So much with the global warming...

[The Mastiff]

Chris, you have mentioned NASA more than once. That to me is like citing Wikipedia as a source in a scientific article. Nasa is attempting to hold onto it's very existence and earth sciences are about the only growth industry on the horizon. They have over a thousand scientists looking for work and are fighting for their very existence now with the huge debt and budget cutting mood now.

How about political? Yeah, a bit. Recall Bolden telling Al Jazeera recently “perhaps foremost” among the duties Obama charged him with was making Islamic nations, specifically, “feel good” about their scientific achievements." There is more in that story as well.

If you look at some of the people involved with this "consensus" and don't start feeling itchy then don't go trying to tell me that the evil oil, and coal industry are subsidizing these "fringe theories".

What's the difference who they sell their souls too? Please don't put one group on a pedestal while disparaging another. No matter whose side your on, Garbage in, garbage out. I've seen way too much garbage not to mistrust both sides equally and call for a do over. Until then hands off my wallet. :)

With that I'll gladly accept the rancor and irrational name calling ( cut and paste though it may be) from true believers like solidstate.

Joe


Some reading material:

The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth's climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials). In the last 400,000 years the warm periods have had a temperature similar to that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer.

Taken from :http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 080100.htm

and the heart beat of the earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

http://www.physorg.com/news85938220.html

A few years ago, an international team of researchers went to the middle of the Pacific Ocean and drilled down five kilometers below sea level in an effort to uncover secrets about the earth's climate history. They exceeded their expectations and have published their findings in the Dec. 22 edition of the journal Science.

The researchers' drilling produced pristine samples of marine microfossils, otherwise known as foraminifera. Analysis of the carbonate shells of these microfossils, which are between 23 million to 34 million years-old, has revealed that the Earth's climate and the formation and recession of glaciation events in the Earth's history have corresponded with variations in the earth's natural orbital patterns and carbon cycles.

The researchers were particularly interested in these microfossils because they came from the Oligocene epoch, a time in Earth's history known for falling temperatures.

"The continuity and length of the data series we gathered and analyzed allowed for unprecedented insights into the complex interactions between external climate forcing, the global carbon cycle and ice sheet oscillations," said Dr. Jens Herrle, co-author of the paper and a micropaleontology professor at the University of Alberta.

The authors also show how simple models of the global carbon cycle, coupled to orbital controls of global temperature and biological activity, are able to reproduce the important changes observed after the world entered an "ice-house" state about 34 million years ago.

In the early half of the 20th century, Serbian physicist Milutin Milankovitch first proposed that cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun geometry can alter the Earth's climate and these changes can be discovered in the Earth's geological archives, which is exactly what this research team, consisting of members from the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Canada, has done.

"This research is not only concerned with the climate many millions-of-years-ago. Researching and understanding 'extreme' climate events from the geological past allows us to better tune climate models to understand present and future events, and the response to major perturbations of Earth's climate and the global carbon cycle, Herrle added.

Source: University of Alberta

Currently, the sun is in the midst of the period designated as Cycle 24 and is ramping up toward the cycle's period of maximum activity. However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunsp ... cycle.html

And Note: I'm not attempting to make any points or advocate any positions. Just providing stuff to read for the bored. :)

[JD Spydo]

I know I'm late to this great but very interesting debate :o But like many of you I've never bought into this "global warming" theory at all. There is just not enough proof to sell the theory at all. It's just not that simple for one thing and there is actually proof that some parts of the planet are actually getting colder.

Albeit I do believe that there is some type of climate shift going on and I don't think anyone can argue that. I've lived in this Kansas City, Missouri USA area most of my life and I can certainly attest that there has been a dramatic climate change here as well as many other parts of the United States.

My belief is that there is definitely some kind of a polar shift or climate pattern shift going on for sure. Because here in this area I live in we used to have snow storms from December to February that would have snow so deep you literally couldn't walk out on your front porch. We haven't had a snow of that magnitude since the early to mid 70s to my recollection. But throughout the 60s we had snow storms like that all the time. Also we used to have our lakes freeze over to where we could do all kinds of winter sports. We haven't had a really good hard freeze for the local lakes since the early to mid 80s and that's a fact.

A good friend of mine who lives in the northern panhandle of Florida told me that as recent as the late 70s you could grow citrus fruit in that area with little or no fear of freeze. But since the early to mid 80s that has not been the case at all.

We also have areas of the USA in high mountainous regions where glaciers are growing at an exponential rate.

There is some type of shift or pattern change in the climate here in the USA and I seriously doubt if anyone in the scientific community could argue that.
And I just can't say whether or not mankind has any bearing on it.

Although the H.A.A.R.P. project up in Alaska has been blamed for some climate changes as well as animal migration changes since they have been playing with that high tech toy that the government lets us know very little about.

There is a scientist named Dr. Nick Begich who has done extensive research on the H.A.A.R.P. project and has come up with some pretty astounding data regarding this rogue government project. Also you must factor in that man has truly done a lot of environmental damage to this beautiful planet and there has probably been things done that few of us are even aware of.

[ChrisR]

Chris, you have mentioned NASA more than once. That to me is like citing Wikipedia as a source in a scientific article. Nasa is attempting to hold onto it's very existence and earth sciences are about the only growth industry on the horizon. They have over a thousand scientists looking for work and are fighting for their very existence now with the huge debt and budget cutting mood now.

I get what you're saying Joe ... and yep, you can find some vested interests on both sides ... the scientists are all at the trough trying to get funding from wherever they can. I just chose NASA as they are a well-known organisation that is relatively well-respected and untainted by scandals - but there are climate-science researchers all over the world and the trends are the same.

Ironically though I think lack of funding is what makes some scientists "sell-out" and take the oil-company's money ... the ones that back man-made climate change tend to come under the strongest personal attacks and probably get far less funding. The thing to ask yourself is, are the scientists getting more money for saying it is man-made climate change (and taking a dwindling pot from the government) ... or would they get more for researching on other causative factors? I think a lot of them would be driving better cars if they got into bed with the oil barons

Also, nobody disputes that the Earth has gone trough very dramatic shifts in the climate (including mini ice-ages in fairly recent history) ... we have also have complete shifts in the magnetic poles too, all over geologic periods of time. But at no time in the history of the planet has the global temperature risen this high, this fast ... it's just unprecedented. It could be any number of factors but still the majority of reputable scientists around the world think that it is at least man-made and that we should try out best to reduce our impact on the Earth ... less pollution of all kinds :)

[The Mastiff]

Everything we've done and can imagine doing is fairly trivial compared to some of earths. The Siberian and Indian Deccan traps almost wiped out all life ( 93% and more). Then of course there have been the numerous lesser troubles such as the one that finished off most of the dinosaurs ( Chixilub impact). We're not really sure yet what caused the runaway greenhouse affect that had no ice at the poles with alligators living at what was then the north pole. No proof, just theories what caused the "snowball" earth that froze everything. I do mean everything.

Lesser troubles have been ice ages such as the one we're still in ( Wisconsin). Still lesser have been the smaller global effects caused by the sun output and/or warmth recieved ( little ice age that we are just really coming out of). Then the decades lng affects from Yellowstone type supervolcanos which wouldn't kill off humanity but it might throw us back to a modern version of the dark ages.

All these dwarf what humans are capable of doing in their best century.

The latest is the excuse for no climate change over the decade ending 2009 was more pollution from china caused the blocking of sunlight cooling the earth. So, we apparently have pollution causing both cooling one decade, and warming another.

Nope. The science isn't quite there yet. When everything that happens proves the theory there is something wrong with the theory. Certainly even the scientists here know how that goes.

[The Mastiff]

But at no time in the history of the planet has the global temperature risen this high, this fast ... it's just unprecedented

I disagree Chris. There have been much, much worse climate shifts caused by entirely natural reasons. Just not in the last hundred years or so.

[ChrisR]

I disagree Chris. There have been much, much worse climate shifts caused by entirely natural reasons. Just not in the last hundred years or so.

Well, if you're including the Deccan Traps and the K-T extinction event in the mix then yes, I'm sure the atmosphere got a lot hotter, then a lot colder, very fast indeed. :D But they happened many millions of years ago and if those kinds of events were happening today then we'd know about it and global warming would be easy to explain. But, global extinction events aside, there's not that's happened in the last 100 years that can explain the recent jump, except the massive rise in human pollution. It is probably over simplistic to point the finger at one thing as being *the* cause of climate change ... but I think CO2 will probably be a major factor ... and climate prediction is notoriously difficult (just check how inaccurate the TV weathermen usually are! :D ) so the effect might be to make some parts warm, while other parts get colder ... and we might even enter a volatile period where temperatures fluctuate wildly.

That aside, I think anyone who loves the planet and enjoys the wilderness and forests as they are should support a minimization of human pollution :)

[The Mastiff]

That aside, I think anyone who loves the planet and enjoys the wilderness and forests as they are should support a minimization of human pollution

Yes, I completely agree. We do need to change some of our ways and become more efficient, and less destructive to our environment especially as the population keeps growing.

I just feel revulsion about globalist wealth transfer schemes where some elite become the next robber barons on our dime. Many having lied and scammed their way into it. Carbon credit trading houses? Now this is one of the most perfect scams I've ever seen or heard of.

Nope, we should as individuals do what we can or want to but don't try taking it from me by force of taxation and think you can feel safe afterward.

Common americans are very decent and generous people but we bristle at being told we have to do something. That's just our nature just as it is to mistrust the government, the UN, France :) .... You know. The usual. :D

[SolidState]

I'm just wondering if anyone can tell me the significance of this graph

[The Mastiff]

But, global extinction events aside, there's not that's happened in the last 100 years that can explain the recent jump, except the massive rise in human pollution

To be completely honest looking at the last hundred years isn't enough. A thousand isn't enough. You can not gain an understanding of the ecosystem by doing so and that's the reason we are doing things like drilling ocean sediments, Ice cores from the poles, greenland, tree ring studies, etc.

In the 1900's, or the 20th century we are just coming out of the little ice age. Of course that would throw off temp norms. What about the last 11,000 years since the last melt seeing as we are between events still in a glaciation. We are merely in a lull between glacial advances. BTW, I said it earlier. Co2 lags not drives temp changes. One of many reports.:http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

[Pinetreebbs]

...That aside, I think anyone who loves the planet and enjoys the wilderness and forests as they are should support a minimization of human pollution :)

Absolutely, most of our problems would be solved if we all took this path.

[Handwrecker]

Earth's human population has always always 1 billion or less. By 1900 it rose to 3 billion with the industrial revolution. By 2000, we had reached almost 7 billion because of petroleum. 133% growth in a century.

I agree that the politics of climate change is awful. And I agree that there is compelling research for the Earth experiencing climate change in the pat. But simply attributing our extremely rapid and intense climate shift to the natural cycle of the Earth seems to be dismissing an incredibly huge impact to our planet.

[monsterdog]

May I inquire when the last time you read a peer reviewed scientific journal article on the subject? The fact is the vast majority of scientists do agree on this subject.

Not recently, I admit. However I do know that a lot of scientists walked out on the UN sponsored paper on the subject that won a joint Nobel prize with Al Gore, because they did not agree with the findings that were being pushed by its political reviewers.

Could it also be that only scientists who agree on this subject can get any funding because the opposite view is seen as controversial, hence the only "reputable" (working) research scientists are the ones who support the man-made global warming theory?

Peer review isn't everything. Just look at other controversial subjects that have been buried because of their connotations regardless of how much good they could do, like race medicine.

Sadly Americans are generally scientifically deficient and rely on politicians and the corporate news media to supply their data.

I am not American, and completely agree. I'd also like to add that the rest of the world is going down the same slippery slope.

I'll happily admit an opinion is all I have, so if you could send me some links to the articles you are talking about, please do so, I'll happily read them to update my opinion.

[ChrisR]

Common americans are very decent and generous people but we bristle at being told we have to do something. That's just our nature just as it is to mistrust the government, the UN, France :) .... You know. The usual. :D

Yeah, I do understand - the land of the free :D

I think one of the problems with human nature is that so many people act selfishly and in their short-term interest, so taxation is a convenient way for politicians to give some 'stick'. But I do agree that a bit more 'carrot' would be better in the long-term ... but politicians & money/taxes kinda go together

On the subject of carbon trading, I agree totally ... it is something that on the face of it should work, in theory, but the way that it works in reality is just perverse.

[WalzAaronFFG]

Saying "it's cold outside" isn't a good argument against a theory supported by the world's scientists. I'm not even necessarily on board with the theory, but suggesting that a cool summer means the theory is null and void is kind of ridiculous, no?

[ChrisR]

Could it also be that only scientists who agree on this subject can get any funding because the opposite view is seen as controversial, hence the only "reputable" (working) research scientists are the ones who support the man-made global warming theory?

I'm guessing that the opposite is true ... the public purse has never been under so much pressure and any publicly-funded research body is probably laying off staff in a desperate bid to stay afloat. Power still lies with the oil companies and I'd bet that it would be far easier to get money for trashing the man-made CO2 argument ... which might explain why so many of the really weak explanations that have already been virtually discounted keep getting rehashed as supposedly valid theories ... like giving Frankenstein's Monster another jolt and sending him out again.

[SolidState]

I'm just wondering if anyone can tell me the significance of this graph

I'm still wondering if anyone understands the significance of the graph I posted from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It pretty much explains itself to anyone with any scientific literacy. Who here is scientifically literate enough to explain what is happening in that graph to the board?

Baseless conjecture is fine, but I'm the only one who has posted a peer-reviewed, often utilized and regularly reproduced piece of data for review by members of this forum. I'm not surprised it is completely ignored. That is what happens to real measurements; they are ignored and opinions win the day...

[Pinetreebbs]

I'm still wondering if anyone understands the significance of the graph I posted from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It pretty much explains itself to anyone with any scientific literacy. Who here is scientifically literate enough to explain what is happening in that graph to the board?

Baseless conjecture is fine, but I'm the only one who has posted a peer-reviewed, often utilized and regularly reproduced piece of data for review by members of this forum. I'm not surprised it is completely ignored. That is what happens to real measurements; they are ignored and opinions win the day...

Being intimately familiar with the information, please explain it in terms a layman can understand. Perhaps explain the difference between Co2 and N under the same conditions.

[ChrisR]

I'm still wondering if anyone understands the significance of the graph I posted from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It pretty much explains itself to anyone with any scientific literacy. Who here is scientifically literate enough to explain what is happening in that graph to the board?

A little bit unfair ... I would count myself as being fairly scientifically literate and I have no idea of the significance of the graph. :) However, just reading the graph for what it is, it seems to show that CO2 absorbs only very specific wavelengths (about 3-4 distinct peaks) in the IR spectrum - the rest is allowed past. Do I win a goldfish or a cigar or something? :D

[The Deacon]

I'd agree with Chris's assessment.

Beyond that, having cooked data for a government agency to better reflect agency PR needs, any graph accompanied by a disclaimer like:

Notice: Except where noted, spectra from this collection were measured on dispersive instruments, often in carefully selected solvents, and hence may differ in detail from measurements on FTIR instruments or in other chemical environments. More information on the manner in which spectra in this collection were collected can be found
here.

...is automatically suspect.

[monsterdog]

I'm guessing that the opposite is true ... the public purse has never been under so much pressure and any publicly-funded research body is probably laying off staff in a desperate bid to stay afloat. Power still lies with the oil companies and I'd bet that it would be far easier to get money for trashing the man-made CO2 argument ... which might explain why so many of the really weak explanations that have already been virtually discounted keep getting rehashed as supposedly valid theories ... like giving Frankenstein's Monster another jolt and sending him out again.

I agree that big business and their political allies are doing what they can to discredit the man-made global warming theory. Just as the radical left is trying for the opposite in order to discredit big business.

I also work for a major University and know what gets funding and for what reasons, "popular" always gets the big bucks, especially from government grants.

Currently eco-science is so popular that major businesses are making **** sure that you know how green they are (even if its only green-washing) in every commercial and on every product packaging imaginable. They have buy-back programs where they promise you to recycle and dismantle your old products responsibly. The latter is a lucrative business in itself because of the resell value of certain materials and carbon credits.

I still maintain that no-one has any idea, there are enough scientists out there who disagree with the popular opinion for me to think this is not a cut and dry issue, and those scientists have some very good arguments for why man-made CO2 is a minor contributor to any climate change we may experience.

According to the "global warming" alarmists of the 80s the polar icecaps should have already melted and the overall temperature of the world should have gone up a hundred times of what we are actually experiencing.

Going back further, the 70s saw speculation that we were entering a new ice age.

We simply just do not know, and we are acknowledging this by labeling it "climate change" because it can mean anything.

Obviously we shouldn't just sit back and pollute and let out green houses gases as we please, but maybe our money and efforts are better spent at long term solutions and understanding rather than vote-grabbing, immediate solutions to a potential non-problem. There still is no evidence that I have seen that support that this is an immediate problem or that we are to blame.

I would love to be persuaded in the opposite direction, someone post some convincing papers in this article.