Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
Ok, in my quest for facts and knowledge on this subject, I'll see if I can find anything from those sources. As it stands now, I'm skeptical of those numbers given that humans are responsible for about 2 to 3 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 makes up 0.0384% of the atmosphere.
|
Your argument doesn't work. It would be anagolous to comparing differences in species based on their water content because that is what makes up most of their cells, instead of looking at their DNA.
Again, if all the different gases in the atmosphere had equal heat retention properties, you would have a point. But, they don't. You have to look both at their amount AND heat retention capability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
I don't buy the rebuttals on sunspots and solar irradiance. For example, I have read (just recently by the way from a pro-human GW site) that there never was a little ice age or medieval warm period but there are links from NASA and the US Gov that document these periods and they also note that they coincided with sunspot activity. Who's telling the truth?
|
I would believe NASA and US Govt data since it has a much greater chance of being peer reviewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
What I believe isthat the sun is playing a larger role than what's been programmed in the computer model software. To me, evidence of the recent sunspot and increased solar irradiance can be seen in the changes of mars which started happening at about the same time as the warming on earth did and which warmed by about the same amount as the earth did. I find it hard to believe that it's both a coincidence and due to changes in the albedo of mars. Especially when there are signs (thanks Andrew) that some of the other plants are starting to heat up.
|
You believe this is the case, but the evidence is not there in the literature (at least that I've read). If you find something different I would really like to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
If scientists predicted this before they could verify it, then what is the point of Al Gore using the ice core graphs of CO2 and Temp in his movie? From what I have gathered (I haven't watched the movie), those graphs in the movie are used to show the excellent correlation of how CO2 affects temp but, it's the other way around.
|
Actually, I pointed this out to show that this wasn't some dramatic oversight or cover up in the scientific community. The fact that CO2 rises after temp increases was not a shock and supported a hypothesis put forth by Barton and others.
As for Al Gore, they actually talk about how Al Gore misunderstood this in his film in the very link that I gave you. However, correcting for it only strengthens the claim that the rapid increase of CO2 from industrialization is amplifying temperature increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
Well, I don't dispute that the earth wobbles and this causes temp changes but I'm not so sure about one of the other Milankovitch cycles (the orbit change) and I don't think this is the main reason for the approx 100K+ year temp cycle. The sun has an 11 year cycle and I just posted a link a while back (in this forum but a different thread) that shows evidence of a sun cycle, I think it was 100K years or so. Again, I think the sun is being underestimated in the models.
|
There is quite a lot evidence from deep ocean cores to support Milankovitch cycles as a driver for the beginning or end of ice ages on the planet. There is a lot of debate as to which Milankovitch cycle is the most important (You can start reading more about it
here). You may believe the sun is more important, but there is no evidence at hand that I can find that backs your case. Since these cycles have a lot to do with how much irradiance is reaching the earth's surface, I really don't understand how you can blow it off anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
As far as there being a feedback from the CO2, I don't see this in Al Gore's graph of CO2 and temp.
What I would expect to see is the temp rising, the hundreds of years later, the CO2 rising, then the temp rising from the CO2. I don't see this from this graph (or others that I have looked at). What I see is CO2 following the temp increases of decreases.
I've spent a fair amount of time there... |
Well, then you should know that an answer to your question is at the bottom of the link that I gave you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer
Kijana, the bottom line for me is I haven't seen much compelling evidence that CO2 is the culprit, I don't trust the UN (it's a political organization), and I see evidence of the sun affecting mars and other planets in our solar system. As far as I'm concerned, the UN sees the US as the big rich white boy WASP of the world and it feels it's role is to redistribute it's wealth to the world's poor. Recent quotes from the media have only enforced this view of mine. Here are a few examples:
source
source
It's all about raiding the wealth (reducing the disparity of wealth of the world's nations) of the US. I suspect the UN is going for a power grab as well... |
You are mixing science and policy here. Science just gathers the evidence, it's up to other organizations and people to decide what to do with it. I have deep problems with the Kyoto treaty myself, but that doesn't mean I write off climate change as a "myth generated by the UN".
The evidence shows that we can affect climate. It really shouldn't be that great of a shock, we're not the first organism to ever do so, and we can see with our own eyes other ways that we impact our environment. Additionally, isotope evidence shows an anthropogenic-derived CO2 signal in the atmosphere (Heiman 1995, Siegenthaler and Sarmiento 1994) and the ocean (Barnett et al 2004) that closely parallels the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. You can choose to believe it or not, but the weight of the evidence favors accepting it.