world goes through change, extreme hot, extreme cold, such is life. If we had the next ice age tommorrow humans would be on the fringe of extinction. Worrying about carbon emissions is a joke. world govement doesn't give a shit about green issues, what they give a shit about is taxation. Best way to deal with supposed climate change? stop destroying the rain forests. That cost's money instead of generates it, so i guess thats off the list.
Wrong.
Go read before you look like a tool:
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Wrong.
Go read before you look like a tool:
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
People who exhibit your kind of stupidity are dangerous. Your reading field is very narrow, this in turn creates naive, idiotic posts such as your own.
You're 18, I'll let it pass.
I cannot waith until i am 28, then i can play WoW all day like you. You are a follower who is completely incapable of thinking for yourself, every subject you post on goes further towards validating that point.
what's sad is you're 28 and you believe this stuff. You're young and naive still despite your chronological age; I'll let that pass
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Oh my god this is SO FRUSTRATING...
People who think recent Global Warming is man made;
SCIENTISTS. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. BASICALLY EVERY GOVERNMENT.
People who think recent Global Warming is part of a cycle;
YOU. SEAN HANNITY.
I just can't believe you people argue about this stuff to the point where you become frustrated...
I mean, who cares?
We're not going to live long enough to see the whole world underwater, so just live life and forget about the future, because you're not going to live long enough to see much of it.
Enjoy your lives and stop pissin yourselves about whats going to happen hundres and hundres of years from now..
There are just as many scientists who think man made global warming is retarded thinking just as there are those scientists who think those against it is retarded thinking.
<sarcasm> Yeah, Al Gore believes in Global warming; I mean after all he practice good electricity conservation with his vacationhome running 30,000 a month (without him there) abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story or the fact that he flies his own plane versus taking a public one despite him telling us to ride bikes www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html</sarcasm>
Leaders who promote MUST BE CONSERVATIVE WITH GLOBAL WARMING because we are destroying it are the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever. Why? Because they don't even believe it. They promote it for political motives. If you guys don't see that then you guys are
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
It's not only a moral question.
If nothing is done to stop global warming, we will see the impacts in 20 years.
North India recieves it's water from the icy mountains up north, they will melt within 20 years if nothing is done, and that will mean no drinking water for those people.
Countries will flood, polar bears will die, diseases will break out if nothing is done.
It's not only a moral question.
If nothing is done to stop global warming, we will see the impacts in 20 years.
North India recieves it's water from the icy mountains up north, they will melt within 20 years if nothing is done, and that will mean no drinking water for those people.
Countries will flood, polar bears will die, diseases will break out if nothing is done.
Cant they just get water from rivers?
Or maybe just take the salt out of the oceans?
It's not only a moral question.
If nothing is done to stop global warming, we will see the impacts in 20 years.
North India recieves it's water from the icy mountains up north, they will melt within 20 years if nothing is done, and that will mean no drinking water for those people.
Countries will flood, polar bears will die, diseases will break out if nothing is done.
and Luke Skywalker will come out of the X Wing fighter stationed on the humonoid face on the planet surface of Mars to vaporize us all
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
There are just as many scientists who think man made global warming is retarded
Proof?
You'll have a very very hard proving this.
There are just as many scientists who think man made global warming is retarded
Proof?
You'll have a very very hard proving this.
just as you will have a very very hard proving your point. Man Made global warming does not exist. every link you provided. every picture you posted shows us crap. Its mere speculation. You would have better luck convincing an athiest that a diety control their lives versus convincing everyone this is man made.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.