'really started pumping it out' implies that before 50 years ago we were not pumping otu nears as much. There is forcing, buildups, thresholds, all sorts of factors that could explain why the warming seems to have ramped up over the last 30-40 years, as opposed to what would be an instant effect from the release of large amounts GHGs over relatively short periods of time.


No i wouldn't agree. I think restructing the economy around renewables, local self-sustainability, and long term global sustainabilty is the absolute smartest thing we could do for ourselves. This is regardless of AGW.

The current status-quo is rather characteristic of our stupidity as humans.
If that was the only evidence for global warming i would agree, but it is more just supporting data for what we are observing.

Ahh, the same reason we would want to record any data of natural phenomenon, to help us understand how it works, what to expect, and how to plan for it and adapt to it. Why would anybody question the value of this?
I think it is rational to expect that a warming of the air and seas on average globally would lead to a the melting of ice on a sample that was large, not small.

The fact that glaciers are melting on six different continents suggest that the phenomenon is global, not regional. This would at the very least support predictions of global warming.

There is evidence that the earth is indeed warming faster at the poles than anywhere else.

Getting thicker because of increased precipitation due to higher temperatures. Some scientists report as of 2006 measuring a net mass loss of of the AIS. Europe's Cryosat-2 is supposed to clarify what is happening.

OK, enough with the GW discussion.

I disagree that the AGW based on a century old Northern hemisphere temperature record. It is just in support of a broader theory.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

But thats not the only information in the film that was open to question:


Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

you see Cato - this is why I say all this is bullshit.

We all know that by far the majority of scientists understand that it is 90% certain that there is a link between human activity and global warming - these aren't wierdos who are off on some tangent of a vague theory that nobody else can understand. More and more the trend is becoming clear, the impacts that are being reported correspond with the theory - and in a number of disciplines ...

In New Zealand, the tuatara, whose sex is determined by temperature during egg incubation, are now over 65% male, among new hatchlings in the wild. When it reaches 75% males, extinction is unavoidable. These animals have been around since before the dinosaur and they have never faced such a rapid change in temperature.

We see wildlife migration paths changing, flowers blooming at different times, sea kelp forests dying, whales breeding further south (in the Southern hemisphere), Pacific Coral islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu suffering from rising sea levels, Bangladesh fishing villages moving hundreds of metres 'inland' from where they were situated only a few short years ago, mosquito borne diseases appearing further way from their usual distribution (the cases I am familiar with are further south) ....

why the denial?

who is paying people to distort the truth and lie about this?

The fact is if we know its happening we CAN do something - living in denial will not help us prepare for what will happen.

Do you have any proof of this, Daisy? Was there some sort of poll taken of all scientists?
How does any of this prove an anthropogenic cause? How is any of it related to CO2?
Daisy, you seem to be the one in denial. You seem to be the one who wants to simply accept what you're being told and deny that anything else could be the cause. It's really sad. I really believed you were someone who could take an objective view of things. I could post literally hundreds of studies on alternate explanations for the measured warming; I could post point-for-point rebuttal for your article; but none of that would matter, would it? You would never read them. You are so married to this idea that CO2 is the problem that you deny the fact your theory has had just as many problems with the studies its proponents put out as what you've posted above. But you ignore those problems and snuggle up in your blanket of "everyone says so", also ignoring the fact that this simply isn't true either.

It makes me sad.

AGW theory does not claim that global warming (of the interglacial type) is caused by CO2 or any other anthropogenic cause.

AGW theory merely claims that CO2 amplifies the natural phenomenon, which is obviously caused by something else.


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I would love to see a source on that, Andrew. Good luck finding it though. The theory changes so much from year to year, and as each claim gets shot down, that it's hard to keep track. Which is very, very, very good. That's how science is supposed to work (even though Mr. Monbiat in Daisy's article above doesn't think so). The problem is that people don't keep tabs on what the current theory is, so they regurgitate this debunked stuff and we go round and round re-inventing the wheel. That's why I don't like these debates.

I cant imagine a climate scientist not knowing of the Milankovitch cycles. That would be ridiculous, i just don't believe it.

And with the Vostok data as of 2003 clearly showing a lag of CO2 buildup after the initial warming, I doubt any honest climate scientist or journalist would claim that the earth does not warm/cool for other reasons connected to various different influences inside and outside the system. Neither are they denying that the greenhouse effect is real - it must be, or we would be pretty darn cold on this planet all the time.

Even the IPCC does not make this claim - they say "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

That does not mean that the warming experienced in the current interglacial is caused by man, only that the observed increase in temperatures over the last 100 years or so is from our emissions of greenhouse gases. If it was an entirely natural phenomenon we would not be seeing such a rapid increase without some sort of forcing mechanism or positive feedback loop (which i agree, could also be naturally occurring). But I don't see any conceptual reason why human beings cant be natures forcing agent, causing a rapid increase in warming.


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

The fact that ice is melting on both Mars and Earth suggests that the phenomenon is solar, not global.


Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Agreed, and yet it happens. Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, sun activity, methane, urban heat islands, etc. ad infinitum - these are just theories. People can choose to accept the conclusions of the theories or not. It seems many have not if we're going to focus on just CO2.
Again, I'm just telling you what I see on this board and in the mainstream press. But it's interesting that we can make such absolute determinations on a 50 year time scale when most of the other theories are on geologic time scales, don't you think?
Actually, if you're going by the IPCC, it would be over the last 50 years, or so.
This implies that rapid increases in temperature haven't occured before. Is this what you're implying?
Nor I, but CO2 doesn't fit the bill. Black-topping the planet and putting thermometers on tarmacs would show an increase in temperature from before we black-topped the planet. I'm not saying we're not a contributing factor, far from it. I'm just saying this focus on CO2 is doing more harm than good. First of all, you're going to get resistance from CO2 vested economies. Secondly, and most importantly, those objectors have a very solid case against it being CO2. Once that gets shot down we're going to have a very hard time convincing people that we actually do damage this planet and we need to start thinking about ways to stop doing that. The real issues get lost in the name calling and political machinations.

Disregarding the fact that Vostok ice core data shows changes in CO2 following changes in temp by several hundred years, what's the amplification factor of CO2?

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

That is just an awesome point. Kudos!

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Yes. As i already agreed, this is an interesting coincidence that needs to be investigated.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Im not sure i understand you question.

As far as i understand the theory, the possible cause of co2/methane release into the atmosphere from warming is the acidification of oceans and soil erosion. This would be a positive feedback loop. So in essence even if industrial emissions alone are not hugely significant, they might indeed be the trigger for such a feedback loop.

The lag in co2 buildup from preceding temperature increases could possibly be explained by this - the earths position in its complicated cycles around the sun over 100 000 years caused the initial warming followed by the earth system itself emitting GHGs, leading to prolonged warming.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

No proof - but do you have proof to the contrary?

The AAAS position is known, most University based scientists tend to acknlowledge that anthropogenic influence is at least 'highly likely', not to mention those working in organisations doing research in the area, like NASA, Scripps Institute, IPCC, Australia's CSIRO and a number of other organisations.


the article showed that the theories used in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' to counter the theory that human factors are at play in CC, were in fact false - and KNOWN to be false.

It doesn't prove that anthropogenic factors are THE major influence on climate change, however it proves that the swindle in this documentary was that it was a spin using false information trying to 'prove' that other non human factors were the cause.

The article I posted showed that these other 'causes' have been scientifically refuted.

[quote]
Daisy, you seem to be the one in denial. You seem to be the one who wants to simply accept what you're being told and deny that anything else could be the cause. It's really sad. I really believed you were someone who could take an objective view of things. I could post literally hundreds of studies on alternate explanations for the measured warming;

go ahead. make my day

NO - I think there are a lot of problems, but the EVIDENCE does tend to support the theory that anthropogenic influence is a major contributing factor.

Andrew mentioned feedback loops (I think), and I guess this is a concern to me - sometimes a kick start can cause major change, and the kick start of only a relatively minor increase in temperature may very likely create a chain of events that may lead to such rapid change we cannot cope.

Thats not a risk we should be taking.

No, but I didn't make a statement to the contrary. Belief without proof is religion, Daisy. We're not having a religious discussion (according to you), we're having a science discussion.
Do you have proof of these claims?
If only you were equally critical with the failures of a CO2 driven atmosphere theory.
Well, thank God! I was really hoping the sun doesn't drive temperature on this planet. For a second there, I thought we were going to have problems. Now I know all our problems can be solved by simply controlling less than 1% of the gasses in the atmosphere.

And none of the articles you posted even attempted to prove that anthropogenic CO2 was a factor in warming.
No, thanks. I can't think of a bigger waste of my time. For the same reason I don't debate the existence of a supreme being.
In what way? What anthropogenic influences? What is the major influence? How much does it influence as a percentage of the total observed warming?
And yet much greater temperature increases, over much shorter time frames, never spelled doom for life on this planet. Never once has this planet passed some "tipping point" with uncontrollable feedback. But let's worry now.