Well, Matt says ...



And of course, you argue that "we" haven't done that. Well, we have contributed, but you're correct fundamentally.
The problem with using percentage numbers is that they do not reflect the true scale of things. The figure of 35% also doesn't indicate a time range.

We generally talk about global warming since 1980, when global temperatures were just about at the mean value, as calculated by our esteemed climatologists.

Since 1980, atmospheric carbon dioxide content has increased ~ 14.7%.
Still, that seems like a big deal!

However, what it really means is a 50 PPM increase in atmospheric C02, from ~ 334 PPM to ~385 PPM.
That really means that C02 has risen from it's 1980 level of .033% of the atmopshere to it's current level of .039%.

These are both really small numbers.

In fact, C02 is a minimal part of the Earth's atmosphere, very minimal, and has little appreciable effect on greenhouse effect at these levels, especially when water vapor is a much more potent, and in fact THE primary greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.

Relative to the atmosphere, C02 has actually only increased over the past 27 years by 5/1000%.


As as to temperature, it is true we've observed an increase in "global mean temperature" since 1980 of (at its peak) ~ 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F). However, that entire increase...which has been on a mild downswing since 2004, has been essentially wiped out in 2007, as we dropped 0.4 degrees C in one year. We are now at 1940 temperature levels. 1940 temperature levels were just a hair above the mean temperature (~0.5 degrees above the mean).

The fact is, the entire past 27 years of global warming, the topic of so much hysteria, has been eliminated.

You have to wonder what this is all about, and question why the increase in global temperature between 1910 and 1940, when there was a heck of alot less C02 being emmitted by humans, isn't mentioned at all....it increased during that period by over a half degree, at about the same rate that it had been increasing from 1980 to the present. And why did it drop between 1880 and 1910 by 0.4 degrees? And what about that 0.25 degree drop between 1940 and 1950, and the "massive" drop of 0.3 degrees in just a year in the latter 1970s, which of course signalled the impending Ice Age that never happened?

The fact is, we are sitting just about at mean global temperature values as we speak. There IS NO TEMPERATURE ANOMALY at the present time.

How much do you want to bet that you'll never see a chart that clearly shows what 2007 revealed? Or, how much do you want to bet that Al Gore will never acknowledge the fact that his ideas have just been eliminated, for the time being (one would've thought that the abject failure of "Live Earth" (Jesus...) would've sent him packing, but apparently not).

What we're looking at in this global warming data is a microcosm of a 12000 year old warming trend. We see the irregularities in what--observed in relation to the 12000 year scale of the real warming trend--is a tiny blip, and we make all sorts of conclusions about it that are essentially meritless.

..makes for an interesting hypothesis, but that's all it is.

We seem to neglect the actual facts in this matter, and prefer to think that we humans can actually effect the GLOBAL CLIMATE.
Mt. St. Helens, as we all know, erupted magnificently in 1980, and when it did it spewed more greenhouse gasses and pollutants into the atmophere in oine 24 hour period than all the automobiles in the United States at the time could've spewed in a decade.

Yet, the clear truth of the matter is that the Earth didn't care, and it cleansed itself of this actually minor annoyance ( a mere pimple on its surface...one of many that have occurred in documented history) rapidly.

Man has demonstrated no tangible or empirically demonstrated effect on the global climate. In fact, measuring something like average temperature globally is highly elusive, if not impossible to any great accuracy.

We know that the planet has apparently been warming for millennia. We also know that if history, which is documented many times over the past 700,000 years or so, repeats itself (which it certainly is wont to do), we will in a few centuies most probably, be cooling again, and that historians, as they do today regarding the nonsensical global ice age predictions of the latter 1970s, will chcukle at today's prediction of doom from something mankind has absolutely no effect upon, nor, despite his advanced sense of self-importance, could possibly have an effect on.


There's a reason for the short term cyclical temperature variants that we've seen since we've been able to accurately observe in detail. The man-made global warming nuts tend to ignore this, but the fact is that the engine that powers this planet is cyclical itself. It ebbs and flows in fairly regular rhythm, and it powers the global climate, and whatever temperature changes we see.


That's that bright light we see virtually every day in our skies: the Sun. The most logical, and certainly most plausible cause for what we can observe.

It's power is greater than the Earth's, and the Earth's power makes man look like a microscopic bacteria on its surface, which he in fact is.

No politically motivated nonsense concept will ever equal the real power that drives this planet.

You know mid, I like that you assume I am talking about from the 80's. I personally would start in the 1970's
Global Warming - Science - 1975
Global Warming - Science - 1974

And personally I trust CRU at East Anglia University and NASA, especially as you have yet to list a source for you information.
Wickian did, but his source contradicted the actual report it was based on.

Would this be the same NASA one of it's chiefs stated that he wouldn't trust any man who was arrogant enough to think that he could affect global warming.

Did you read there site.

Personally I wouldn't trust any man who doesn't realise we advanced enough and stupid enough to destroy the planet for a profit.

One more time. If man is the only reason for global warming then why is the entire solar system experiencing global warming.


I doubt that this guys views would be on the Nasa site since his underlings appoligized for what he said and got him fired.

You know mid, I like that you assume I am talking about from the 80's. I personally would start in the 1970's

However, that entire increase...which has been on a mild downswing since 2004, has been essentially wiped out in 2007, as we dropped 0.4 degrees C in one year. We are now at 1940 temperature levels. 1940 temperature levels were just a hair above the mean temperature (~0.5 degrees above the mean).

The fact is, the entire past 27 years of global warming, the topic of so much hysteria, has been eliminated.

You have to wonder what this is all about, and question why the increase in global temperature between 1910 and 1940, when there was a heck of alot less C02 being emmitted by humans, isn't mentioned at all....it increased during that period by over a half degree, at about the same rate that it had been increasing from 1980 to the present. And why did it drop between 1880 and 1910 by 0.4 degrees? And what about that 0.25 degree drop between 1940 and 1950, and the "massive" drop of 0.3 degrees in just a year in the latter 1970s, which of course signalled the impending Ice Age that never happened?

What we're looking at in this global warming data is a microcosm of a 12000 year old warming trend. We see the irregularities in what--observed in relation to the 12000 year scale of the real warming trend--is a tiny blip, and we make all sorts of conclusions about it that are essentially meritless.

..makes for an interesting hypothesis, but that's all it is.

Doesn't matter. If you measure from the deep drops in temperature from the latter 70's, it's a higher percentage, certainly, but it's still insignificant


It's 18% since 1970, not 35%. And the temperature increase is an additional 1/10 degree C in that decade.



But this is irrelevant to the real points I made:

Actually Daniel you said if we are the only reason. But Solar Energy has been ruled out: Mars and Pluto warming - No evidence of increase in Sun out put.
Jupiter suffered localised and predicted warming, other planets have suffered cooling. In fact only 6 of the 100+ bodies in our solar system are warming. So inferring the sun as MID goes against all the available evidence, for example if pluto was warming through the suns effect, Uranus would to, but as we see it is not Uranus cooling.
Now why would the suns effects heat up Earth, Mars and Pluto, but not Uranus? That is just plausible. Tie that in to not increase in the suns out put (all which I have backed up with evidence) and we can rule out solar influenced global warming.
For reasoning on warming on other planets - Internal warming for Jupiter (still localised)
Mars warming due to increases in dust storms.
Neptune showing a seasonal response.

I think you'll find btw Daniel in the US especially, scientist have been threatened with losing their job if they didn't deny anthropogenic global warming.
New Scientists - Threats over Climate.

we got stuck in solar maximus for three years. 2001 to 2003. One of our radition detection sats, which is hardened to recieve a hit two to three times above normal. It got hit by such a massive radiation strike it was knocked off line for thirty minutes.

Actually we should start cooling off now. Since we are heading out of the other solar maximus that has a 70 cycle we hit the height of that one in 2002.

I just looked at your link and it is a bunch of crap. every 11 years there is a radiation spike we call it solar maximus. There are also several others with different cycles. As mentioned above we hit two of those in 2002.


================================================================================
==============
Remember the Solar Maximus of 1989? You don't? Well read all about what is about to happen with the sun in 2001 and how it may affect the power grid. Click the clips below for the full-sized reading.

Here's an astonishing quote about the last Solar Maximum:


A geomagnetic 'super-storm' in March of that year [1989] triggered the collapse of the Hydro-Quebec electric power grid, which left 6 million Canadians in darkness for nine hours...

The 24-hour storm triggered 211 power disruptions across North America and similar trouble in Scotland and Scandinavia....

http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/arc/bepreppag...lar_maximus.htm



Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been suggested; only the 11 and 22 year cycles are clear in the observations.


2,300 year Hallstatt solar variation cycles.11 years: Most obvious is a gradual increase and decrease of the number of sunspots over a period of about 11 years, called the Schwabe cycle and named after Heinrich Schwabe. The Babcock Model explains this as being due to a shedding of entangled magnetic fields. The Sun's surface is also the most active when there are more sunspots, although the luminosity does not change much due to an increase in bright spots (faculae).
22 years: Hale cycle, named after George Ellery Hale. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals.
87 years (70–100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005)
210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005).
2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

Source for this daniel?


Source for this daniel?


It is still not producing any more heat. That is the point. Monitoring over the last 50 years has shown that.

Source for this daniel?


Source for this daniel?


It is still not producing any more heat. That is the point. Monitoring over the last 50 years has shown that.

Which you have not backed up and defies the data I posted earlier.

Good Lord...

The data is readily available almost anywhere. Just search for a chart of global temperature and you'll clearly see the data. It backs up what I said precisely. I'm not going through it all again, as this topic has been fleshed out thoroughly already.


You have clearly indicated that you're not interested in the real questions I posed, the real issues. You are stuck on errant math, which I said was irrelevant anyway.

Hello-

I'm always been confused by Global Warming skeptics.
I know many of you think it is a huge Liberal Conspiracy to defy God or something, but you know, Scientists aren't just pulling this stuff out of their backends.
So, I'd like to clear up some Questions, but more importantly, ask some more.
Sources are at the bottom.
Here's a Proof of Global Warming.

1, It is getting hotter.
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier.

The above is from:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html

The Below is from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid...%27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid....27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
If you want the sources, goto wikipedia and to the bottom of the article.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Carbon Dioxide is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. It is a FACT that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared, and transmits visible light.

3. As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 ppmv. This is 100 ppm (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppm.

4. present CO2 levels are 380 ppmv, approximately 100 ppmv higher than they were in pre-industrial times.

5.





So. In all, the FACTS are:
1. It is getting hotter
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3. Greenhouse gases make it warmer.
4. Humans are spitting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

FACT:
Now, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it absorbs infrared, and greenhouse gases create a stronger Greenhouse effect, then, CO2 makes it hotter.

FACT:
Humans are putting a ton of CO2 in the atmosphere.(actually, in 1999 alone, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were put into the atmosphere by the US.


So therefore, it can be concluded that Humans are Causing Global Warming.

Humans are Causing Global Warming, QED.

Just some more facts(from national geographic):
The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface.

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.




Now, obviously, skeptics find something wrong with the above.

My Question is, what is it?




Now to answer some FAQ's:

Q: BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREESS~!!!!!

A:Worldwide, every major scientific agency or institution that studies climate, oceans or the atmosphere agrees that the global climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

It’s not only the majority of scientists and politicians who accept the reality of human-caused global warming. Leading businesses across all industries also acknowledge the problem of global warming.

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report on The Physical Basis of Climate Change in February 2007, 113 nations immediately endorsed its conclusion that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Q: ISN'T IT NORMAL!!!
from:
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/ClimateFAQ.html

A: We are rapidly learning more about past changes from examination of geologic evidence, which is probably the most exciting field in climate science today. Some changes have been huge: 55 million years ago the north pole was as warm as Florida today, while 20 thousand years ago, much of North America was under miles of ice. The really warm climates all occurred long before the advent of upright primates, but prehistoric humans made it through some pretty cold times. Since the dawn of agriculture, climate has been relativey boring.

Science is a process of testing hypotheses against evidence. Many scientists, using different methods, have tested the hypothesis that the recent warming is also a natural shift. Every analysis has yielded the same answer— "no"—the warming since 1970 has been too widespread and too rapid. A few scientists still reserve judgment on this, but no model has been able to explain the warming naturally. Mountain ice and polar ice shelves that are thousands of years old are melting, which would be an amazing coincidence if humans weren't involved.


Q: ISN"T IT ALL A CONSPIRACY!@
from:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11653

A:
Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored – far from it.


Q: Didn't they used to BABLE about Global COOLING?
A: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11643

Q: DON'T SOME SCIENTISTS DISAGREE@!!
A: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11654

Q: All other FAQs:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462



OK.
So, skeptics, tell me. What is so 'evil' and 'wrong' and 'immoral' about Global Warming?
[rant]
You don't want to believe, so you don't. You don't want to change, due something that takes effort, or feel scared. You'd rather live in your happy world.
That is probably one of the 2 reasons Fundamentalist Christians hate Global Warming. The 1st is, of course, a hate of science. The second is they are the weakest, the ones who scamper and hide their minds from fear.(which is why they are Fundies in the first place!)
[/rant]


Anyway,
Cheers,
SqlServer

...if its happening its doing so all by itself and there aint nothing you can do about it anyhow,theres nothing 'evil' and 'wrong' and 'immoral' about Global Warming it is what it is by its own nature,

I think that is an adequate, and correct summation!

As you have told me in other topics look it up yourself.




Radiation is heat.

Good Lord...

The data is readily available almost anywhere. Just search for a chart of global temperature and you'll clearly see the data. It backs up what I said precisely. I'm not going through it all again, as this topic has been fleshed out thoroughly already.


You have clearly indicated that you're not interested in the real questions I posed, the real issues. You are stuck on errant math, which I said was irrelevant anyway.

The real question Mattshark isn't if global warming is happening. But, how much of an effect that we are having on it. Let me pull you back to 1995, at the end of that year the environmentalists claimed it to be the hottest year of the century. It was if you lived in a city, But if you lived in the country it was one of the coldest years. You see the doom sayers had to skip 1/3 of the info available to them. Now what do cities have a lot of that the country doesn't have. I will give you a hint it goes into buildings on roads and in parks and in someplaces it controls rivers.


By the way the source where I got the planets were warming up was NASA.

Oddly enough I don't.
But then Iamfatfrog thinks that not implying god into science over actual evidence with regards to evolution is closed minded.

Oh I'm sorry please feel free to tell me what was wrong with the papers I have posted?

All you do, Matt, is keep asking for substantiation.

Man-made global-warming is mythology...politically motivated mythology. The references for that which I've declared are readily available. Al Gore is dead in the water.

This is not news. You have this propensity to keep asking the same questions as an avoidance to doing your homework.


Doing your homework will clearly show that you're barking up an dead tree.

That's not my job (as I said, I've already done it), it's yours...I have no interest in the nonsensical subject anymore....we'll all be lauging at it down the road.

I am perfectly entitled to ask you to back up what you have stated, why the hell should I take what you say at face value. I have posted plenty of links, it not like I have got my data from out of thin air.

Get lost lad, I have read plenty on the subject ...

Global Warming IS natural, however you can not argue that we are NOT greatly accelerating the rate at which it happens.

Any competent scientist will tell you that.

When we do change things that are important it will slow down the "warming" slightly.

But we just need to think of ourselves here and do what is right for us

Revamp our energy system which will bring us out of our recession because of the amount of money it will generate and the jobs it will create.

Oh yes, you could argue that, and you'd be correct in doing so.




Really?
I guess that depends on your definition of the term, and which material you choose to read. All of the competent scientists I know (and there are quite a few), as well as the top climatologists in the world, argue otherwise.



A relatively graphic fallacy:

If we are are increasing the rate of global warming greatly, which is what you said...how is it that we can only slow it down slightly?

.

You're right!




Please, tell me how we "revamp" our energy system. Who's going to do that, do you think, and how will it generate money and jobs?
In other words, who are the only people who can actually do the research and development necessary to actually develop alternative energy sources for our future, and what is actually necessary for these people to have the funding and the impetus to actually do this?


Do you honestly know who these people are? (HINT: They constitute "pure evil" in modern American society).

Further, kindly tell me what recession we are in. I keep hearing all of this doom and gloom talk about recession....A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of economic decline. We have yet to experience one quarter of economic decline, let alone two consecutive quarters. There is no recession. The economy has simply grown at a slower rate than it has for the previous 25 or so quarters.

It is a recession because democrats can't win if it isn't.

...........corporations that would would cut you loose as soon as your performance doesn't meet their high standards.

I know where you got your data. I've seen all of the data...
Further, no one asked you to take what I said at face value.
If you had actually researched the matter as you say, you would've derived all the information I gave you, easily. I've done it a dozen times, and am tired of doing people's homework for them...especially in this matter.




"Lad" ?

Whew...I haven't been called "lad" since sometime long before you were born.