Global Warming... [must read]

[StrOwez]

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

 

 

I'm not denying that global warming is happening, I'm not sure its the fault of humans that's causing it. Mars is also warming up as one example; and if you can't look from both perspectives on the argument then you look like the ignorant fool.

[Evilperson]

I'm not denying that global warming is happening, I'm not sure its the fault of humans that's causing it. Mars is also warming up as one example; and if you can't look from both perspectives on the argument then you look like the ignorant fool.

 

 

 

 

 

I am well aware of the temperature cycles on earth. Looking at it from both sides is very good. But when one side seems to be heavily stacked with information, statistics, experiments and fully tested hypotheses it seems which side to support. Recently in the United States government, congress acknowledged that humans were contributing to global warming by the millions of tons of carbon added to the atmosphere each year. As far as I'm concerned, that is some of the most influential proof i can think of.

[StrOwez]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vRXrMRaAv7k

[malo2]

I cannot begin to comprehend the amount of ignorance in this thread. Not only by the people commenting but also by the original poster.

 

 

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

 

 

The original poster is beyond comprehension. Multiple typing errors combined with run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs have given me a migraine i will not soon lose. Not to mention lack of evidence and sanity.

 

 

 

I hate tip it. But instead of leaving, i will critique people until the cows come home.

have you even read what people have posted before making that reply? Not on just this thread, but other global warming threads as well. You seem to be completely missing the point.

[cryztalwing]

Just keep in mine that the Rothschild's have weather control tech that they have been making since the end of World War 2, throw the U.S. Military, and other R & D project's and that they been reserching it since the 1920's. They just happen to be one of the major backers of global warming... :boohoo:

[venomai]

God dammit i hate hippies :evil:

 

 

 

what are they actually doing to help? annoying people and going up to people in the streets talking isn't doing much is it, its like they think their saving the world.

 

 

 

telling everyone about global warming and scaring everyone isnt doing good

 

Hippies are pacifists -- not necessarily environmentalists. We touch base on environmental issues occasionally, but we mainly focus on "love and peace". Don't go blaming us for your problems.

 

 

 

There isn't enough ice left to enter another Ice Age. #-o

 

But there's enough water. Ice is the solid form of water. :-s Maybe I'm missing something here...

 

 

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

Read the thread again. ;) We are saying the OP's claims are overhyped and that, although global warming is happening, it's not happening at such a rate that we'll all be dead in a few years.

 

Many of us have taken science classes and read various sources on the subject -- that's why we are so skeptical in believing that the world will end in 2012.

[Nom]

What a load of opinionated alarmist BS.

 

 

 

If anything could cement my belief that global warming is a ridiculously overcooked falsehood, then this is it.

 

 

 

Don't base your opinion of climate change from alarmist morons or any media source. Read the literature.

 

 

 

http://stke.sciencemag.org/

 

http://www.nature.com/index.html

 

http://www.pnas.org/

 

 

 

I'm aware of this, and I have found significant enough evidence to counter these arguments from a scientific standpoint. I was merely saying that with such "opinionated alarmist BS" on the other side of the debate, it only helps to solidify my position.

 

 

 

Oh, and I don't deny global warming is happening, but rather that humans are significant contributors, as several people have said in defense to Evilperson.

[assassin_696]

Lovestock, one of the men to originally introduce the idea of global warming, has recently come out with a new statement. Before his beliefs were that we were on a tilting point but would have another 50-100 years to correct ourselves, now he thin,s otherwise. His newest comments have strucken fear amongst the scientist population as a whole, and because of so few believe him. His new theory, is that we have surpassed the tilting point and are now on a collision course which will hit in 2012. His belief is that by 2010, about 40-60% of the current population will have been whiped out as the sea level will rise over 20 feet, and heavy rains, bigger storms, and more droughts hit the human race. Of course, he also found tyhat in 2012 we will hit solar cycle 21, which will of course speed up the process of global warming drastically and predicts that 13 years from now, in 2020, the human race will be back into the middle ages. "This is the end of times, not the world, but the end of the world as we know it," he claims in an interview. He has also stated that nearly all attempts will be futile. Swithcing to hybrids will do nothing, cutting down on power plants will do nothing, using windmills will do nothing. His claim is that we should no longer prevent global warming, but get ready for it by enforcing northern towns which will be greated by millions of immigrants, especially in Europe as he says that nearly 60% of Europe will be truend into a new seharra desert. And that towns such as New York, New Orleans, and Las Vegas are already doomed to drought and increased water levels. His propsed reaction to at last slow the process is to use nuclear power, and immediatly shut down all other power plants immediatley. He also says we should stray from natural foods and use such foods as "Quarn", a bioengineered fungus that is edible. He also boasts at how computer models are wrong, due to the fact they are based off the creators opinions instead of the past actions of the world. His biggest fear next to global warming though, is simply the aftermath. As he says, the end of times will put us in a new stone age, all techs, knowledge, etc. will be lost. So, he fears of the warlords and anarchy that will happen afterwars and the wars and tribes that will come after the climax as Earth enters yet another Ice Age. Finally he stated, "This is not so much a wayt for mother nature to kill off a dominant species, bu to put it back in its place."

 

 

 

Any sources/evidence to back up the bolded claims/thoughts/statements/boasts?

[darkforaster]

There isn't enough ice left to enter another Ice Age. #-o

 

 

 

if you honestly think ice makes an ice age then your sadly mistaken. An ice age occurs when the planet is covered in ice. ou don't need ice to get more ice. you just need water. And there's plenty of water.

[Rebdragon]

I cannot begin to comprehend the amount of ignorance in this thread. Not only by the people commenting but also by the original poster.

 

 

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

 

 

The original poster is beyond comprehension. Multiple typing errors combined with run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs have given me a migraine i will not soon lose. Not to mention lack of evidence and sanity.

 

 

 

I hate tip it. But instead of leaving, i will critique people until the cows come home.

 

Forget to pick your laptop up to read the thread before you mounted your high horse?

[highlanders]

There's no point to answer this post unless we have sources. I looked on google, and wikipedia, no lovestock. So, where is this story from? OT, info?

[InkofDeath]

There's no point to answer this post unless we have sources. I looked on google, and wikipedia, no lovestock. So, where is this story from? OT, info?

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Though I think the human race has the technology to physically prevent these 'natural disasters' from occurring and killing 2/3s of the population? I think this is cabbage (not to say global warming is, just that paragraph)...>.>

[warri0r45]

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

 

 

I'm not denying that global warming is happening, I'm not sure its the fault of humans that's causing it. Mars is also warming up as one example; and if you can't look from both perspectives on the argument then you look like the ignorant fool.

 

 

 

warri0r45 wrote:

 

What a load of opinionated alarmist BS.

 

 

 

NOM ANOR wrote:

 

If anything could cement my belief that global warming is a ridiculously overcooked falsehood, then this is it.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't base your opinion of climate change from alarmist morons or any media source. Read the literature.

 

 

 

http://stke.sciencemag.org/

 

http://www.nature.com/index.html

 

http://www.pnas.org/

 

 

 

 

 

I'm aware of this, and I have found significant enough evidence to counter these arguments from a scientific standpoint. (1) I was merely saying that with such "opinionated alarmist BS" on the other side of the debate, it only helps to solidify my position.

 

 

 

Oh, and I don't deny global warming is happening, but rather that humans are significant contributors, as several people have said in defense to Evilperson.

 

 

 

(1) I dearly hope you aren't basing your opinion of the scientific mainstream that global warming is in the majority caused by humans on people like in the OP. This is exactly my point, you should NEVER base your opinion of it on alarmist morons, most notably any media source as they're prone to spew at you whatever sells and not a balanced literature based account.

 

 

 

@ The bold, allow me to rehash:

 

 

 

It's amazing what you can learn with a little research.

 

 

 

General Reading:

 

 

 

[1] [2] [3] [4]

 

EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years.

 

 

 

Articles:

 

[1]

 

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) recovered two deep ice cores from East Antarctica. One of the cores, located at Dome Concordia (Dome C) (75ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð06'S, 123ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð21'E, altitude of 3233 m above sea level, and mean annual accumulation rate of 25.0 kg mÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ2 yearÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ1), is the only ice core covering at least eight glacial cycles (1), four cycles longer than previously available from ice cores. This has allowed us to reconstruct the record of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 much further back in time than was possible before. Here, we report results from the interval between 390 and 650 kyr B.P. (kyr B.P. is thousand years before the present, i.e., before A.D. 1950).

 

The Dome C CO2 record [mean sampling resolution of 731 years; details about the methods and the sampling are given in (16)] is plotted in Fig. 1, together with the D record (Antarctic temperature proxy) of Dome C (18) [both records are shown on the EDC2 time scale (1)], a stack of benthic d18O records from globally distributed sites (19), and a high-resolution benthic 18O record from Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) site 980 (55ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð29'N, 14ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð42'W) (19ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ22). There is an excellent overall correlation between D and benthic 18O, a proxy of global ice volume (19).

 

See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm.

 

 

 

[2]

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of

 

atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacialÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâinterglacial cycles. The succession of changes through

 

each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable

 

bounds.Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide

 

and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of

 

these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm.

 

 

 

[3]

 

Selected climate records are summarized in Figs. 4 and 5, covering the periods from 0 to 350 kyr and from 0 to 100 kyr before the present (B.P.), respectively. The 18O of calcitic foraminifera from deep sea sediments is a proxy indicator for ice volume. The D or 18O of ice from ice cores is a proxy indicator of temperature in the area of the ice core.

 

See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm.

 

Fig. 3. (Upper) CO2 vs. time before present, as inferred by Etheridge et al. (17) from ice core studies.

 

See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

 

 

[4]

 

Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm.

 

 

 

[5]

 

Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented.

 

 

 

Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming.

 

 

 

This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7]

 

 

 

So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too?

 

 

 

[8]

 

On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day (see 'Mars hots up'). No change in sunshine required.

 

[9]

Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation.

 

 

 

Our results suggest that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies.

[10]

Shifting dust storms on Mars might be contributing to global warming there that is shrinking the planet's southern polar ice caps, scientists say.

 

 

 

Computer simulations similar to those used to predict weather here on Earth show that the bright, windblown dust and sand particles affects Mars' albedo-the amount of sunlight reflected from the planet's surface.

 

 

 

The research, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Nature, suggests these albedo variations play an important role in the climate of Mars. It could also potentially explain how global dust storms are triggered on the red planet.

The researchers think they are on the right track because the computer model predicts a build-up of heat in the atmosphere above Mars' southern hemisphere that is roughly equal to the amount of energy necessary to account for the diminishment of the planet's southern polar ice caps that has been observed in recent years.

 

 

 

Scientists have struggled to explain the shrinkage and have blamed it on everything from fluctuations in the Sun's output to natural variations in the planet's orbit and tilt.

 

 

 

"We haven't really had a really good explanation for this in the past," Geissler said. "We found that this mechanism could contribute or possibly explain the rapid sublimation of the south polar cap."

 

So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required.

 

 

 

[11]

 

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

 

 

 

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [september 13, 2006].)

 

 

 

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

 

 

 

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

 

Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages.

 

 

 

Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change or that it's not humans that are the main contributors:

 

[12]

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[13]

Variations in the SunÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

[14]

This is consistent with a causal relationship between the two and supports, but by no means proves, the view that the Sun has had an important, possibly even dominant influence on our climate in the past. Other contributors to climate variability are volcanic activity, the internal variability of the Earth's atmosphere and man-made greenhouse gases. After 1980, however, the Earth's temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun's irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative.

[15]

The observed temperature rise over the most recent 30 and 100 years is larger than the trend in the solar forcing simulation during the same period, indicating a strong likelihood that, if the model forcing and response is realistic, other factors have contributed to the observed warming. Since the pattern of the recent observed warming agrees better with the greenhouse warming pattern than with the solar variability response, it is likely that one of these factors is the increase of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.

[Kill_Thomas9]

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

 

 

I'm not denying that global warming is happening, I'm not sure its the fault of humans that's causing it. Mars is also warming up as one example; and if you can't look from both perspectives on the argument then you look like the ignorant fool.

 

 

 

warri0r45 wrote:

 

What a load of opinionated alarmist BS.

 

 

 

NOM ANOR wrote:

 

If anything could cement my belief that global warming is a ridiculously overcooked falsehood, then this is it.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't base your opinion of climate change from alarmist morons or any media source. Read the literature.

 

 

 

http://stke.sciencemag.org/

 

http://www.nature.com/index.html

 

http://www.pnas.org/

 

 

 

 

 

I'm aware of this, and I have found significant enough evidence to counter these arguments from a scientific standpoint. (1) I was merely saying that with such "opinionated alarmist BS" on the other side of the debate, it only helps to solidify my position.

 

 

 

Oh, and I don't deny global warming is happening, but rather that humans are significant contributors, as several people have said in defense to Evilperson.

 

 

 

(1) I dearly hope you aren't basing your opinion of the scientific mainstream that global warming is in the majority caused by humans on people like in the OP. This is exactly my point, you should NEVER base your opinion of it on alarmist morons, most notably any media source as they're prone to spew at you whatever sells and not a balanced literature based account.

 

 

 

@ The bold, allow me to rehash:

 

 

 

It's amazing what you can learn with a little research.

 

 

 

General Reading:

 

 

 

[1] [2] [3] [4]

 

EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years.

 

 

 

Articles:

 

[1]

 

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) recovered two deep ice cores from East Antarctica. One of the cores, located at Dome Concordia (Dome C) (75ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð06'S, 123ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð21'E, altitude of 3233 m above sea level, and mean annual accumulation rate of 25.0 kg mÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ2 yearÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ1), is the only ice core covering at least eight glacial cycles (1), four cycles longer than previously available from ice cores. This has allowed us to reconstruct the record of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 much further back in time than was possible before. Here, we report results from the interval between 390 and 650 kyr B.P. (kyr B.P. is thousand years before the present, i.e., before A.D. 1950).

 

The Dome C CO2 record [mean sampling resolution of 731 years; details about the methods and the sampling are given in (16)] is plotted in Fig. 1, together with the D record (Antarctic temperature proxy) of Dome C (18) [both records are shown on the EDC2 time scale (1)], a stack of benthic d18O records from globally distributed sites (19), and a high-resolution benthic 18O record from Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) site 980 (55ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð29'N, 14ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâð42'W) (19ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ22). There is an excellent overall correlation between D and benthic 18O, a proxy of global ice volume (19).

 

See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm.

 

 

 

[2]

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of

 

atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacialÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâinterglacial cycles. The succession of changes through

 

each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable

 

bounds.Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide

 

and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of

 

these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm.

 

 

 

[3]

 

Selected climate records are summarized in Figs. 4 and 5, covering the periods from 0 to 350 kyr and from 0 to 100 kyr before the present (B.P.), respectively. The 18O of calcitic foraminifera from deep sea sediments is a proxy indicator for ice volume. The D or 18O of ice from ice cores is a proxy indicator of temperature in the area of the ice core.

 

See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm.

 

Fig. 3. (Upper) CO2 vs. time before present, as inferred by Etheridge et al. (17) from ice core studies.

 

See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

 

 

[4]

 

Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm.

 

 

 

[5]

 

Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented.

 

 

 

Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming.

 

 

 

This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7]

 

 

 

So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too?

 

 

 

[8]

 

On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day (see 'Mars hots up'). No change in sunshine required.

 

[9]

Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation.

 

 

 

Our results suggest that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies.

[10]

Shifting dust storms on Mars might be contributing to global warming there that is shrinking the planet's southern polar ice caps, scientists say.

 

 

 

Computer simulations similar to those used to predict weather here on Earth show that the bright, windblown dust and sand particles affects Mars' albedo-the amount of sunlight reflected from the planet's surface.

 

 

 

The research, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Nature, suggests these albedo variations play an important role in the climate of Mars. It could also potentially explain how global dust storms are triggered on the red planet.

The researchers think they are on the right track because the computer model predicts a build-up of heat in the atmosphere above Mars' southern hemisphere that is roughly equal to the amount of energy necessary to account for the diminishment of the planet's southern polar ice caps that has been observed in recent years.

 

 

 

Scientists have struggled to explain the shrinkage and have blamed it on everything from fluctuations in the Sun's output to natural variations in the planet's orbit and tilt.

 

 

 

"We haven't really had a really good explanation for this in the past," Geissler said. "We found that this mechanism could contribute or possibly explain the rapid sublimation of the south polar cap."

 

So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required.

 

 

 

[11]

 

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

 

 

 

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [september 13, 2006].)

 

 

 

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

 

 

 

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

 

Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages.

 

 

 

Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change or that it's not humans that are the main contributors:

 

[12]

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[13]

Variations in the SunÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

[14]

This is consistent with a causal relationship between the two and supports, but by no means proves, the view that the Sun has had an important, possibly even dominant influence on our climate in the past. Other contributors to climate variability are volcanic activity, the internal variability of the Earth's atmosphere and man-made greenhouse gases. After 1980, however, the Earth's temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun's irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative.

[15]

The observed temperature rise over the most recent 30 and 100 years is larger than the trend in the solar forcing simulation during the same period, indicating a strong likelihood that, if the model forcing and response is realistic, other factors have contributed to the observed warming. Since the pattern of the recent observed warming agrees better with the greenhouse warming pattern than with the solar variability response, it is likely that one of these factors is the increase of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.

 

 

 

Wow, long post. May I point out to anybody that watches any videos/movies on global warming that you can not just watch a video on global warming and believe it. And that the same goes for the converse. You can not watch a video that talks about how the global warming points are invalid and believe that. You have to listen to both sides of the arguement.

 

 

 

Otherwise you might end up watching this bull [crud] video here, and believe that this guy who talks on the phone for 20 minutes with a video playing in the background, and who almost no sources has given valid counter-arguments can prove 5 years of scientists with hundreds of different computer models, and physical samples is correct.

[Medellin]

Scientists already know how to stop global warming. Governments just don't care enough to fund it.

[kelem_ryu]

I dont know the full story behind the 2012 theory, but who cares if the Mayan calendar only went to 2012? They're normal humans. Saying that the mayan calendar predicts the world's end is like me saying that if I close my eyes and pick a number, that number is the number of years humanity has left....it's completely ridiculous.

 

 

 

Around christmas 2012 earth, sun and the center of the galaxy have a conjunction - they'll lie on straight line, wich is an astronomical fact i believe. This happens about every 20.000 years. From an astrological point of view this shouldn't mean too much, because things like that don't work on lightswitch basis, like the seasons for example. Spring slowly changes into summer, summer reaches it's height and becomes autum eventually. Sure there is a precise midsummer and such things, but summer doesn't happen over night.

 

 

 

I don't know what the Mayan calendar predicts. I only know that it ends on precisely that date. The Mayans were excellent astronomers. They even had leap years and such things.

 

 

 

So if something extraordinary happens on that date (wich would be cool of course, but i doubt it somehow), it would merely be the culminaton of a long cycle and it should be something we have seen comming for a long, long time. The same way you can see summer comming. Then again we might not see it coming, because we are lost in details. There are many summers in everybodys life, but very few even life in a time with such an conjunction.

[cryztalwing]

The CFR has let the cat out of the bag in praising China's one-child policy. It probley won't be long befor they have thier controlled global warming action group's start to lobby Congress to enact a One-child policy in America. Many member's of those groups have all ready called for a One-child Policy in America. They clame it will help fight global warming by reducing the population and carbon emissions.

 

 

 

Back in August, China gave credit to it's one-child policy in doing just that. With all the hype, frenzy,and fear of global warming, one can see how easy it whould be for a one-child policy to be enacted in America. All they need to do is get anothe member's of Congress and the Senate to think that it whould be the ONLY way to save earth, and human kind, along with the President to sign it into law, or to overide a veto.

 

 

 

Ya I know insane, just insane right? :boohoo:

 

 

 

[hide]China says its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births, the equivalent of the population of the United States.

 

 

 

But delegates at U.N. climate change talks in Vienna said on Thursday birth control is unlikely to find favor as a major policy theme, partly because of opposition by the Catholic Church and some developing nations trying to increase their population.

 

Some scientists say that birth control measures far less draconian than China's are wrongly overlooked in the fight against climate change, when the world population is projected to soar to about 9 billion by 2050 from 6.6 billion now.

 

 

 

"Population is clearly an important factor," said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, at U.N. talks trying to plan a new deal to combat climate change after 2012.

 

 

 

China, which rejects criticism that it is doing too little to confront climate change, says that its population is now 1.3 billion against 1.6 billion if it had not imposed tough birth control measures in the late 1970s.

 

 

 

The number of births avoided equals the entire population of the United States. Beijing says that fewer people means less demand for energy and lower emissions of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels.

 

 

 

"This is only an illustration of the actions we have taken," said Su Wei, a senior Foreign Ministry official heading China's delegation to the 158-nation talks from Aug 27-31.

 

 

 

He told Reuters that Beijing was not arguing that its policy was a model for others to follow in a global drive to avert ever more chaotic weather patterns, droughts, floods, erosion and rising ocean levels.

 

 

 

But avoiding 300 million births "means we averted 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005" based on average world per capital emissions of 4.2 tonnes, he said.

 

 

 

http://infowars.com/articles/ps/china_o ... limate.htm [/hide]

[Rebdragon]

Seriously, who's mule account is this?^ It's like someone made an account just to post conspiracy information, but not get ridiculed for doing it relentlessly :-k .

[CampbellMC]

Scientists already know how to stop global warming. Governments just don't care enough to fund it.

 

 

 

Considering that there is several hundred theories on global warming I highly doubt that, and over 75% of those theories say that we are screwed for the next few hundred years, even if we do something now, it is very likely that we are too late.

[warri0r45]

Scientists already know how to stop global warming. Governments just don't care enough to fund it.

 

 

 

Considering that there is several hundred theories on global warming I highly doubt that, and over 75% of those theories say that we are screwed for the next few hundred years, even if we do something now, it is very likely that we are too late.

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that there were 'several hundred' theories on global warming. Why do you say this?

[Unoalexi]

Scientists already know how to stop global warming. Governments just don't care enough to fund it.

 

 

 

Considering that there is several hundred theories on global warming I highly doubt that, and over 75% of those theories say that we are screwed for the next few hundred years, even if we do something now, it is very likely that we are too late.

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that there were 'several hundred' theories on global warming. Why do you say this?

 

 

 

Lists of Theories on the causes of global warming

 

1. The orbit wobbles you mentioned earlier

 

2. The CO2 emissions by humanity

 

3. The CO2 emmisions by volcanoes

 

4. The methane emissions by livestock

 

5. The methane emissions by plankton in the oceans

 

6. Reflection of sunlight by ice(possibly disproven)

 

7. Holes in the Ozone

 

8. Earth's natural climate cycles. (Ice Age to 'Heat' Age)

 

 

 

These are the ones that I can remember.. I believe the 'several hundred' statement was simply a (hyperbole?). There are many varied opinions on the causes and effects of global warming, just like there are many opinions regarding the massive extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

 

 

Personally, I hate scientific propaganda such as this. The way these people can even called themselves scientist sickens me, it really hurts the image of the theory (Humans cause global warming) as a whole.. I do believe humanity has an effect on the Earth's climate, but certainly not in the magnitude this 'scientist' claims. It reminds me of the ridiculous movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' were on the website it said that the movie was 'real science' and the catastrophic event depicted in the movie were highly possible.. psuedoscience(sp?) at it's finest, this is really nothing more that Manbearpig fodder..

 

 

 

The CFR has let the cat out of the bag in praising China's one-child policy. It probley won't be long befor they have thier controlled global warming action group's start to lobby Congress to enact a One-child policy in America. Many member's of those groups have all ready called for a One-child Policy in America. They clame it will help fight global warming by reducing the population and carbon emissions.

 

 

 

Back in August, China gave credit to it's one-child policy in doing just that. With all the hype, frenzy,and fear of global warming, one can see how easy it whould be for a one-child policy to be enacted in America. All they need to do is get anothe member's of Congress and the Senate to think that it whould be the ONLY way to save earth, and human kind, along with the President to sign it into law, or to overide a veto.

 

 

 

Ya I know insane, just insane right? :boohoo:

 

 

 

You speak of this as if it were a bad thing..

[wakka102]

I'm not as worried about global warming as I am about water and resource supply. Population is going up and water supply is going down, how long can we keep on a path like that before we totally run out? then what do we do?

[warri0r45]

Scientists already know how to stop global warming. Governments just don't care enough to fund it.

 

 

 

Considering that there is several hundred theories on global warming I highly doubt that, and over 75% of those theories say that we are screwed for the next few hundred years, even if we do something now, it is very likely that we are too late.

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that there were 'several hundred' theories on global warming. Why do you say this?

 

 

 

Lists of Theories on the causes of global warming

 

1. The orbit wobbles you mentioned earlier

 

2. The CO2 emissions by humanity

 

3. The CO2 emmisions by volcanoes

 

4. The methane emissions by livestock

 

5. The methane emissions by plankton in the oceans

 

6. Reflection of sunlight by ice(possibly disproven)

 

7. Holes in the Ozone

 

8. Earth's natural climate cycles. (Ice Age to 'Heat' Age)

 

 

 

These are the ones that I can remember.. I believe the 'several hundred' statement was simply a (hyperbole?). There are many varied opinions on the causes and effects of global warming, just like there are many opinions regarding the massive extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

 

 

Personally, I hate scientific propaganda such as this. The way these people can even called themselves scientist sickens me, it really hurts the image of the theory (Humans cause global warming) as a whole.. I do believe humanity has an effect on the Earth's climate, but certainly not in the magnitude this 'scientist' claims. It reminds me of the ridiculous movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' were on the website it said that the movie was 'real science' and the catastrophic event depicted in the movie were highly possible.. psuedoscience(sp?) at it's finest, this is really nothing more that Manbearpig fodder..

 

 

 

The CFR has let the cat out of the bag in praising China's one-child policy. It probley won't be long befor they have thier controlled global warming action group's start to lobby Congress to enact a One-child policy in America. Many member's of those groups have all ready called for a One-child Policy in America. They clame it will help fight global warming by reducing the population and carbon emissions.

 

 

 

Back in August, China gave credit to it's one-child policy in doing just that. With all the hype, frenzy,and fear of global warming, one can see how easy it whould be for a one-child policy to be enacted in America. All they need to do is get anothe member's of Congress and the Senate to think that it whould be the ONLY way to save earth, and human kind, along with the President to sign it into law, or to overide a veto.

 

 

 

Ya I know insane, just insane right? :boohoo:

 

 

 

You speak of this as if it were a bad thing..

 

 

 

Red = The greenhouse effect. Warming is proportional to gas output.

 

Orange = Milankovitch cycles which deal with large scale periodical warming and cooling trends (ice ages).

 

Green = UV absorption by the Ozone layer. I doubt this has a major part in global scale warming trends at all.

 

Blue = Solar Irradiation. It plays a part but any number of reports show it alone can't account for the most recent warming trends, only greenhouse gas emmisions can. Solar Irrandiance is also based on an 11 year output cycle.

 

 

 

As for either man made or natural emmisions on the red point, CO2 is at record high levels for hundreds of thousands of years and the levels shot up conspicuously in accordance with the industrial revolution. If it were down to volcanoes, one would expect the ice core records to show huge [bleep]es in pre-industrial (as in hundreds of thousands of years ago whenever they went off) CO2 and methane levels to current day levels. This is not the case.

 

 

 

By the way I'm with you from the OP propoganda. Don't be fooled into thinking the OP espouses common scientific views supported by any kind of reports. It dosen't.

[reaper88888]

Eh, if its not overstated, then hot damn, looks like I get to prove all those conservative idiots wrong. Environment > oil.

 

 

 

 

 

Heheh, good thing I'm fine with all of humanity being wiped out; it's not like we don't deserve it. :| :mrgreen:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, it is a proven FACT that global warming is caused mainly by humanity's love of fossil fuels. Not by 'natural warming processes'. Not by terrorists or aliens. Not by volcanoes. Not by anything but our own selfish species. The rise in global temperature/CO2 levels match almost exactly the timeframe of the industrial revolution...

[Unoalexi]

Eh, if its not overstated, then hot damn, looks like I get to prove all those conservative idiots wrong. Environment > oil.

 

 

 

 

 

Heheh, good thing I'm fine with all of humanity being wiped out; it's not like we don't deserve it. :| :mrgreen:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, it is a proven FACT that global warming is caused mainly by humanity's love of fossil fuels. Not by 'natural warming processes'. Not by terrorists or aliens. Not by volcanoes. Not by anything but our own selfish species. The rise in global temperature/CO2 levels match almost exactly the timeframe of the industrial revolution...

 

 

 

No.. It's only still a theory, I believe.. Is one of those theories that's virtually impossible to test realistically. The only way we would be able to test it is if we

 

A) took humans off the planet for a few centuries or so and see if the planet cools or

 

B) Find a habitable planet with a balanced climate, dump humans on it, and see what happens.

 

 

 

The timeframe of the Industrial revolution is certainly evidence, but not enough to prove the theory I'm afraid(Forgive me if I'm wrong)