Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050

 

 

 

Wouldn't he be like.. Oh I dunno.. dead by then?

Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050

 

 

 

Wouldn't he be like.. Oh I dunno.. dead by then?

 

 

 

You try to force the complete reduction of oil in 10 years. You'd be impeached.

 

 

 

He is requiring 40% reduction in oil purchase and production by 2025. He is also offering incentives into alternative fuel research by the Big Three.

Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050

 

 

 

Wouldn't he be like.. Oh I dunno.. dead by then?

 

 

 

You try to force the complete reduction of oil in 10 years. You'd be impeached.

 

 

 

He is requiring 40% reduction in oil purchase and production by 2025. He is also offering incentives into alternative fuel research by the Big Three.

 

 

 

Sounds pretty strange since he's doing big business in the oil company. Why he would want to "make less money" is odd..

Money doesn't much anymore once you're dead

(That was a lot)

 

And yet still an utterly worthless argument. It's almost not worth tearing apart.

 

 

 

Almost.

 

 

 

I don't think global warming is a myth.

 

Why?

 

People on earth are polluting and you know the rest...

 

Humans do make an impact.

 

Well duh, those on both sides of the issue know that. The question is how much of an impact?, not are we making one at all?.

 

Carbon Dioxide is bad

 

:lol:

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

I might not make it through this post.

 

, Carbon Monoxide is also bad and other gases.

 

Okay, duh, point?

 

Too much of these gases will cause difficult breathing.

 

No, carbon dioxide is the driving reason for why we even breathe in the first place.

 

The ozone layer is also at risk because there is already a hole in it.

 

You do realize that you've completely strayed away from your point that humans are the main cause of the warming, right?

 

Humans are ruining the planet and forests and other green place are being turned into deserts.

 

Depends on your definition of "ruining the planet", but yes, we are damaging the ecosystem. Still has nothing to do with your argument, considering you aren't citing even a single quantitative correlation.

 

Deserts are basically useless because you can't make a farm on it or do other things. Deserts are growing bigger.

 

Also has nothing to do with your first point.

 

There is already deserts in the USA and they will grow.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Okay, that was pointless. Maybe I'll have the drive to get into the actual debate now.

Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050

 

 

 

Hmmm, by 2050 gasoline costs 15ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì for a litre and it became so rare it's the top selling item on ebay. I really hope that the man that calls himself bush comes up with a plan a wee bit before 2050.

 

 

 

(wow, 1st post in 6 months?)

 

 

 

EDIT: dude, you still here rebdragon? :D

:wall: You aren't getting it. (Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower).

 

LOL.

 

 

 

And for you who think the U.S. is at fault. There's a whole bunch of countries like China that would laugh in your face if you tell them they've got to save the planet by making their factories stop polluting.

(Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower).

 

 

 

Someone failed astronomy class. . . Not exactly helping your side of the debate.

Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050

 

 

 

Wouldn't he be like.. Oh I dunno.. dead by then?

 

 

 

You try to force the complete reduction of oil in 10 years. You'd be impeached.

 

 

 

He is requiring 40% reduction in oil purchase and production by 2025. He is also offering incentives into alternative fuel research by the Big Three.

 

 

 

Sounds pretty strange since he's doing big business in the oil company. Why he would want to "make less money" is odd..

 

 

 

Motor oil makes up approximately 80% of the US's oil consumption. Oil wells can still make money for other uses (and even off the natural gas after the oil has run dry). Motor oil however causes the most pollution.

 

 

Hmmm, by 2050 gasoline costs 15ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì for a litre and it became so rare it's the top selling item on ebay. I really hope that the man that calls himself bush comes up with a plan a wee bit before 2050.

 

 

 

Like I said before, you just can't simply stop oil consumption within a few years. You have to gradually fade it out.

As I said it's good to hear both sides of the story and make up your own mind.

 

 

 

I encourage you to at least look at some of the information on sites like this before hiding under your bed and waiting for the end of the earth as you have been told by some.

 

 

 

http://www.icecap.us/

 

 

 

And did you know from http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/op ... 1641212007

 

THERE is a beautiful congruency about Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 24 hours after a High Court judge had declared it illegal to screen his 'man-made' climate change propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth in schools, unless accompanied by contradictory information to correct its scientific falsehoods. The judge identified nine scientific errors that would mislead pupils.

 

 

 

Whose side of the story is that? You're being fed crap. That's no one's side. That's a fools position. Exactly the same as Al Gore's 'An inconvenient half truth'. As for your ICECAP web site, I don't see anything particularly out of line with the data I've seen. They don't deny that the climate is changing, they don't deny that man plays a role and they do suggest that solar variations play a role, which is all true. They are skeptical of man's dominant position in global warming, which I dispute, and I'll look for what literature they have to back up their position.

 

 

 

He's hardly on the side of Bush and the like who believe Global Warming doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, it's not down to humans

 

Ok maybe you can explain how humans caused Global warming on Mars?

 

 

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

 

 

 

Haha. This is too good. I've presented an exhaustive post 3 times now on these forums which details that exact problem, debunks it and uses the exact article you cited to do so, among other articles and scientific papers. Did you even read into this article? It's about a (note, one) global warming skeptic who believes that mars' warming hints at the sun being the cause when it then goes on to present the mainstream's position as to why this is not necessarily the case. In my exhaustive post, I also cited a swag of papers which detail the fact that the sun can not possibly account for the most recent warming trends.

 

 

 

Did you even read your second article either? It details albedo variations causing the change in mars' climate in a positive feedback system that requires no change in solar output. Interestingly, it mentions an article I've cited before in a previous post which is the catalyst for the article you cited.

 

 

 

If you're interested in the post I mentioned I've presented 3 times before:

 

[hide]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:

 

[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.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

Direct quote from the second article you linked to, regarding why Mars is heating up;

 

 

 

"The explanation is in the dirt. "

 

 

 

Our global warming is hardly making Mars heat up, but then again, I doubt Martian dust storms is making Earth heating up.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

You aren't getting it. Dust storms on mars are causing 'martian warming', which are completely proven to be non-human related (Due to the lack of humans on mars). (1) Therefore it is proven that global warming can happen without human interference, which suggests that the earth may be undergoing the same effect because the results are proportional (Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower).

 

 

 

(2) However, I think that it is now completely impossible to pinpoint the cause of global warming because both sides have valid evidence, and the whole conspiracy theory is too complex to unravel. My question is; why are we arguing amongst each other trying to point the blame? Aren't we supposed to be getting on with inventing fuel which doesn't need crude oil to function, which will run out in the next 50 years? Let's face it, we can't control global warming, we just need to adapt to it until it passes. We may be able to control the CO2, but we need to get our act together in that area anyway. Crude Oil is running out, so let's do something about it.

 

(1) And where is all the dust on earth aiding to these albedo variations? There is no such effect on planet earth (well, no such change in said effect), yet there is something analagous which is changing - CO2 and other greenhouse gasses participating in the greenhouse effect, warming the planet. Mars' albedo variations are somewhat similar. The dust particles prevent reflection of radiation back out to space and thus dust storms there trap masses of heat.

 

 

 

(2) So, what's the evidence of the other side? The peer reviewed journals? Because I've presented a number which suggest something like solar irradiance flat out can not account for the most recent warming trends - only the greenhouse effect can make up the numbers. As for the conspiracy theory being to hard to unravel, I disagree. It can be summed up by the fact that oil companies don't want to lose profits so they vest interest in fooling people that it's not their product to blame.

I'm not the person to flat out say that global warming is all a hoax, but I'm very glad that there are more and more people not following the global warming bandwagon.

 

 

 

I don't quite get how it's a "bandwagon". I mean, I have brains, but I didn't jump on the "The Earth is round" 'bandwagon'. I figured upon reading enough convincing evidence it's a fact. Just because you deny it or make a conspiracy YouTube video about it doesn't make it untrue...

"The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."

 

 

 

Mhm yeah... It's not like we've exterminated hundreds and hundreds species, raising the water levels, shrinking the amount of cold days... If that's not catastrophic then i'm Jesus.

[hide]

As I said it's good to hear both sides of the story and make up your own mind.

 

 

 

I encourage you to at least look at some of the information on sites like this before hiding under your bed and waiting for the end of the earth as you have been told by some.

 

 

 

http://www.icecap.us/

 

 

 

And did you know from http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/op ... 1641212007

 

THERE is a beautiful congruency about Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 24 hours after a High Court judge had declared it illegal to screen his 'man-made' climate change propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth in schools, unless accompanied by contradictory information to correct its scientific falsehoods. The judge identified nine scientific errors that would mislead pupils.

 

 

 

Whose side of the story is that? You're being fed crap. That's no one's side. That's a fools position. Exactly the same as Al Gore's 'An inconvenient half truth'. As for your ICECAP web site, I don't see anything particularly out of line with the data I've seen. They don't deny that the climate is changing, they don't deny that man plays a role and they do suggest that solar variations play a role, which is all true. They are skeptical of man's dominant position in global warming, which I dispute, and I'll look for what literature they have to back up their position.

 

 

 

He's hardly on the side of Bush and the like who believe Global Warming doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, it's not down to humans

 

Ok maybe you can explain how humans caused Global warming on Mars?

 

 

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

 

 

 

Haha. This is too good. I've presented an exhaustive post 3 times now on these forums which details that exact problem, debunks it and uses the exact article you cited to do so, among other articles and scientific papers. Did you even read into this article? It's about a (note, one) global warming skeptic who believes that mars' warming hints at the sun being the cause when it then goes on to present the mainstream's position as to why this is not necessarily the case. In my exhaustive post, I also cited a swag of papers which detail the fact that the sun can not possibly account for the most recent warming trends.

 

 

 

Did you even read your second article either? It details albedo variations causing the change in mars' climate in a positive feedback system that requires no change in solar output. Interestingly, it mentions an article I've cited before in a previous post which is the catalyst for the article you cited.

 

 

 

If you're interested in the post I mentioned I've presented 3 times before:

 

[hide]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:

 

[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.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

Direct quote from the second article you linked to, regarding why Mars is heating up;

 

 

 

"The explanation is in the dirt. "

 

 

 

Our global warming is hardly making Mars heat up, but then again, I doubt Martian dust storms is making Earth heating up.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

You aren't getting it. Dust storms on mars are causing 'martian warming', which are completely proven to be non-human related (Due to the lack of humans on mars). (1) Therefore it is proven that global warming can happen without human interference, which suggests that the earth may be undergoing the same effect because the results are proportional (Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower).

 

 

 

(2) However, I think that it is now completely impossible to pinpoint the cause of global warming because both sides have valid evidence, and the whole conspiracy theory is too complex to unravel. My question is; why are we arguing amongst each other trying to point the blame? Aren't we supposed to be getting on with inventing fuel which doesn't need crude oil to function, which will run out in the next 50 years? Let's face it, we can't control global warming, we just need to adapt to it until it passes. We may be able to control the CO2, but we need to get our act together in that area anyway. Crude Oil is running out, so let's do something about it.

 

(1) And where is all the dust on earth aiding to these albedo variations? There is no such effect on planet earth (well, no such change in said effect), yet there is something analagous which is changing - CO2 and other greenhouse gasses participating in the greenhouse effect, warming the planet. Mars' albedo variations are somewhat similar. The dust particles prevent reflection of radiation back out to space and thus dust storms there trap masses of heat.

 

 

 

(2) So, what's the evidence of the other side? The peer reviewed journals? Because I've presented a number which suggest something like solar irradiance flat out can not account for the most recent warming trends - only the greenhouse effect can make up the numbers. As for the conspiracy theory being to hard to unravel, I disagree. It can be summed up by the fact that oil companies don't want to lose profits so they vest interest in fooling people that it's not their product to blame.[/hide]

 

 

 

Marry me?

Warrior, I agree with you and that wall of text STILL boggles the mind. :shock: Just how much spare time do you HAVE?!?! =D> Kudos for the dedication though. I might want to get you in touch with a Science teacher in my school. Should make for an interesting week+ of schooling :-k \ :XD:

Warrior, I agree with you and that wall of text STILL boggles the mind. :shock: Just how much spare time do you HAVE?!?! =D> Kudos for the dedication though. I might want to get you in touch with a Science teacher in my school. Should make for an interesting week+ of schooling :-k \ :XD:

 

 

 

The original post took me a while, bits and pieces of research over a week or something. Nothing too hardcore. The post just then just took me a few casual minutes. I'm on holidays at the moment so I've got plenty more time to do a little research here and there on whatever I'm interested in. And why do you want me to get into touch with your science teahcer? :uhh: :P

 

 

 

The deal is if I want to have an opinion on something, I just prefer to know a little about it and know where the science lies (given it's a scientific issue, of course). Like I've said before, we often forget we need to get our knowledge from somewhere - it's why we go to school. Unless we think something up ourselves knowledge is never our own and even then you're most likely gonna base your thoughts on alredy known ideas. I just prefer to get it from the right places and make sure what I know is true. I could still be wrong, but at least I can be more sure the more I know and the more the facts coincide with what I think to be true.

 

 

 

Probably the consequence of being totally engrossed in science I suppose.

 

 

 

[/spiel]

 

 

 

Marry me?

:lol: :P

Warrior, I agree with you and that wall of text STILL boggles the mind. :shock: Just how much spare time do you HAVE?!?! =D> Kudos for the dedication though. I might want to get you in touch with a Science teacher in my school. Should make for an interesting week+ of schooling :-k \ :XD:

 

 

 

The original post took me a while, bits and pieces of research over a week or something. Nothing too hardcore. The post just then just took me a few casual minutes. I'm on holidays at the moment so I've got plenty more time to do a little research here and there on whatever I'm interested in. And why do you want me to get into touch with your science teahcer? :uhh: :P

 

 

 

The deal is if I want to have an opinion on something, I just prefer to know a little about it and know where the science lies (given it's a scientific issue, of course). Like I've said before, we often forget we need to get our knowledge from somewhere - it's why we go to school. Unless we think something up ourselves knowledge is never our own and even then you're most likely gonna base your thoughts on alredy known ideas. I just prefer to get it from the right places and make sure what I know is true. I could still be wrong, but at least I can be more sure the more I know and the more the facts coincide with what I think to be true.

 

 

 

Probably the consequence of being totally engrossed in science I suppose.

 

 

 

[/spiel]

 

 

 

Where excatly do you go to do research, ect? PM me if its something you don't want to share publicly please :)

I think I've found the solution to Reduce Global Warming? Let's Start With Cows

 

Virtually all of the Kyoto Protocol's member countries have increased their CO2 emissions since signing the treaty. The political and economic costs of reducing CO2 from cars and factories have proven very high. So they just haven't happened.

 

 

 

Why don't eco-activists support a major cut in methane emissions from cows instead? Each molecule of methane has 21 times as much global warming potential as a molecule of CO2, and we already have cost-effective ways that farmers can cut livestock-emitted methane.

 

 

 

A new study in Canada found about 20 different ways to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestockÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

 

LOL.

 

 

 

And for you who think the U.S. is at fault. There's a whole bunch of countries like China that would laugh in your face if you tell them they've got to save the planet by making their factories stop polluting.

 

 

 

Well... I wonder what will China or any other country do with their factories and "economic growth" once they don't even have an inhabitable planet to spend their wealth on? :lol:

 

 

 

China is one of the worst polluters and emitters of greenhouse gases... They might even have to postpone the olympics because Beijing is so polluted you can't see further than about 20 meters ahead of yourself in some places.

 

 

 

But yeah, I guess it's worth it. After all, the 10% economic growth makes up for all those people who die because the air is so filthy.

Warrior, I agree with you and that wall of text STILL boggles the mind. :shock: Just how much spare time do you HAVE?!?! =D> Kudos for the dedication though. I might want to get you in touch with a Science teacher in my school. Should make for an interesting week+ of schooling :-k \ :XD:

 

 

 

The original post took me a while, bits and pieces of research over a week or something. Nothing too hardcore. The post just then just took me a few casual minutes. I'm on holidays at the moment so I've got plenty more time to do a little research here and there on whatever I'm interested in. And why do you want me to get into touch with your science teahcer? :uhh: :P

 

 

 

The deal is if I want to have an opinion on something, I just prefer to know a little about it and know where the science lies (given it's a scientific issue, of course). Like I've said before, we often forget we need to get our knowledge from somewhere - it's why we go to school. Unless we think something up ourselves knowledge is never our own and even then you're most likely gonna base your thoughts on alredy known ideas. I just prefer to get it from the right places and make sure what I know is true. I could still be wrong, but at least I can be more sure the more I know and the more the facts coincide with what I think to be true.

 

 

 

Probably the consequence of being totally engrossed in science I suppose.

 

 

 

[/spiel]

 

 

 

Where excatly do you go to do research, ect? PM me if its something you don't want to share publicly please :)

 

 

 

I'm just a uni student. My research is personal.

 

 

 

If by where I go you mean what sites I go to, these are some good choices (the first two are the most esteemed science journals in the world - the first is American and the second English):

 

 

 

http://stke.sciencemag.org/

 

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

 

http://www.pnas.org/

 

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/

 

 

 

Alternately, just go to google scholar and most of the results of your query will be peer reviewed scientific papers - the best in critical studies, reports, tests and scientific knowledge.

 

THERE is a beautiful congruency about Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 24 hours after a High Court judge had declared it illegal to screen his 'man-made' climate change propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth in schools, unless accompanied by contradictory information to correct its scientific falsehoods. The judge identified nine scientific errors that would mislead pupils.

 

 

 

Like that's inforced in schools.

wow...they must be pretty stupid to not notice the polar ice caps melting...

wow...they must be pretty stupid to not notice the polar ice caps melting...

 

 

 

Because, you know, the outer layers of ice melting in the face of air warmer than it is...it only existed since the Industrial Revolution.