It's not CO2.

The sun has an 11 year cycle, right? Maybe it has another cycle that we haven't discovered yet.

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

P.S you can't claim how many scientist support that petition, as it's been revealed that a lot of them were fake names.

And there are those that will defend their ignorance (whether intentional or stubborn) no matter what - We will not convince them with facts, sense or reason.

Like for example, when Gore shows the nice graphs of temp and CO2 from ice core data, his ignorance of the subject is evident because he hasn't realized yet that the temperature changes hundreds of years before the CO2 changes.

He also doesn't know that the last 70 years of the sun has seen more sunspot activity than at anytime during the last 8000 years and that there is historical evidence that high sunspot activity has coincided with a warmer earth and low sunspot activity has coincided with a cooler earth. And in fact, ice on Mars is melting and the heating on mars started at about the same time as earth's and it heated up by about the same temp as the earth. I find it hard to accept these as a 'coincidence.'

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

I see the bogus petition is back!! LMAO!! You're just now finding this "petition? This thing came out years ago and was shown to be bogus then just as it is today.

Here are a few key points...

Because of various criticisms made of the two Leipzig Declarations, the Oregon Petition Project claimed to adopt a number of measures, though none of these claims have been independently verified:

* The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists is listed at 95%,[2] but the means by which this verification was done is not specified.
* Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree. The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but provided no details confirming this claim.
* Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state that 2,660 scientists were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences.[2]
* The Petition Project itself avoided any funding or association with the energy industries.

The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[3] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

The Petition Project itself states:
“ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ”

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]
”

In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17] ”

[edit] Updated campaign

In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a petition closely similar to the Oregon Petition.[18] As with the earlier version, it contained a six-paragraph covering note from Frederick Seitz along with a reply card and a supporting article. The text of the reply card is identical to the previous petition. Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute."

Here's a link to the whole thing.

Actually, it is your ignorance on the subject that needs to be addressed. Read...

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

Link here.

And now for your sunspots...


"Sunspots have been more common in the past seven decades than at any time in the last 8,000 years, according to a new historic reconstruction of solar activity.

Many researchers have tried to link sunspot activity to climate change, but the new results cannot be used to explain global warming, according to the scientists who did the study." Link.

I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it's a weak greenhouse gas and humans only add a few percent of the total to the atmosphere and the US only adds 25% of this few percent to the atmosphere.

My beef is with people who claim or imply that the ice core graphs of temp and CO2 is proof of CO2 causing the warming on the graphs. As far as I'm concerned, this is a lie and/or deceptive. And the lag is also making me question claims about CO2.


"Could have" is the key here.


If I am not mistaken, the temperature also falls hundreds of years before the CO2 falls. If true, this to me strongly suggests that CO2 isn't really causing any temp changes on those ice core graphs.

I noticed that the graphs of ice core and temp show a cycle. I wonder if it's a 21,000 year cycle?


If it does amplify, I don't see anything that indicates a large amplification.


"Might be stored" is the key here. They don't know.


But there is evidence that during past periods of low sunspot activity, the earth was cooler. Conversely, there is evidence that during periods of high sunspots, the earth was warmer.
There is even evidence that shows sunspots affecting the surface temperature of the ocean.


The Sun-Climate Connection (Did Sunspots Sink the Titanic?)



Does Gore imply in his movie that stronger hurricanes are the result of GW? Here is what realclimate says about Gore and his movie:
RealClimate » Al Gore’s movie

I don't think he's seen the above graph.

Doesn't it seem like an improbable coincidence that both mars and earth started heating up at about the same time and by about the same temp and both have been subjected to the last 70 years of higher sunspot activity? Mars is our neighbor planet and if the sun was affecting earth, it seems to me that it would affect Mars as well (but of course to a different degree).

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

The earths orbit, Methane ( some scientist are claiming record number of underwater volcanoes erupting ), Solar energy and forest fires.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Facts? Then what happened to the ice age we should be experiencing by now?

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Of course, it would be interesting to see what disciplines these 'scientists' have studied.

You left out CO2 - The Supreme Court ruled that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is a green house gas pollutant. I suppose they did this because it represents 82% of the total GH gases.

the forest fires and volcanoes you mention and other natural sources of CO2 represent 2% of the total GH gases.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy

Now - lets take man out of the picture -

The Earth has natural filters for handling GH gases - If the warming cycle starts to peak and there is to much CO2 for example - mother nature goes to work to remove the cause of the CO2 - then it's the cooling starts and the cycle continues.

Right now we have exceeded the Earths capacity for handing CO2 as we are generating CO2 at a rate that exceeds the Earths capability to handle it. For the warming cycle to end we will need to reduce our production CO2 or wait for Mother Nature to do it for us.

It's really not a big deal - we just flush big Oil like the turd it is and start using clean fuel alternatives.

__________________

I'm not aware of it, but I am guessing it has been postponed by CO2

__________________

There you are - didn't see you.

CO2 is involved - It is a greenhouse gas pollutant as the supreme court ruled.

I will add the concept of Global Dimming as well - while forest fires and other natural and man made pollutants that involve suspended particulates may include greenhouse gases - the particulates offer a shade or blocking effect that offsets warming and results in cooling. That is without pollution the effects of GW GH gases would actually be much worse than they are.

Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

Im not sure you read the article, which shows that some scientists dispute whether the globe is even warming. Furthermore, you may recall the recent change in NASAs temp data which was shown to be incorrect. Given than temperature recording 100 years ago was hardly accurate, Id say global warming is far from fact. But feel free not to debate it if you find it boring for people to question the facts.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

*scratches his head and re-read's Jviehe's post carefully*

ahoy!

matey, if facts are indeed facts (i.e. 2+2=4), why would one feel compelled to question them?

but more to the point, me friend, even if the science behind the idea that global warming is something that mankind is accelerating, is proven to be untrue, then what?

would you argue against preserving green space on our earth?
would you argue against energy efficient design standards? ¥
would you argue against requiring cleaner power plants?
would you argue against tougher emissions standards?

"...from our mountains to our coast, we must do our part to make our air clean and be good stewards of the earth for future generations."

"The solution to the serious problem of climate change is not inaction."

-Elizabeth Dole (r) Senator of North Carolina

yarrRRRRRRR

-meadhallpirate

¥ - wouldn't it be fantastic to see, for example, japan emulating american car makers, and to see them playin' "catch up" with detriot's innovative designs. i think it would be a mighty fine thing to behold, imagine it: out from michigan would come a 50 mpg auto that the world falls in love with!
not only would this be great for making our air cleaner and lowerin' our dependency on fossil fuels, but it would also be a great market-based solution too, AYE!!!!!

First of all, that article was bullshit. For reasons I and others mentioned at the time. Second of all, if global warming was a myth, the earths temperature would never have changed, throughout the earths history. Whether current global warming trends are to be disputed is not what I was discussing.

I'm starting to realise that trying to get you out of your self-perpetuating cycle of selective, pattern arguments is a thankless task and that you're always just going to read the bits of other peoples' posts that you want to read and ignore the rest.

If you're going to make inferences from NASA's temperature data can you give references?