Waspie, go back up, and look at your own "question." I answered it. How my answer is a "tactic" is beyond me considering that your own question is contained with many paragraphs of your own ~ including your comment about the Sun that stretches the imagination. I mean, are you saying that without the Sun there would be life on this planet? Or energy for any of the planets? Again, I suggest you learn more about the Sun, and try much much harder to appreciate it, because frankly, from your comments, I don't think you do at all.

I suggest you also re-read my answer on Venus and Earth. They are two different planets. One is a water planet (Earth) having more oceans and living plants that take in C02 and release O2, and the other planet (Venus) has no living plants, and less water than the Earth.

Moreover, I never said as you stated ~

"This is exactly what you said: As the atmosphere of Venus causes the surface temperature to be higher than would be the case if solar activity was the only influence then the statement that everything is due to the activities of the Sun is demonstrably false (unless, of course, you are employing some new meaning of the word everything that I wasn't previously aware of).

You did. That wasn't me. If you are going to argue a point, at least be clear about who says what, ok?

You speak of Venus' atmosphere as if the impact of the Sun is barely negliable, as if Venus would stand alone, as would the Earth, without the Sun? If you cannot understand that the air pressure at the surface of Venus equals 90 atmospheres, and wonder why there is a raised global surface temperature that is impossible on Earth, then, hey, I can't help you man.

You mean planet-specific environmental factors determine how the influx of solar energy is regulated (read: "climate")? I'll be damned. I don't suppose alterations in that environment can affect that regulation. Nah.

Of course they do since the universe is inter-connected. For instance, the planets in their orbits also affect sunspot activity. Comets also spark off solar mass coronal ejections as shown by SOHO. However, don't go and take that to mean humans are the cause of global warming because humanity is not the cause. This continues to be where those who take on that silliness are seriously flawed considering the constant mantra that humans caused planetary climate change. When the Earth's climate cools, as it does, and will do again, because Earth's climate is regulated by the Sun, will that also be the fault of human activity too?

Your persuasive writing skills could use a little polishing. Honestly, I think some of the people in this thread want to have a real discussion and would prefer not to get an automated recording.

There's plenty of discussion, on many sides of the issue, on this thread Startraveler, I suggest you also add more than the comments of your above, that requires "polishing" and, which, by the way, really does read like an "automated recording."

<heavy sigh> Local means local - yes, it does. Which is why I said there is not a country on this planet that doesn't pollute. So, if all countries are polluting then the polluting becomes "local" to the planet. It's not that difficult a concept.



No.



So, you're saying after a huge eruption all that spewage in our atmosphere has no impact on weather? There are many active volcanos, world wide, which can impact the weather with an eruption - not just MtStH. All those potential eruptions can, and do, cause changes in the atmosphere - which can, and do, change weather patterns which can be felt world wide....



No. I'm not talking about "local" as you are. Our pollution is impacting the *entrire* globe. Which translates, for me, into locally is globally...
<snip>



I've thought about it - and certainly didn't have to dig "deeply". It occurs to me that there is not another species on this planet that is systematically destroying/poisoning their life support system. Humanity *is* doing precisely that. Which indicates to me that we may not be indigenous to the planet. Most species would kill to protect their territory. We, otoh, are killing our territory to amass great wealth. We’re an aberration on this planet...



The Earth does not produce plastic - or other products that will take eons to degrade. The Earth *is* reacting to what we're doing. Look at nature - *deeply* - and consider what we're doing to the habitats of insects and animal life. It's ludicrous not to believe we're impacting this planet.



Because our (humanity’s) decimation/impact is happening *globally*... How difficult is that to understand?

<snip>


Then I suggest that you start your car in an enclosed area, leave the engine running while you sit in the vehicle, windows closed, piping in exhaust fumes for an hour. You will be dead by the end of that hour. If someone manages to rescue you after half an hour you’ll likely be brain damaged, not dead.
This is precisely what we’re doing to the planet (and ourselves). Does it get more substantial than that?

That pollution, along with the sun, is changing our atmosphere, which, in turn, is impacting the climate.

A Google search turns up: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html These are only two pages of 976,000.



The pollution impacts the oceans. The oceans impact the weather. We are changing the oceans. Proof of impacting the oceans is in whales (and many other marine species) dying from toxic poisoning. Why do I have to spell everything out? It’s not a quantum leap of logic to determine if we’re impacting the oceans we’re impacting the weather… Too, if we’re impacting the atmosphere we must be impacting the weather. It’s not a difficult scenario to grasp. In fact, imo, it’s rather elementary.



The more we pollute the more impact we have on the globe and the weather – why is that so difficult to grasp? We're altering our waterways, our breathing space - but we're not altering the weather - which is influenced by the oceans and what's in the atmosphere. It doesn't equate.

You suggested humanity can’t possibly have a substantial impact on the globe. You’re wrong. We see it daily – UV index warnings, marine life dying like flies. Coral reefs, fish, marine mammals, sea vegetation…dying at a phenomenal rate – because of the toxic waste we feel we have a right to dump where we please because we have to do something with it. Can’t leave it in neighborhoods – there’d be no neighborhoods left if we did. (can't tax something that doesn't exist)It’s so elementary I can’t believe we even have to debate this issue.
All of this is impacting our global weather patterns, whether you acknowledge it or not. We’re changing the quality of this planet – on all levels. Yet, still, you think we’re not substantial enough to do so. Think again…

Now that is a scientifically reasoned idea if ever I've heard one!
It just doesn't bear any further comment....




No, and I never said that. I said, quite accurately, that they have never had any global or long term effects on the climate. They all produce immediate local effects, sometimes which spreead to a large area. The planet takes care of herself in all cases.



UV index warnings are not an indication of anything but a new thing for people to talk about...like heat index, wind chill index, thunderstorm warnings, etc...all of which are human constructs that reflect what nature is doing, but which are relatively useless.

Civilized humans, in general, are very limited in where they can dump toxic wastes--most humans do not feel they can dump anything anywhere they want (although there are certainly some who do), and this "dying like flies" statement is, well, slightly exaggerated. I think you are painting a a clear picture of where your mindset comes from in this matter--and that is not from the basis of science.



You're correct. It is somewhat elementary.
All of your arguments are based upon unsubstantiated notions, primary among them being that we ARE IMPACTING THE GLOBE. Yet, there isn't anything to substantiate this position. We are indeed impacting various local environments, some more than others, but this is not happeneing all over the world, as you say it is. It happens in various places located all over the globe, but by and large, the majority of the world is not so polluted. We have the capability to correct the local imbalances, but this does not necessarily or logically equate to human global effects. We may cause pimples on the surface of the Earth, but a pimple has never caused a whole-body effect. And, as to the degree I spoke of...you need to realize some things about humanity in order to understand the falacy in the man-made global warming idea:

Humanity in total, standing side by side, occupies 1/500 of the Earth's surface area.
Humanity in total constitutes a mere 7/1,000,000,000,000 of 1% of the Earth's mass.
Humanity's volume, in total, is a mere 1/1000 of 1% of the volume of the planet's atmosphere.

And we are to believe that this insignificant, microscopic entity has caused, through its endeavors, a 1/2 degree increase in the overall temperature of the Earth in the past 2 or 3 decades, and that as a result, Greenland will melt by 2030 and the human race will face dire consequences?

We are to believe that we actually are a major contributor to a process that is, by all evidence, a natural one which has been in process for over 10,000 years, and which has cyclically repeated itself for eons...powered by the one source of energy that powers the entire solar system we live in, and our orbital relation that source, fluctuating as it does cyclically?

Somehow, I do not think this rather logical concept of degree is making it here.
I also don't think the argument can have a satisfactory conclusion for some people. Some poeple, in distressingly large numbers, observe, and create an hypothesis which is at once perhaps the most implausible one, and then erroneously construct it into fact, ignoring the much more plausible ones in favor of some political agenda.

It is a quandary, to be sure, and there are few signs that this lack of rigor will subside any time soon. Indeed, several decades from now, after Greenland has melted ( ), the idea of man-made global warming will probably still be debated among some, or perhaps more likely (at least hopefully), the idea will have been relegated to the trash heap--much like the idea of several decades ago that prophesied the imminent global ice age (despite the fact that we were, at that time, warming as well), was so relegated.

Which ever, the debate serves little purpose (just as it did not in the mid-1970s--the ice age was coming, no matter what scientists were really saying), as most people convinced of Al Gore's doom and gloom will not be swayed.

The real problem here will be realized if the people pressing these ideas are actually elected into office in the 2008 elections. Then, there will be some real long term problems that people have to face. An economy that begins to degrade swiftly, higher taxes, no change in our current energy dependent status, no remedy to our dependence on oil as fuel, and the continuation of terror in the world, unchecked...and all of this being spurred in large part by people's acceptance of this guilt trip regarding man-made global warming (hint: it's designed to make you guilty enough to accept measures that will lead to everything just mentioned).

It's political, not scientific.
Argue it all you want. That is merely howling at the Moon. It has no effect on the realities.

And what would be the motive for this global warming conspiracy? So it's the scientists, democrats, liberals, commies and the world against poor little America and the republicans, right? How hasn't this thread gotten moved to the conspiracy section yet? This debate has been over and to say otherwise is implying the proof has been knowingly altered for political gain but the only people guilty of scewing evidence are the republicans and oil companies who deny it's existence to protect profit.

Perhaps that is because cooler heads have prevailed concerning the myth of "man-made global warming." There is no need for the hype, or wishes for it to be titled a "conspiracy" because you have this view that humanity causes planetary global warming. The astrophysical and geophysical facts do not support this, and never did, and the debate reflects these facts against this blame-game of humanity as the cause of global warming. Proof already has been given that clearly shows how the political, pop-culture hype of climate change has been blind to the astrophysical and geophysical realities of what is the cause of global cooling and global warming. We all know it is the Sun, always has been and always will be too.

It's NOT a conspiracy. It is transparent.What would be the motive?C'mon...Oil company profits???Do you have any idea what oil companies make on a gallon of gasoline?About 8 cents. And, that doesn't represent a huge profit margin. Adequate, but not overtly excessive by any stretch of the imagination (they're spending about 96 cents to make 4 cents).Now, what are Federal and state governments making on a gallon of gasoline? About 75 cents in total. Ever investigate the taxes on gasoline...government profits which are completely un-earned, and represent about 9 times what the gas companies make?Let's get real here. The motive is political.The falacies are designed to make you guilty enough about what you're doing to the environment so that you will accept draconian measures designed to remedy the situation. This of course will result in higher taxes, and more restrictions on personal freedoms and corporate ability to do what they need to do, as well as larger government....This is the agenda of a particular political party in the modern era. The "scientists" who tend to support this hypothesis are in the minority, and are associated with the U.N., an organization which is decidedly ineffectual and has an agenda which is remarkably similar to that of the political party that supports it. However, this is not a conspiracy. It may be somewhat covert, but only because a large percentage of people today do not understand science, and its methodology.Manmade global warming is an hypothesis, and a weak one, being exploited by a minority so as to influence those who do not realize that it is nothing more than a weak and unsupported hypothesis. And, this as well!

As I tried to say in my previous post, the largest area for dispute are the computer models. Those results bring peer critiques, and certain revisions. Once those models are examined, you can begin to understand how many points reflect unkowns or uncertainties, or best estimates. It is far from exact, and difficult to accurately predict numerous important factors.

The best evidence needs lots of hard data.

The best evidence has been out for years, that really isn't the issue. What is at issue is that until many of the scientists who back the false premise of "man-made global warming" start dealing with the facts, rather than in protecting careers, while taking in tens of millions of undeserved dollars in funding to "model" something that does not exist (man-made global warming) we will continue to see many computer models that somehow are able to forecast years deep into the future (to back false claims of man-made global warming) but for some strange reason cannot forecast the weather a month in advance. Just how is that possible?

Many of the so-called "peer critiques" are really groups within groups that follow a certain line of thought to protect careers. This is well-known within and outside these groups of scientists who play with models that, are best, weakly theoretical, and often contain the very biases that conflict among various computer models.

The famed "objectivity" that is supposed to exist within conventional science has never really been there, as careers are more important to sustain, rather than a search for the truth of something has critical as the cause behind planetary climate change, hence, global warming.

If what you mean is that there was sufficient data to ascribe climate to various factors, for example since the Vostok cores, yes, that was retreived in 1998. But, as I stated, the biggest area for dispute are the climate models, which come and go. I neither support or deny those efforts, which are standard fare.

I'm not making a case, I'm simply saying that all the science is not in when it comes to the cycles of weather. There is no need for dispute on this one. You essentially agree with what I said, and visa versa.

But, there is more at stake here. Russia could get hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars up front, out of a political response, vis a vis Al Gore. Same goes for China and India. They could then pass the time, and continue business as usual. It would be a slippery slope.

In the meantime, U.S. and Australian businesses could reap some profits on technology exports. In the end, China has to have cleaner emissions, anyway.
Using climate change as a precursor, better tech can be sold to those who require them.

We can just talk the climate talk, but not walk, while making useful profits. Government will seed grants and loans to research realworld issues, and business will find the solutions. For example, finding the best ways to store captured CO2, which can be potentially essential to oil recovery techniques. How else do they convince consumers to pay up for CO2 capture at their local coal-fired power plant? Do you tell them its good for the planet, or that the oil industry might desperately require it? I think its a cover, among some special interests who have slipped into the CO2 issue to get their hands on more CO2 and store it underground.

If I was to prognosticate about the future, I would say there is just as much chance for other things to worry about, besides the theory that manmade runaway greenhouse effects will nail us or the planet to the wall. So, you are right, saying there is little room for wasteful efforts, anymore.

Theo, you have said the right thing in your 'As above, so below.' But, I don't think that means, 'Since the sun is hot, the earth is hot.' It takes a little knowledge of the atmosphere of the earth and the action of the weight of atoms to conclude that it is the result of the displacement of the oxygen atom that is causing the solar radiation to heat the atmosphere. And the displacement is caused by the addition to the atmosphere of lighter elements. O3, which is Ozone, is the top layer of our atmosphere. O3 is the binding of an Oxygen atom and Diatomic Oxygen which we breathe. Oxygen atoms are lethal, they burn. Diatomic Oxygen is given off through photosynthesis by plants. Ultraviolet light from the sun does not cause heat until it strikes a surface or passes through an opaque surface. Ozone is that opaque surface. Ozone is a triangular shaped molecule that acts as a prism to give us the differing shades of light and the heat. We do not see one color of the spectrum down below, we see all colors, white. But the sky is blue because Ozone is blue.

ozone


(´zn) (KEY) , an allotropic form of the chemical element oxygen (see allotropy). Pure ozone is an unstable, faintly bluish gas with a characteristic fresh, penetrating odor. The gas has a density of 2.144 grams per liter at STP. Below its boiling point (-112°C) ozone is a dark blue liquid; below its melting point (-193°C) it is a blue-black crystalline solid. Ozone is triatomic oxygen, O3, and has a molecular weight of 47.9982 atomic mass units (amu). It is the most chemically active form of oxygen. It is formed in the ozone layer of the stratosphere by the action of solar ultraviolet light on oxygen. Although it is present in this layer only to an extent of about 10 parts per million, ozone is important because its formation prevents most ultraviolet and other high-energy radiation, which is harmful to life, from penetrating to the earth’s surface. Ultraviolet light is absorbed when its strikes an ozone molecule; the molecule is split into atomic and diatomic oxygen: 03+ ultraviolet light 0+02. Later, in the presence of a catalyst, the atomic and diatomic oxygen reunite to form ozone. Some environmental scientists fear that certain man-made pollutants (e.g., nitric oxide, NO) may interfere with this delicate balance of reactions that maintains the ozone’s concentration, possibly leading to a drastic depletion of stratospheric ozone. Ozone is also formed when an electric discharge passes through air; for example, it is formed by lightning and by some electric motors and generators.

Notice the molecular weight of Ozone is 47.9982. Nitric Oxide has molecular weight of 30.01. Nitric Oxide is less in weight than Ozone and it will force Ozone down. Electrical engines and car exhaust form Nitric Oxide smog in cities. What causes the dome of smog in cities? Heat. Heat is a catalyst to cause NO (Nitrgen Monoxide) to bind with CO (Carbon Monoxide) to make C-NO2 which is an explosive gas, NO binds with CO2 to yield CNO3 which is more explosive.
_________________________
Tim McVeigh showed you that!
----------------------------------

VOCs + NOx + Sunlight = Ozone

Ground level ozone is formed by chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOCs), also known as hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. NOx and VOCs are known as the chief "precursors" of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. These gaseous compounds mix like a thin soup in the atmosphere, and when they are exposed to sunlight, ozone is formed. Due to the nature of these reactions, ozone concentrations can reach unhealthful levels when the weather is hot and sunny with little or no wind. As a result, ground level ozone pollution, or smog, is mainly a daytime problem during summer months.


Earth's atmosphere is composed almost completely (99%) of diatomic molecules which are oxygen (O2) (21%) and nitrogen (N2) (78%).

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/art...ming1160583306/

Lucy Sandbach

Nitrogen - The Bad Guy of Global Warming
Carbon dioxide emissions, rising global temperatures, melting ice caps and climate change make news on a daily basis. But is our love affair with carbon dioxide blinding us to the threat posed by a more dangerous agent? The global warming culprit in question is nitrogen.
_________________
Oh, we just love our factories, they produce! The fumes from factories are Nitrous Oxide!
-----------------------
Causes of the nitrogen overdose
The dawning of the Industrial Revolution heralded a major change that greatly affected the nitrogen balance. Large-scale burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil released high levels of nitrogen oxides (including nitrous oxide or N2O) as fumes. The nitrogen problem escalated further by World War I with the development of the Haber-Bosch Process, which allowed inert N2 gas to be made into ammonia without the use of slow nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The ammonia produced became a valuable resource and could be used to make cheap fertilisers for use on crops. Other contributors to increased levels of nitrogen compounds were the burning of trees and plants for agriculture, and the manufacture of nylon. But seeing as successful industry and agriculture are crucial across the globe, do we really want to stop artificially creating our own useful nitrogen compounds? Why would we want to go back to the natural limits of the nitrogen cycle?
______________________________
Man-made introduction of Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere!

Is the problem man-made? YES! The reason we are so 'happy' here in the US is because of all of the factories making us hooked on nitrous oxide and the nitrogen is heating the atmosphere.

Has anyone seen this? Check it out
We are not really where we came from.

Sun Adopted by Milky Way

An interesting astronomical idea...

But, since mankind evolved on this planet, and apparently it's been in this galaxy for billions of years, I'd say this is somewhat irrelevant.
As is the argument that this increased energy is responsible for the global warming period we've been going through.

That would be nonsense, and also irrelevant, as no matter where the matter that constituites our solar system may have come from (matter is the same everywhere in the universe)... global warming and cooling cycles have repeated themselves very regularly for eons...powered by the Sun, and the relation of the Earth's orbit to the Sun.

And, your point is...? What you've written here is not evidence that humanity is the cause of global warming, and does nothing to dismiss the Sun as the cause, which is the topic of this thread. You should remember that prior to the "dawning of the Industrial Revolution" that global warming has taken place on Earth many times before.

These are natural astronomical cycles ~ astrophysical to geophysical laws that we cannot escape ~ global warming has been taking place on Earth, and global cooling has been taking place on Earth many times over the many centuries, is taking place now, and will take place in the future, as long as the Sun keeps up its many activities in ruling our planet's climate and weather.

Doesn't it always get warmer right before an ice age?

<snip> <snip> <snip>

This is what Theodore is referring to



and

And like I said, with CO2 becoming a commodity, who will profit?

Lawyers and oil companies.

Who do environmental groups employ? -Lawyers-

Yeah, it is a pretty wicked cycle that one, for sure...

If the following quotes are not implying a conspiracy, then I don't know what is! Take a look;

Listen Reincarnated, why don't you quit with the "conspiracy" lines, and spend more than a second learning more about the Sun, which is the real cause of global warming. Why is it so easy for you to keep up this silliness of yours because you cannot make an argument blaming man for global warming? The only "conspiracy" I see is your failure to accept the laws of astro and geophysics, which don't change just because your opinion that man is the cause of global warming has no firm ground to stand on in the first place. Why don't you "take a look" at that? Jeez.

The bleeding-heart liberals are falling into a trap to aid in the destruction of the United States economy.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/200...global-warming/

Framing global warming
June 18th, 2007
Clarice Feldman

Professor Bryson, the father of scientific climatology says anthropogenic global warming is hooey. Naturally whenever scientists who do know what they are talking about offend the dogmatists, they are said to be going against the “scientific consensus”. Science is science. Consensus is politics. And close examination of many of those part of that “consensus” reveals they are not climatologists,but grant seekers.

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.
“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
[snip]”"There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”
[snip] Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. “And that goes in the paper as ’scientists say.’”
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. “It is sort of a smear.”

Out of curiousity, where did did you receive your scientific training?

My first scientific training was in Pennsylvania under an astronomer with overall training in the sciences of astronomy, and meteorology. However, I chose to study history, and to major in that, and in journalism.

I don't know about that. I prefer to be progressive, and not to swing either too far to the right, or to the left. The most important thing is to progress, and to learn to live cleaner, and greener lives.

As there are already plenty of threads spread around this site on global warming I am going to merge these two with the one that is currently most active.

For those who are not scientists and who have no way of really knowing I suggest this.
Look at present day photos and film footage of the Himalaya mountains.
Now research on your own and find out how long ago was the last time that they had lost their ice and snow to this extent.

That might be an opposite view. Comparing the temperatures of the levels of atmosphere of the earth and the statement 'as above, so below,' as you ascend, you go through a period of very very cold temperatures before you go through a period of high temperatures so, the coldness is being forced down and the earth will go through a period of cold cold and then through a period of hot heat.

The altitude of a place, such as the Himalayas, will determine what is happening. Thanx Bella.

From Theo: You should remember that prior to the "dawning of the Industrial Revolution" that global warming has taken place on Earth many times before.

There is a little weight to the amount of atoms in the atmosphere, so that sort of says that Theo is right considering the force of the atoms coming from the sun pushing the atmoxphere down.

I'll make it easy for them:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW
The Timaru Herald

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

Agreed. In all respects.

I'm already beginning to laugh I mean, we have been jumpin' on theo for making this joke. But fear is the real culprit!

I think this is what Waspie was aiming for _big glorious technicolor_ when it comes to Theo's solar model-

Some people need to be told what to think... I'm not one of them. I rely on my own instincts - not someone else's theory...



You're wrong about "never had any global... effect"... No one said anything about "long term", except you. Long term is subjective ...



Useless is subjective. UV index tells a person, who may want to know, how long they should remain in the sun before skin damage becomes a concern. Would hurricane and tornado warnings fall under your idea of useless information too? Thunderstorm warnings are so a person can be prepared to *unplug* their electronic wares, and stay off the phone. Since when has awareness been "relatively useless"?



I'm speaking of greedy corporations who don't care whether they're poisoning waterways or areas of land. Do you bother to do a search before making such declarations? I'm not exaggerating anything...not even "slightly." Do you actually believe the oceans aren't a dumping ground? Has the need for scientific endorsement narrowed your vision that much?
Didn't a bunch of scientists say we are responsible for the hastening of global warming? Would they the be the stupid scientists?
I guess the car in the enclosed garage, with the motor running, was a flight of fancy too? Hmmm - maybe I should run my posts by you in the future, before making such assinine assertions....<eg>
<snip>


<vBg> Soooo, because we're so minute, comparitively - there is absolutely no way we can be poisoning the waterways of the globe? There is no way our spewage has an impact on our ozone? Oh, and toxic marine life is a figment of the imagination...is that right?
<snip>


Believe whatever some scientist tells you (not the stupid ones though)... it's no concern of mine.
<snip>



I guess you have evidence of it all being political... Al Gore? Lol! Ooookayyyyy....
Whose "realities" are you speaking of ? Do you think everyone sees and hears the same things you do...? Hmmm...? If so - you've quite an ego...

How do you know"mankind evolved on this planet"? Maybe extraterrestrials did some genetic modification on monkeys/apes...and humanity was the result.



What does "very regularly for eons" translate into? That is - how often does the Earth go through the cycles of warming up and cooling off? Every 250 years? 100 years? 50? 20? What is the cyclic pattern of this "natural occurence"? Surely some scientist has figured that out by now...

Well, Theodore and MID will say it's "natural occurence"... So, if true, it would stand to reason that the Himilaya's glaciers disappeared in the past, during a "natural" warming cycle. Which begs the question - how long did it take for the glaciers to reappear...obviously during a cooling cycle.
This natural cooling and warming cycle would have a pattern, one would think.

Regarding the temperature cycles, longer term. Here is a scientific model of how it seems to have been. For some 800 years after the fall of the Roman Empire, solar models seem to indicate that the Himilayas were sans glacier. And, it would appear to have been the case for the past eight thousand years, that glaciers were less than they were in recent times.








Muir Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska.

Photographed by Field on 13 August 1941 (left) and by Bruce F. Molnia on 31 August 2004 (right).

Side by Side

Astrophysical causes always have geophysical effects. That law is constant, and regulates the Earth's entire climate, which is a natural law.

See ~ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...8db11f4&p=4

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...fc-cf6465bf0aa8

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...a332f1f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...3c-f0ff43010278

It's funny how Theo and others constantly accuse us of thinking "the sun is just a rock" when we just simply state that humanity is a factor in climate change along with the Sun and other factors. Even after we stated otherwise on numerous occasions! This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the deniers because they keep repeating that the Sun is the one and only cause in climate change. Have they forgotten Earth has an atmosphere of it's own which limits the Sun's effects on our planet? It seems to me that they believe our Earth is just a rock floating in space that does not contribute to it's own atmosphere.

The only one who has "forgotten" that the Earth's atmosphere and climate is regulated by the Sun is you Reincarnated. And, no one has said that the Earth is just a "rock" that is "floating" in "space" except you. You also seem to constantly suggest that the Earth's atmosphere just stands alone, which is silly enough, considering that your own hypocrisy continues on this thread with hype now a strong part of your already weak argument that humanity has enough clout astrophysically to cause global warming on a planetary scale, when nothing like that is true in the first place.

You've gone from blaming humanity for global warming to now saying that "humanity is a factor in climate change." So, which one is it this week?

Try learning more about the Earth's atmosphere and the Sun by the way, because frankly, you've not a clue as to what you are talking about.

Yeah, well no one said the Sun was just a rock in space but you constantly accuse us of saying it!See! You did it again!We have all heard that one before.

That's a good trait to have.
Yet, in the same breath, we're talking about man-made global warming here, which is not someone else's theory, it is someone else's hypothesis, and a weak one...



And prior to the advent of UV index, people used their common sense, and realized just how long they should be in the sun before they'd get burned, without the reliance on some arbitrary number to tell them, as if such a number comes from someone who knows something their own innate intelligence does not?


As to hurricane and tornado warnings...they're not the same thing. A tornado warning is issued when a tornado is present. It can happen in a matter of minutes. It's worth listening to. A hurricane warning is unnecessary, because anyone in hurricane prone areas knows full well what to do when a hurricane is forecast (and of course, despite that...many don't pay any attention to them). The "warning" is nothing but melodrama...and implies that hurricane conditions are imminent...but then, everyone prone to hurricanes already knows that before some official warning is posted. Thus, it is fairly useless.

Thunderstorm warnings have little effect, because people can easily see when a thunderstorm is imminent, and most people don't unplug things anyway!

Awareness is never useless. The point is, the "awareness" most of these things would seem to cultivate is already present!



Oh, really!
Maybe extraterrestrials did...so?



Yes, some scientists have.
It's roughly about every 150,000 to 225,000 years +/-.
It's already been posted here. The cycle typically feateures a cooling poeriod, and a stabilization that lasts a loooong time ( a rather cold time), then a 10-15,000 year warm up, followed by a plunge into cooler temperatures, and so on.

We are currently in the peak of a warm up following the last ice age, which has been going on for 10,000 plus years.
This fact escapes many people...and it's easy to derive the information in support of this.




As I said, you get far too angry about this. Yes, there are such companies who do these things. They are in the minority.
Remember, I said, "there are certainly some who do..."? Maybe not. Your emotions are carrying you away.
The United States is the best in the world at fixing it's problems. In a country that is the most prosperous in the world, with 300 million people and all sorts of enterprise going on all over the place, do you think it likely that some people don't try to buck the system and pollute? Of course they do. Ever see what happens when they get caught?





No. They would be the ones affiliated with the U.N. group. And they are in the vast minority, and the motives behind their patently un-scientific declarations are evident, and transparent. They have , for reasons unknown in the methods of science, attempted to make a weak hypothesis into a theory, or even beyond that, into a scientific certainty.

This too, is transparent, and the majority of climatologists worldwide disagree with them.




Not a flight of fancy, just irrelevant to the issue at hand, and it ignores the idea of degree.
Locking one's-self in a garage with the car motor running creates toxic gas in that limited space which has utterly no relation to the amount of gasses humanity as a whole generates into the atmosphere....and has no relation to the latter's effects.




We're talking about the atmopsphere, not the waterways.
As I've said, man can and does pollute the local environment, and action should, can, and is being taken to remedy these situations (probably not to a sufficent degree yet).



Oh, really! Anyone with astute observational skills can read the writing on the wall here.


No, evidently, everyone doesn't see and hear the same things I do. I certainly don't expect that, either.
However, it is distressing in extremis that many people today do not understand the method of science, and the transparent attempt to make a weak hypothesis into a fact (p.s, Al Gore is reponsible for most of the hype that's associated with the man-made global warming hypothesis...if he wasn't around, posturing for a possible late entry into the Democratic Presidential campaign, and the mainstream media...who's political bias is equally transparent...few people would be concerned).



OK, then.

But, it should be noted that I don't believe anyone.
Belief is in the realm of conjecture and faith. I don't go there. I prefer knowledge and experience to belief and conjecture.


If you wish to believe that what we've observed in detail for the past century has any substantive evidence attached to it which shows that we are not observing (as we now can) a microcosm--the fluctuations up and down--of a process that's been going on for 10 millennia---and that it provides no conclusions to the cause of the process (especially as pertains to man-made global warming), be my guest.

Despite the fact that we saw a very similar warming increase between 1920 and 1940, when greenhouse gas emissions by humans were much lower than today, and despite the fact that in the mid-1970's, during a period of much higher human emmissions, these same sorts of people were predicting a global ice age...you want to declare that man is the cause of global warmiong....well, that's fine.

I don't think your argument has any more legs.

I find this to be a very strange claim. These are working research scientists, not political operatives working under the thumb of the U.N. As an example, one my roommates is spending the summer doing atmospheric research with Ray Pierrehumbert. Pierrehumbert is a geophysics professor at the University of Chicago and served as lead author of the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Should I pass along questions as to when he gave up geophysics to become a political hack?

Reincarnated, who is "us?" Your posts constantly pose this "us" against "them" mentality that is just as boring as this "see, you did it again" comments. Did what? How about this one ~ "There you go again Reincarnated." You make these immature comments, and reveal your own lack of knowledge on this topic by trying to force even more hype on "man-made global warming,"and these "lol" that just isn't funny whatsoever. Climate science isn't funny kid, and I suggest you take the time to learn more, and drop the attempts at sounding cynical, because even at the age of 22 years old, there's much more for you to learn. Spend more time on that rather than on these flame and bait comments you continue to post on threads. Get a bit more serious Reincarnated, by taking the time to learn more about the Earth you live on, its atmosphere, and the local star that forces its climate ~ it is called the Sun.

Reincarnated, Theodore please stop the childish bickering. If you are going to debate this subject please do so in a mature manner. THAT MEANS BOTH OF YOU. The rudeness, bickering and flame baiting from the pair of you is beginning to get a little tiresome.

There's nothing strange about it, there's politics among research scientists as well. See ~ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...fc-cf6465bf0aa8

Whilst I disagree with Theodore's premise on global warming, it would be foolish to think that all scientists are non-political.

There are also problems for the vast majority of research scientist that do not have a political agenda and wish to only to reach correct conclusions, their pay masters (whether that is a national government or a multinational corporation) may have an agenda.

However this political interference works both ways in the case of global warming. The oil companies are certainly not going to encourage the release of data that shows that their product is destroying the world. There is also ample evidence that the US Government edited scientific data to remove, or water down, references to human-caused climate change. From a Memorandum from the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee On Oversight And Government Reform, Rep. Henry A. Waxman to the other committee members, dated 30^th January 2007:

Source: Oversight Committee Memorandum (PDF document).