Report settles global warming discrepancies
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Posted: 10:08 a.m. EDT (14:08 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A nagging difference in temperature readings that had raised questions about global warming has been resolved, a panel of scientists reported Tuesday.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected," researchers said in the first of 21 assessment reports planned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

The findings show clear evidence of human influences on climate due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

There has been increasing concern about global climate change being caused by human activity, in particular the release of gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by automobiles and industrial activity.

But while temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes -- instruments carried by weather balloons -- had shown little or no warming.

There are still some questions about the rate of atmospheric warming in the tropics, but overall the issue has been settled, said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a statement saying that the climate change program was established to reduce scientific uncertainties and "we welcome today's report because it represents success in doing so with respect to temperature trends."

Findings of the report include:

• Since the 1950s, all data show the Earth's surface and the low and middle atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those changes were expected from computer models of the effects of greenhouse warming.
• Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere -- the nearest portion of the atmosphere -- show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an expected finding.
• The most recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there is some disagreement among data sets. This may be caused by uncertainties in the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers think it is a problem with the data collection.
• The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.

The report came a day after the government reported that greenhouse gases widely blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building in the atmosphere.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air last year, although methane leveled off. Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse gas index "shows a continuing, steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere."

Source
--------------------------------------
NOAA: Greenhouse gases continue to rise
Monday, May 1, 2006; Posted: 4:09 p.m. EDT (20:09 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The greenhouse gases widely blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building up in the atmosphere.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air last year, though methane leveled off.

The agency said and there was a decline in two chlorofluorocarbons, gases blamed for the ozone hole over the Antarctic.

Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse gas index "shows a continuing, steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere."

The index was set at a base value of 1.0 in 1990. For 2005 it was 1.215, the agency said.

Greenhouse gases, produced by industry, automobiles and other engines, tend to trap heat from the sun at the planet's surface, reducing the amount of heat radiated back out into space.

The result has been a gradual increase of temperatures over recent decades, raising concerns that human activities will result in a damaging climate change.

Most of the increase is attributed to carbon dioxide, which the agency said accounts for 62 percent of radiative warming by greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide increased from an average of 376.8 parts per million in 2004 to 378.9 ppm in 2005. The preindustrial CO2 level is estimated to have been about 278 ppm.

Source
--------------------------------------
Kinda pathetic it took this long, I hope it's not too late.

*bump*

they so ready to get to a conclusion

Saturn's doing it
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=68565

Mars is doing it
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...6183&hl=climate

I don't deny it's happening, I do reject their theory of the cause.

I don't deny we might be screwed pretty soon too. And all the resources in the world won't stop what might be happening. I've said time and time again it's a waste to try and stop, slow, speed, or start it. All resources should be put towards Adapting to it. What's going to happen is going to happen whether we like it or not. The rest is selfish/idealogical agenda.

Might not even be a bad thing to happen...

so we should keep polluting the air and earth and say screw it, its gonna happen anyways? i don't see how you could think like that. sure it may be a natural process but with our interference, we are making it more severe and we have a lot of data to prove that. we have had proof for awhile, this isn't "so ready to get a conclusion". it has taken awhile for this information to come out because of government & big business interference, cutting down on pollution would hurt our economy and cut profits. adapt to it? it's going to be hard to keep adapting to extreme weather variations, increasingly powerful storms and flooding. we have nothing to lose to trying to make this earth a cleaner place, except for oil profits which is why it is taking this long for politicians to accept it. we need to take care of our planet.

yes and no. you're muddling the issue, lumping several aspects into one.


try


why'd you ruin a perfectly good statement with a but? But means "yeah yeah, forget whatever I just said before the word but"


we have more data. yes.

our "interference" is peanuts to the mechanations of nature


yes it is. the conclusion that capitalism is the bane of the planet was decided by an ideology a long time ago. too bad it has nothing to do with the current, past, or future changes.



errr... either "got support for that?" or "that's your opinion, I disagree"

I think the data probably points to a different scenario than anyone has modled, even if what you say is true.


Yeah, the rich guys get a spacestation. it's happening on Mars, it's happening on Jupi... whether we like it or not.


Yes. Individuals (here at least) do have a chance to have a better life for themselves. The restrictions and requirements will sap us and not do a Thing to prevent it. If it's a slow process, at least we'll still have energy to make it bearable until the cycle is over. If it's rapid, at least I can afford a generator and supplies, as a nation we may be able to support ourselves domestically unless we kill ourselves with regulations before hand, leaving us naked and defensless to even Try and survive.


yeah there's a few different issues there. I want my car that runs on water. I can't name One Person who Wants to live in their own waste.

Celumnaz, I hope you never come across a doctor with your attitude:

"The patient is dying. I could try and stop the blood flowing from that gaping wound in his neck but I don't think that will change anything so I'm not even going to try. I'm sure he'll adapt to being dead".

The point is we must try to do something. If it fail then we will have to adapt but it is the height of irresponsabillity to just let the planet die without trying to save it.

That's muddling the issue again. Adapt to being dead!? Let the planet die!? Some good emotional data. More like "The fan belt in my car is out of whack, I better stick my hand in it while it's running and see... if... here, let me stick your hand in it too the same time I do."

I agree, we must try to do something. Adapt to a slow shift, or survive a quick one. The planet will exsist whether we do or not. Unless a bigger body knocks it towards the sun... then we'd have some serious global warming and driving cars would be the least of our worries.

I agree with Celumnaz, we're pretty much out of luck on this one. It doesn't help that the earth is experiencing seismic activity under the sea as well as above it. At this point there are thousands of vocanoes going off under the ocean that contributes the the CO2 levels both in the water (causing sea life to die) and in the air, trapping heat. Also there is a volcano in Indonesia ready to pop its top off and we're expecting the one in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming to go off sometime soon. Also, the fact that we're constantly at war doesn't help it either. People burning oil doesn't help it as well. If we want this to slow down, we'd have to stop having war or fight with swords and bows and horses. Also with the forest fires and such, the fire is eating up the oxygen that we can breath and is sending the CO2 straight up to the atmosphere. I don't think there is much we can do about it, except run for higher ground.

heh does jupiter or mars have life?


and i like waspie's analogy, its like the guy is gonna die later on anyway so why try to save him?


i dont get why you wouldnt want to at least try to lessen our effect(see:o-zone)

comparing our planet to others is like comparing air and water sure both have currents and such, but they are 2 very different things, well in this case 3 very different things.
the delicate balance that help sustaine our life here on this planet is in trouble, and most likely caused by us... why not try and do something about it?
it's such a dumb thing to say oh well screw it, own up and lets do something about it, if we sit back and wait then we're definantly going to regreat it.

i AGREE WITH celumnaz ;-) just my two bytes

If you really want to compare our planet to another try Venus. Look what the greenhouse effect and global warming did there.

I gave an emotional response did I? Well if I can't get emotional about mass extinctions and the potential destruction of the planet that you live on please tell me what I should be getting emotional about?

The planet won't die, we will, but the planet will endure, it isn't about saving the planet, but ourselves, we screw up the planet enough, we'll go extinct, we have no way of leaving and we lack the technology to survie a major catastrophe.