prefix First Last Title Institution
Khabibullo Abdusamatov Scientist Russian Academy of Sciences
Dr. William J.R. Alexander Professor Emeritus University of Pretoria
Dr. Claude Allegre Geophysicist Institute of Geophysics
Dr. August H. Auer Former Professor of Atmospheric Science University of Wyoming
Mr. Dennis Avery Environment Economist Center for Global Food Issues
Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas Astrophysicist Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr. Timothy Ball Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor University of Winnipeg
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr. Climatologist Arizona State University
Dr. Jack Barrett Chemist and Spectroscopist Formerly with Imperial College London
Dr. David Bellamy Horary Professor for Adult and Continuation Education Durham University
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Reader University of Hull
Dr. Simon Brassell Geologist University of Indiana
Dr. Reid Bryson Meteorologist University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mr. Nigel Calder Former Editor The New Scientist Magazine
Dr. Robert M. Carter Geologist James Cook University
Dr. Ian Castles Fellow Australian National University
Dr. Petr Chylek Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor Dalhousie University
Dr. Ian D. Clark Earth Sciences Professor University of Ottawa
Dr. Paul Cooper Professor Emeritus Laurentian University
Dr. Richard S. Courtney Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Chris de Freitas Associate Professor and Climate Scientist The University of Auckland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze Official Reviewer Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson Emeritus Professor of Physics Institute for Advanced Studies
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser Physicist/Meteorologist Formerly with Livermore National Laboratory
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh Professor of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
Dr. Christopher Essex Applied Mathematics Professor University of Western Ontario
Dr. Bill Gray Professor Emeritus Colorado State University
Dr. Vincent Gray Expert Reviewer Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Keith D. Hage Meteorology Professor Emeritus University of Alberta
Dr. Howard Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut
Dr. Douglas Hoyt Retired Scientist Raytheon Company
Dr. Andrei Illarionov Chief Economic Adviser Russian President Vladimir Putin
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Physicist and Chairman Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Dr. Ola Johanneseen Professor Nasen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen Emeritus Professor Stockholm University
Dr. Aynsley Kellow Professor University of Tasmania
Dr. Madhav Khandekar Former Research Scientist Environment Canada
Mr. William Kininmonth Former Head National Climate Centre
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm Former Advisor to the Executive Board Clingendael Institute
Dr. Douglas Leahey meteorologist and air-quality consultant Calgary
Dr. Marcel Leroux Climatology Professor Emeritus University of Lyon
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier Hydrology Professor University of Washington
Dr. Richard Lindzen Meteorologist Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg Associate Statistics Professor University of Aarhus
Dr. Alister McFarquhar International Economist Downing College
Dr. Ross McKitrick Associate Professor University of Guelph
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia
Dr. Fred Michel Associate Professor Carleton University
Dr. M. R. Morgan Climate Consultant First Minister of Wales
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner Emeritus Professor Stockholm University
Dr. Tad Murty Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa
Mr. David Nowell Fellow Royal Meteorological Society
Dr. Garth W. Paltridge Director The Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean
Dr. Benny Peiser Professor of Social Anthropology Liverpool John Moores University
Dr. Al Pekarek Associate Professor of Geology St. Cloud State University
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Meteorologist Cooperative Institute of Research
Dr. Ian Plimer Professor University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem Emeritus Professor Utrecht University
Dr. Andreas Prokoph Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa
Dr. Paul Reiter Professor Institut Pasteur
Dr. Art Robinson Founder Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Dr. Arthur Rorsch Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics Leiden University
Dr. Rob Scagel Principal Consultant Pacific Consultants
Dr. Gary Sharp Director Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr. Nir J. Shaviv Astrophysicist The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Fred Singer Climatologist The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Dr. Graham Smith Associate Professor University of Western Ontario
Dr. Roy Spencer Principal Research Scientist The University of Alabama
Dr. Henrik Svensmark Climate Scientist Danish Space Research Institute
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters Applied Mathematics Professor University of Alberta
Mr. George Taylor State Climatologist State of Oregon
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes Retired Director of Research Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen Climate Change Consultant Geoscience Research and Investigations
Dr. G. Cornelis van Koten Environmental and Climate Change Professor University of Victoria
Dr. Jan Veizer Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa
Dr. Boris Winterhalter Retired Senior Marine Researcher Geological Survey of Finland
Dr. David E. Wojick Senior Editor "Electricity Daily" International Magazine
Well I am talking about how the scientists feel so the second point is relevent. you see there are scientists who belive global wamring is not man made but the sun heating up they claim it's a great blast of heat before the sun starts to die ( which will take 6 million years).
Truth is though I saw your list and you could probably make a list twice that large with scientists who belive in globl warming.
I am not, and have never been, of the impression the Global Warming is soley a man made thing. I believe the universe and everything in it sorts itself out ever million years or so. Perhaps we human being has something to do with it but I still believe that it is more a natural process rather than a man made thing.
After observing many quantifiable facts and well thought-out viewpoints my most likely scenario is that what is going on is natural global warming but enhanced by industrial processes.
White Tiger said this in post #7 : Me! I'm a Global Warming Skeptic!
I am not, and have never been, of the impression the Global Warming is soley a man made thing. I believe the universe and everything in it sorts itself out ever million years or so.
In that case should we be bringing pressure on governments all over the world to abandon their attempts to reduce carbon emissions?
quote:
Perhaps we human being has something to do with it but I still believe that it is more a natural process rather than a man made thing.
Are governments and the experts that advice them, and who agree that it is our pollution that is responsible for the rise in temperature, and who agree that targets to cut carbon emissions are necessary, lying to us?
Was the 4th IPCC report, who's conclusion was that it is our carbon emissions that are causing the present global warming, wrong?
quote:
Who wrote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report?
The report has around 130 lead authors, including meteorologists and climatologists from across the world.
The three reports will bring together the work of hundreds of scientists. More than 800 scientists have contributed, and more than 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries have been involved. At least 2,500 expert reviewers have looked over, and commented on, the draft versions.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and its reports are reviewed by governments as well as experts. They were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the report, and the lead authors will have taken into account their contributions when putting together the final version.
Wether you belive it or not think about this our governments get told things we don't find out about ( arguement was used RE WMD in Iraq if I recall correctly) anyway recently in the last 3 - 5 years governments around the world have made plans to reduce emmsions etc etc even the Bush administartion has started to make noises on the issue. Now maybe just maybe this is because world leaders have seen reports that may have hard eveidence that we need to cut levels sooner rather than later.
Today has been a prime example the EU have made commitments to cut emmsions by 20% by2013 and then a further 30% if the US, India and China cut ther emmiosns by at least 20%
Well despite your headlines Edward in the UK Feb 07 warmest Feb on record March 07 on course to the warmest on record. Warmest Dec on record in 06, warmest summer on record 06 prior to that 05 prior to that 04 you seeiung a trend here or is it just me, incidntally guess what the forecast is for this summer hottest ever. August 06 tornadoes in Birmingham yes Tornadoes tore through the UK's second biggest city causing millions of pounds worth of damge before that smaller twisters were spotted in Scotland's central belt luckily due to the location damage was minimal, flooding in the UK is at an all time high as well the Scottish government has tripled it flood protection budget and I am sure the English government is going the same way.
So despite the headlines those in the met office are saying otherwise and thoise that are living it know otherwise.
But you are basing your on America which is small time thinking as well you are hardly expanding your horizons you only go coast to coast. It's blinkred views like yours that make the problem worse as longf as it all appears rosy in the US of A and as long as Bush, Hannity and O' Reilly tell you everything is A - Ok then to hell with what the rest of the globe is seeing.
Anyway here are few other things Hannity never mentioned just to fatten it out a few more small countries and continents
Europe
Europe 2003 hottest year on record for all Euro countries at least 20,000 death attributed to heats in excess of 40C 15,000 of them in France.
The Northwest passage a shortcut from Europe to Asia previous impassable due to ice, is now a well used shipping route
Flooding in Czech Rep and Germany in 2001 and 2005
Spain half of all glaciers present in 1980 are gone ditto in Russia and Austria
July - August 2000 hottest months on record 104F for Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania
October 2001 Warmest on Record in Germany and Denmark
July - August 2000 hottest months on record 104F for Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania
October 2001 Warmest on Record in Germany and Denmark
Asia and Oceania
Australia 2003 + Droughts that are getting worse year on year in Australia. The drought began in 2002 incidentally in March because in March - November 2002 Australia got the highest temperatures on record.
Tibet Warmest June 98 77F Also years 95 - 96 saw the warmest decade in Tibet ever
Taiwan warmest summer on record 2002.
Afghanistan warmest winter on record in 2001
China has seen sea levels rise 4 inches in the last 20 years
Southern India 2001 120F Heat wave kills hundreds in a week
India, Sri Lank reported above records temperature, rainfall and Tornadoes in 2003 and the figure has either increased or stayed the same since then
At least 2 of the Maldives islands are now under water due to rising sea levels
Africa
Senegal 2002 reports of loss of coastal land due to rising in sea levels
Cairo warmest August on record 105.8F
Since the 1990s, Uganda’s glacier area has decreased by about 75%. The continent of Africa warmed by 0.9 F during the past century, and the five warmest years in Africa have all occurred since 1988.
Americas
Six glaciers in Venezuelan Andes have melted the last tow are expected to be gone by 2013
Bermudas mangrove forests are dying due to salt water killing the forests the saltwater is due to rising coastal waters and of course the forest are on the coast
Hawaii 90% of beach lost in Waimea Bay due to rise in sea levels
Glacier park all glaciers will be gone by 2070 if current melt rate is continued
Canadian Rockies Glaciers melting at due to a 2F raise in temp
Antarctica
Adelie Penguin populations have shrunk by 33% during the past 25 years in response to declines in their winter sea ice habitat.
The 770 square mile (1,994 km2) Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated suddenly in January 1995.
I know we are only a small country and as such what is happening here has no impact on the global teamprature change arguement but found this link the tmprature graph for this tiny little island at the bottom is intresting esp if you remove 1949.
lodgebo said this in post #16 : But you are basing your on America which is small time thinking as well you are hardly expanding your horizons you only go coast to coast.
No I didn't you didn't read anything I posted did you
quote:
It's blinkred views like yours that make the problem worse as longf as it all appears rosy in the US of A and as long as Bush, Hannity and O' Reilly tell you everything is A - Ok then to hell with what the rest of the globe is seeing.
What problem????
quote:
Anyway here are few other things Hannity never mentioned just to fatten it out a few more small countries and continents
Europe
Europe 2003 hottest year on record for all Euro countries at least 20,000 death attributed to heats in excess of 40C 15,000 of them in France.
The Northwest passage a shortcut from Europe to Asia previous impassable due to ice, is now a well used shipping route
Flooding in Czech Rep and Germany in 2001 and 2005
Spain half of all glaciers present in 1980 are gone ditto in Russia and Austria
July - August 2000 hottest months on record 104F for Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania
October 2001 Warmest on Record in Germany and Denmark
July - August 2000 hottest months on record 104F for Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania
October 2001 Warmest on Record in Germany and Denmark
Asia and Oceania
Australia 2003 + Droughts that are getting worse year on year in Australia. The drought began in 2002 incidentally in March because in March - November 2002 Australia got the highest temperatures on record.
Tibet Warmest June 98 77F Also years 95 - 96 saw the warmest decade in Tibet ever
Taiwan warmest summer on record 2002.
Afghanistan warmest winter on record in 2001
China has seen sea levels rise 4 inches in the last 20 years
Southern India 2001 120F Heat wave kills hundreds in a week
India, Sri Lank reported above records temperature, rainfall and Tornadoes in 2003 and the figure has either increased or stayed the same since then
At least 2 of the Maldives islands are now under water due to rising sea levels
Africa
Senegal 2002 reports of loss of coastal land due to rising in sea levels
Cairo warmest August on record 105.8F
Since the 1990s, Uganda’s glacier area has decreased by about 75%. The continent of Africa warmed by 0.9 F during the past century, and the five warmest years in Africa have all occurred since 1988.
Americas
Six glaciers in Venezuelan Andes have melted the last tow are expected to be gone by 2013
Bermudas mangrove forests are dying due to salt water killing the forests the saltwater is due to rising coastal waters and of course the forest are on the coast
Hawaii 90% of beach lost in Waimea Bay due to rise in sea levels
Glacier park all glaciers will be gone by 2070 if current melt rate is continued
Canadian Rockies Glaciers melting at due to a 2F raise in temp
Antarctica
Adelie Penguin populations have shrunk by 33% during the past 25 years in response to declines in their winter sea ice habitat.
The 770 square mile (1,994 km2) Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated suddenly in January 1995.
And where did you find all of this. I'm showing my sources what about yours?
Bottom line is this, for every thing you find that says it was the warmest ever. Or warmest on record I can find a news article that says the opposite. So which is it. The warmest or the Coldest or is it just the earth's climate.
There are as many skeptics as there are believers and the thing is, for the exact same dates you can find news articles support both. However most Climateologists say it's all a bunch of hooie.
Forget news articles I deal in facts and the fact is the in Europe and most other places in the world you can find accurate tempratures going back hundreds of years 1659 for the UK you just need the temp for say 2005 and you can tell exactly how hot it was compared to other years and thats how you tell people just don't make this stuff up maybe in AMerica but here we try to use hisrotical facts it an advantage of being a small little country.
Oh and while we are on the subject thes scientists you posted earlier they don't bleive in global warming but what are thier viw on temprature change it's just that Global warming is a small part of tempraure change.
Anyway Edward I call your bluff put up or shut up you say anything I find about the warm recordsyou can find something tht says the opposite right?
as you will see tha article I posted says that 2006 was the hottest year in the UK so you find me a legit article that says otherwise.
Edward Teach said this in post #20 : Bottom line is this...
I won't ask again, and I'll take your refusal to answer the question as your answer - meaning I'll presume you don't actually believe in what you're saying.
Seeing as you say we are not causing global warming, do you think we should bring pressure on governments all over the world to abandon their attempts to reduce carbon emissions?
btw - where do you get this idea that there are as many skeptics as there are scientists who agree with the emissions problem?
Edward Teach said this in post #20 : Bottom line is this, for every thing you find that says it was the warmest ever. Or warmest on record I can find a news article that says the opposite. So which is it. The warmest or the Coldest or is it just the earth's climate.
There are as many skeptics as there are believers and the thing is, for the exact same dates you can find news articles support both. However most Climateologists say it's all a bunch of hooie.
you might be able to find news articles but can you find scientific articles that say there is global cooling?
Edward Teach said this in post #5 : Good question! Personally I'm skeptical of the whole Global Warming thing. So the second part of your question is irrelevant.
This was your answer to lodgebo when he asked whether the skeptics are skeptical about global warming or its cause.
I am puzzled as to why you think the second part is irrelevant. The question of cause (whether naturally caused or not man-caused) is the centerpiece of the whole debate.
If there were no popular belief that manmade greenhouse gases are causing the destruction of the planet, all we would have is evidence of a 1 degree F. warming over the last 100 years. It would not even be a topic.
I won't ask again, and I'll take your refusal to answer the question as your answer - meaning I'll presume you don't actually believe in what you're saying.
Seeing as you say we are not causing global warming, do you think we should bring pressure on governments all over the world to abandon their attempts to reduce carbon emissions?
btw - where do you get this idea that there are as many skeptics as there are scientists who agree with the emissions problem?
quote:
Record cold in Australia
Eastern Australia hasn't seen this November cold for more than 100 years: it was the coldest November day in a century. Recall that "November" in Australian can be translated as "May" in the British or U.S. English. ;-) Nevertheless, they have had mushy snow in Canberra, a blast of Antarctic magic. A goosepimply, teeth-chattering Sydney has another reason to shake its collective head at the weather gods today.
It was the first November snow in Queensland since the records started in 1880. In fact, the latest snowfall registered on any year used to be on October 1st in 1941. Now it's November 16th, more than 45 days later.
you might be able to find news articles but can you find scientific articles that say there is global cooling?
quote:
Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling in 6-9 Years
Created: 25.08.2006 17:47 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 22:33 MSK
MosNews
Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory’s report says, the RIA Novosti news agency reported Friday.
Environmentalists and scientists warn not about the dangers of global warming provoked by man’s detrimental effect on the planet’s climate, but global cooling. Though never widely supported, it is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.
“On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century,” said the head of the space research sector.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century — when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland — could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.
He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because “climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries.”
“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.
“The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol,” Abdusamatov said.
This was your answer to lodgebo when he asked whether the skeptics are skeptical about global warming or its cause.
I am puzzled as to why you think the second part is irrelevant. The question of cause (whether naturally caused or not man-caused) is the centerpiece of the whole debate.
If there were no popular belief that manmade greenhouse gases are causing the destruction of the planet, all we would have is evidence of a 1 degree F. warming over the last 100 years. It would not even be a topic.
It's only relevant if you believe that Global Waming exists. If it doesn't exist then there is no cause.
I won't ask again, and I'll take your refusal to answer the question as your answer - meaning I'll presume you don't actually believe in what you're saying.
Seeing as you say we are not causing global warming, do you think we should bring pressure on governments all over the world to abandon their attempts to reduce carbon emissions?
btw - where do you get this idea that there are as many skeptics as there are scientists who agree with the emissions problem?
Yes I do believe in what I'm saying. Climatologist (you know those scientist who study the earths climate and PaleoClimatologist - the scientist who study Climate throughout history) are the ones saying that it's the earths warming and cooling cycle. And since they are the scientists who actually go to school for it I think we need to listen to what they are saying.
As far as putting pressure on governments to cut down on polutants sure I thijnk that is important.
I believe that there are actually more skeptics in the science community than there are believers. The IPCC had to really dig for some of thoes that they found. Oh and the ones that spoke out against it they got rid of. So naturally it's a biased study.
Edward Teach said this in post #27 : It's only relevant if you believe that Global Waming exists. If it doesn't exist then there is no cause.
Belief in whether global warming exists or not is irrelevant. It either exists or it doesn't. People's beliefs are meaningless.
How do we determine if there is global warming? By analyzing facts.
As for your article, I'm glad you found one, but I still must implore you to look at concrete facts.
Russia is the largest territory on the planet in terms of area. It is on the Eurasian continent, the largest landmass on the planet. There is this thing called continentality. Water tends to moderate the climate, solid land tends to make it extreme (think of Hawaii vs. Siberia).
The climate is a very complicated system. The effect of an increased greenhouse effect varies from place to place. Tropical latitudes will feel very little effect, polar regions will feel more.
Some places will have catastrohpic drought, others will have catastrohpic rainfall/flooding. Some places will warm up, others (like Siberia) will cool down.
The long-term effect of global warming is, ironically enough, global cooling. Continental areas like Siberia will be the first to feel this effect.
These are all things that are going to happen.
The only argument is whether this is a naturally occuring phenomenon or whether this is manmade. The fact that it is actually happening is pretty indisputable.
Scientists are analyzing the measurements they have taken and making long-term predictions.
They have various means for looking into the past, one example being analyzing layers of ice in glaciers. There appears to be a fairly regular cycle of global warming and then an ice-age for the earth. So ironically enough, global warming leads to an ice age.
The argument here is not that the Earth is going to go up in flames, it's simply that the environmental consequences of our industrial global culture is going to cause catastrophic climate change that is going to severly complicate our continued prosperity.
It really doesn't matter if it gets catastrophically colder or catastrophically warmer. It's catastrohpic: That is the issue here.
So the argument is not whether global warming is occuring or not, the argument is whether this is a "natural" or "manmade" phenomenon, and -- more importantly -- what can we do about it?
As Dekka00 says the debate isn't between whether or not global warming is happening, even co2 skeptics know temperature is rising fast. The debate is over what is causing it.
There was an interesting documentary on British TV called - The great global warming swindle - which has caused a bit of a stir amongst the media, scientists and the public. It stated that our carbon emissions have no effect on global warming and offered such things as sun spots and clouds as the reason for temperature rise and said it is all perfectly normal.
Edward Teach said this in post #27 : It's only relevant if you believe that Global Waming exists. If it doesn't exist then there is no cause.
There was a thing on the news last night Edward talking about how schoolikids in Scotland are being given classes on enviromental issues and the need for them to get both sidesof the arguement. Now they interviewed a skeptic a scientists from Stirling uni and he said that nearly all skeptics belive in global warming they just don't belive man is the cause they belive it's a cycle the earth may go through or a prolonged blast of heat from the sun. In his words " global warming is not in doubt but the causes are"
I want to clarify some things. There are two basic issues here.
1) Whether or not global warming is happening.
2) If it is happening, whether or not it is being caused by activities of man.
In the context of the current, popular, raging, worldwide debate, the term, “global warming” refers to global warming caused by activities of man. Nevertheless, the term “global warming” alone does not fully meet the definition within the context of the debate. So I always use the term, “manmade global warming” or MMGW when discussing whether mankind is causing global warming by creating greenhouse gases such as CO2. People who believe in MMGW have to believe that global warming exists, and that man is causing it (or causing it to some extent).
There are people who don’t believe in MMGW. Most of those people believe that global warming is happening, but that man is not causing it. And there are also people who simply believe that global warming does not exist, period.
All it takes to determine whether or not global warming is happening is the measurement of temperature over enough time, and in enough locations to indicate that it is a worldwide phenomena. We have enough data to show that the world climate has warmed slightly less than a one-degree-Fahrenheit average over the last 100 years. But even if it had warmed for only two years, it would still be global warming. It would just be a short trend. So the longer the trend, and the greater the temperature rise, the more significant it is in terms of impact. With the 100-year trend of 1-degree increase, clearly global warming is happening. It is not known how long it will continue or how much warmer it will get. It is also possible for a warming trend to reverse for a short time and reverse again to continue warming. So there can be cooling trends embedded within larger warming trends.
Not only is there scientific proof that global warming is happening, there is also scientific proof that global warming occurs in repeating cycles every 1500 years plus or minus 500 years. This scientific proof of the 1500-year warming cycles comes from ice cores, ocean sediments cores, stalagmites, tree rings, and human records. The evidence shows that the 1500-year cycle has been repeating for at least one million years.
Therefore, the debate of “global warming” is a debate as to whether there is global warming caused by man or whether there is simply naturally occurring global warming, as has occurred many times in the past. Scientific evidence shows that the last warming period (Little Climate Optimum) was warmer than this current warming trend, and yet the issue of manmade greenhouse gases did not exist then, so it could not have been the cause.
The long-term effect of global warming is, ironically enough, global cooling. Continental areas like Siberia will be the first to feel this effect.
These are all things that are going to happen.
The only argument is whether this is a naturally occuring phenomenon or whether this is manmade. The fact that it is actually happening is pretty indisputable.
Scientists are analyzing the measurements they have taken and making long-term predictions.
They have various means for looking into the past, one example being analyzing layers of ice in glaciers. There appears to be a fairly regular cycle of global warming and then an ice-age for the earth. So ironically enough, global warming leads to an ice age.
The argument here is not that the Earth is going to go up in flames, it's simply that the environmental consequences of our industrial global culture is going to cause catastrophic climate change that is going to severly complicate our continued prosperity.
It really doesn't matter if it gets catastrophically colder or catastrophically warmer. It's catastrohpic: That is the issue here.
So the argument is not whether global warming is occuring or not, the argument is whether this is a "natural" or "manmade" phenomenon, and -- more importantly -- what can we do about it?
Exactly, and is what I'm talking about. Global Warming has come to mean that MAN is causing it where in FACT it's a natural occurance and is going to happen no matter what we do or DON"T DO! So what I'm talking about is the misconception that it's man made.
Edward Teach said this in post #33 : Exactly, and is what I'm talking about. Global Warming has come to mean that MAN is causing it where in FACT it's a natural occurance and is going to happen no matter what we do or DON"T DO! So what I'm talking about is the misconception that it's man made.
Of course temperature change happens but something must cause the temperature change (whether natural or not) and one thing we know that does effect the temperature is an increase in co2 in the atmosphere. The debate is whether it is our co2 emissions that are speeding up the temperature rise and to a dangerous level.
Fact: we pump billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere every year.
Fact: the amount we pump into the atmosphere is rising.
Fact: co2 effects temperature, causing an increase (greenhouse effect).
How big or small an effect our emission are having is what the debate is about.
quote:
Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, so that Earth would be uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the greenhouse effect as such. Rather, the debate concerns the net effect of the addition of greenhouse gases when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.
It is an interesting debate and it is good and healthy that people are questioning the prevailing mood. As far as I can see it is a complicated science and all the public can do is see how the scientists argue this amongst themselves.
There are things happening in regard to temperature now that have not happened before. This from the BBC webite:
quote:
Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.
The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.
HECK! said this in post #35 : ET- since when is it a FACT that it's a natural thing?
-HECK!
There is a scientifically proven 1500-year (plus or minus 500 yr.) warming / cooling cycle that has been confirmed to have repeated for at least one million years. There is no proven cause for this repeating cycle, but sun spots are suspected.
In recent times these cycles have been named.
There was the Roman Warming, followed by the Dark Ages (cooling phase), followed by the Little Climate Optimum (or Medival Warming), followed by the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850. When the Little Ice Age ended, we began this current warming period called, the Modern Warming. For all we know, we could be on the verge of entering another cooling phase.
There is a scientifically proven 1500-year (plus or minus 500 yr.) warming / cooling cycle that has been confirmed to have repeated for at least one million years. There is no proven cause for this repeating cycle, but sun spots are suspected.
In recent times these cycles have been named.
There was the Roman Warming, followed by the Dark Ages (cooling phase), followed by the Little Climate Optimum (or Medival Warming), followed by the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850. When the Little Ice Age ended, we began this current warming period called, the Modern Warming. For all we know, we could be on the verge of entering another cooling phase.
Kind of relaxed on what we call "fact" these days, eh?
Once we get past the could-be's, let's remember the little FACT I brought up when this thread started...
quote:
HECK! said this in post #10 : 10 out of the last 14 years have been the hottest on record.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, if this is just a wacky coincidence, the fact we're poisoning the environment has to account for something.
-HECK!
Even if it is B.S. and everything is a natural thing, what's the big f'n problem? Are you trying to say all the harm we cause the planet is okay? Give me a break.
And regardless of what anyone thinks about those trying to bring this argument to light, bringing your own political diversions into it is really weak.
Of course temperature change happens but something must cause the temperature change (whether natural or not) and one thing we know that does effect the temperature is an increase in co2 in the atmosphere. The debate is whether it is our co2 emissions that are speeding up the temperature rise and to a dangerous level.
Of course something is causing it, it's called the SUN and the Rotation of our planet EARTH around the sun. When the Earth is closer to the Sun the temperature rises. When it's farther away it drops. It can take hundreds of years.
quote:
Fact: we pump billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere every year.
IS IT??? How can you differentiate between what man puts into the air vs what nature creates on its own.
quote:
Fact: the amount we pump into the atmosphere is rising.
Fact: co2 effects temperature, causing an increase (greenhouse effect).
Again when the Earth is closer to the SUN, radiation from the Sun causes more Co2 which in turn causes a temperature rise. The amount of Co2 produced by man is miniscule compared to what is produced by the Sun. When the Earth is farther away from the SUN the Co2 levels drop thus causing global cooling. If all of this was man made then we shouldn't have had a dust bowl in the 20's an Ice age. Melting of Glaciers over the years. By the way Glaciers have melted before. How do you think we got the Grand Canyon and the Great Lakes??? It was a melting of Glaciers many many years ago. Oh and there was no man made Co2 to cause it.
Bah, taking a the temperature in a particular city on a particular date means nothing. GLOBAL temperature is rising and a few degrees is a lot in terms of biological systems. If we were to change the temperature in your body a little, enzymes can stop functioning and you could die.
Your list above means nothing also, how many of those skeptics are climate scientists and the list in contrast is much larger. If you're using this list as some sort of argument, you're taking a statistically insignificant sample and then claiming, "Hey if less than 1% of this group says something, those are pretty high odds."
Edward Teach said this in post #38 : Of course something is causing it, it's called the SUN and the Rotation of our planet EARTH around the sun. When the Earth is closer to the Sun the temperature rises. When it's farther away it drops.
Actually it has more to do with the land mass facing the sun as the Earth tilts on its axis.
quote:
Edward Teach said this in post #38 :
[B]It can take hundreds of years. IS IT??? How can you differentiate between what man puts into the air vs what nature creates on its own. Again when the Earth is closer to the SUN, radiation from the Sun causes more Co2 which in turn causes a temperature rise. The amount of Co2 produced by man is miniscule compared to what is produced by the Sun. When the Earth is farther away from the SUN the Co2 levels drop thus causing global cooling.
Yes global temperature is periodic with the tilting of the Earth on its axis. However, the production of CO2 is outside of the nominal levels seen over thousands of years. The current levels of CO2 are unprecedented, mostly because you have carbon being released into the atmosphere from plants that have been dead for millions of years (fossil fuels). There is nothing usual about the current cycle, this is NOT periodic warming and cooling of the planet. Yes, the planet does cool and warm, but the rate this is occurring at is different and it is being influenced by the CO2 being pushed into the atmosphere, which is caused by us.
Edward Teach said this in post #38 :
[B]If all of this was man made then we shouldn't have had a dust bowl in the 20's an Ice age. Melting of Glaciers over the years. By the way Glaciers have melted before. How do you think we got the Grand Canyon and the Great Lakes??? It was a melting of Glaciers many many years ago. Oh and there was no man made Co2 to cause it.
This is just a straw man. No on is saying all the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made, no one ever suggested that. What is being said is that humans are contributing to global warming and accelerating it with the high production of CO2 that is unprecedented. If you look at our previous warm periods, CO2 levels weren't as high as they are now and the rate of warming was much slower. Again, many straw men from a mischaracterization of the science.
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN. THE POINT IS MAN IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS OCCURRING. THE CURRENT WARMING TREND IS NOT PART OF A NATURAL CYCLE.
Inner City Blues said this in post #41 : Let's get one straw man out of the way.
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN. THE POINT IS MAN IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS OCCURRING. THE CURRENT WARMING TREND IS NOT PART OF A NATURAL CYCLE.
Let's put the scarecrows away.
You first say that no one is saying that global warming is caused by man, but man is having an effect on the rate that it is occurring. I take that to mean that man is causing some additional amount of global warming over what would occur naturally. But then you say the current warming trend is not part of a natural cycle, which must mean that it is entirely caused by man.
How can the entire warming trend be caused by man, while only a portion of global warming is caused by man???
EUCLID said this in post #42 : How can the entire warming trend be caused by man, while only a portion of global warming is caused by man???
No-one is saying humans are causing the "entire" warming trend? It's simply the increase above the amount we could normally expect or call natural that is of concern, and that the scientists say is down to c02 emissions.
I don't see why this is hard to understand. CO2 levels are higher than the natural cycle, thus having an effect on the rate of warming of the planet. If a process that takes several centuries to occur suddenly happens at half or a quarter of that rate, the natural rhythm has changed. As it turns out, we're pushing this by pushing CO2 emissions outside the normal levels. Trying to turn this into declarative statements about "Man causes global warming" or "Man doesn't cause global warming" is ridiculous because it is diversion from the issue. We're messing with the rate of change and hurting the environment in the process. Rapid changes never goes over well, just ask the dinosaurs.
And trying to say man causes the entire trend of global warming is yet again a straw man.
No-one is saying humans are causing the "entire" warming trend?
ICB said it in post #41, but also said the opposite in post #41. I am not sure what ICB meant, and I am also not sure what you mean when you place a question mark after your above statement. But it seems like we are getting tangled up in words.
There is no question in my mind what the debate is about. I can understand the disagreement that drives the debate, but I fail to understand how there can be disagreement over what the debate is about.
It seems that all three of us agree that there is a natural warming trend occurring. You and ICB would contend that man's activities are adding warming to the naturally occurring warming trend.
But how can anyone determine that part of the warming is caused by man?
Is is because man produces CO2, and CO2 causes warming?
CO2 also gets consumed by vegetation. In fact, vegetatiion increases when given more CO2. How do you know that CO2 added by man is not getting consumed, and therefore, not increasing the overall amount of CO2?
CO2 causes warming, but also, warming causes an increase in CO2.
How do you know that the increase in CO2 is not being caused by the natural warming that you say is occurring?
If a cycle reaches its ceiling at 300ppm and now it's well over that, the natural cycle is off. We are causing that because we're putting out a lot of CO2. Another thing that is being ignored is that there is an increase in desertification and logging, so trying to point to vegetation is inaccurate, it is not consuming more CO2. If it was, levels wouldn't be so high and there is also a ceiling on consumption, it's not exponential. Biological systems are not exponential, unless of course you're injecting something new into the system, something new like the consumption of fossil fuels.
The thing I hate most about this "debate" is people trying to argue while ignoring the data. In addition, some of the arguments I see are clearly made without taking into account even the most basic science. CO2 consumption comes to mind. If I have 5 plants, they will only be able to consume CO2 up to a certain level.
Inner City Blues said this in post #47 : If a cycle reaches its ceiling at 300ppm and now it's well over that, the natural cycle is off. We are causing that because we're putting out a lot of CO2. Another thing that is being ignored is that there is an increase in desertification and logging, so trying to point to vegetation is inaccurate, it is not consuming more CO2. If it was, levels wouldn't be so high and there is also a ceiling on consumption, it's not exponential. Biological systems are not exponential, unless of course you're injecting something new into the system, something new like the consumption of fossil fuels.
The thing I hate most about this "debate" is people trying to argue while ignoring the data. In addition, some of the arguments I see are clearly made without taking into account even the most basic science. CO2 consumption comes to mind. If I have 5 plants, they will only be able to consume CO2 up to a certain level.
Yes, but if the CO2 continues to rise above that level, a sixth plant will come along, and then a seventh, etc. And all the plants will get bigger besides. CO2 works like fertilizer.
It is true that man is adding CO2 and that CO2 is getting used up by plants. However, just because there is a measurement of increased atmospheric CO2 does not mean that it represents the portion added by man.
The majority of earth's CO2 is "locked up" in the oceans. Any natural warming also warms the oceans, which then release some of their CO2. That release adds to the measure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So warming increases CO2, therefore the increase in CO2 may be caused by a natural warming cycle, rather than being the result of man. So both the increase in warming and the increase in CO2 may be the result of a natural cause.
And regardless of what anyone thinks about those trying to bring this argument to light, bringing your own political diversions into it is really weak.
EUCLID said this in post #48 : Yes, but if the CO2 continues to rise above that level, a sixth plant will come along, and then a seventh, etc. And all the plants will get bigger besides. CO2 works like fertilizer.
Every year we pump billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere, and cut down huge areas of rain forest. In recent years there has been an "unprecedented" rise in amounts of co2 in the atmosphere.
unprecedented in this context means without previous instance; never before known or experienced.
Global warming deniers are definitely the new creationists. They use poor, incomplete, and incorrect science to make a point. As soon as you knock down one falsehood, another arises...
Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the concentration of CO2 in the oceans, which makes oceans more acidic. Our increased output of CO2 is being absorbed into the oceans, and thus it threatens marine life. There's a reason why we may see coral around the world disappear in the next 50 years, the oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb more manmade CO2 emissions.
Inner City Blues said this in post #51 : Global warming deniers are definitely the new creationists.
I wonder how sure the proponents of their scientific position can be when they have to ban the debate, and stereotype and label their critics as deniers. Since when has science gotten so intolerant to criticism? You compare the deniers to creationists, but the so-called science pushing this phony MMGW agenda sounds a lot more like a religion than science. You said in another post that science must be falsifiable, yet you are sounding like the MMGW science must not be questioned.
I wonder how sure the proponents of their scientific position can be when they have to ban the debate, and stereotype and label their critics as deniers. Since when has science gotten so intolerant to criticism? You compare the deniers to creationists, but the so-called science pushing this phony MMGW agenda sounds a lot more like a religion than science. You said in another post that science must be falsifiable, yet you are sounding like the MMGW science must not be questioned.
You should call a duck a duck. Science debates by using data, evidence, reproducibility, and peer review. Global warming deniers are angered because their scientific findings are incorrect or they have already been refuted. So they move on to claiming they are victims. Oh, the sun is causing th warming, actually there is no indicator of that. The plants are consuming all the CO2 (as part of some convoluted argument), but again, the data and evidence show that is not true. Oceans are responsible for warming, again not true. This goes back to the definition of a theory. Many deniers seem to confuse their poor hypotheses with theory when they don't even have any theories.
Debate in science occurs when you have valid findings. All science must be falsifiable, but you haven't presented anything that would falsify the current theory on global warming. Evolutionary science has the same type of people that present "evidence," which is summarily refuted and dismissed. Your arguments are dismissed because they are non-existent (cosmic ray warming), incorrect (oceans actually absorb CO2 from emissions), and plain old ignoring the data (claiming this is a natural cycle despite the natural cycle not being followed). If you're going to attempt to play the victim, be my guest, but this is nothing new, when they can't bring anything to the table, there is an attempt to turn this into a political debate. You can't just say science requires debate and bring up arguments that are PRATTs or ignorant of the science.
But now I think we're on the expected route, the science will take a backseat so we can talk about the religion that evolutionary science, the religion that is the theory of gravity, the religion that is plate tectonics, the religion that global warming is. I think it's time I lobby for the flying spaghetti monster theory, it was never given a chance...
The facts are that the facts don't support the Global Warming as a problem that man needs or can to take care of or solve. The facts more closely support a Natural Climate Cycle that man can not change.
Modern man has tried before to change the Earths climate to no success. There is absolutly no way to stop what is happening including reducing the amount of muck man puts in the air or in the ground or in the water.
IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND THERE AINT NOTHIN MAN CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!
Sure there are a lot of things we need to do. Cut down on emissions, cut down on polution of our ground and water. Stop clearing cutting our forests.
Edward Teach said this in post #54 : The facts are that the facts don't support the Global Warming as a problem that man needs or can to take care of or solve. The facts more closely support a Natural Climate Cycle that man can not change.
Why do you keep calling what is going on natural? On the contrary, the facts support the exact opposite. The facts support an UNNATURAL speeding up in temperature coinciding with an UNNATURAL amount of co2 in the atmosphere.
The skeptics simply need to find a scientific explanation for this unnatural rise in co2 and the unnatural speed increase in temperature rise. Then they simply need to convince the majority of scientists that they are correct. So far they have failed to convince the majority of people on the planet, and the majority of governments around the world, and only succeeding in convincing you, and the Bush administration.
Interesting article below, explaining why the skeptics are forcing the scientific community to ask the wrong question: "It also diverts the attention of the media, the public and policymakers from the most important question, which is not whether global warming projections will come true but whether we will be prepared to deal with the consequences if they do."
quote:
The demand for proof that global warming was happening, that human activities were causing it and that it would have negative consequences was a key strategy which the skeptics deployed very effectively. The inevitable and unavoidable existence of scientific uncertainty is the fuel that powers disputes over global warming. It's an effective mechanism for diverting the energies of the scientific community into unproductive wrangling over what is, ultimately, the wrong question.
h@ts said this in post #57 : Interesting article below, explaining why the skeptics are forcing the scientific community to ask the wrong question:
OK so we should stop asking the question about whether it is true, but rather, ask what action we should take in case it is true. Well my question is this: What is the action that we are supposed to take? There seems to be a disconnect over that question.
Why is there such defensiveness among the proponents over the fact that not every last person will jump on their belief bandwagon? Why do they care what we believe?
It seems as if they have some kind of MMGW remedy up their sleeve that will be so draconian that they dare not divulge it until every last person agrees that it is necessary.
They proclaim this dire warning, demand we take action to prevent the catstophe, and then tell us we can prevent the destruction of the planet by unplugging our battery chargers at night, changing light, bulbs, and not using plastic bags.
Yet if I propose for consideration, a remedy that matches the threat, I am accused of hyperbole.
So the warning is of a huge threat. Is the remedy huge as well, or is it piddly stuff that is easy?
I would like to hear the MMGW proponents tell me what they are doing to combat MMGW other than lecturing the skeptics.
You're right EUCLID, we should just ignore you since you're no different than skeptics of evolutionary theory. We would be able to ignore you if people like you didn't fight to maintain the status quo when it comes to pollution. Much like the deniers of evolution, you have to deal with them when they try to change the curriculum.
----
I must say h@ts, that was an excellent article, but kind of mirrors what I was saying, there is an attempt to change what science is and turn it into a political and legalistic debate. Along with trying to water down definitions, like theory as it relates to science, there is a push to deflect from the debate.
----
Oh and by the way, if you have light bulbs that use 20% the energy of the current crop of light bulbs, moving to widespread usage of this new light bulb will have a significant impact. But that is one of many moves that can be made. You can also move to cut emissions, and not roll back standards, as the Bush administration has done, and also prosecute those that willfully pollute the environment, as the Bush administration has neglected to do. There are many things that can be done and it will be easier to implement when people stop denying things based on political ideology. It seems that just because liberals are supportive of environmental and conservationist policies, conservatives want to be skeptical.
But I'm still waiting to hear about the great conspiracy among all the scientists out there to turn the "junk science" of global warming into a reality.
This whole MMGW debate is on the front burner because of Gore’s movie, and his testimony before congress yesterday. But I think this sudden force-feeding is likely to produce a public backlash. From what I can tell, the tide of skepticism is rising as we are lectured about our destructive lifestyles. The level of hysteria about imminent destruction of the planet simply does not match the simplistic solution of changing our light bulbs. It doesn't pass the common sense test.
More and more skeptical scientists are being drawn into the debate, likely leading to the ultimate falsification of Gore’s theory of MMGW. It is telling that Gore is referred to as an evangelist .
EUCLID said this in post #62 :
This whole MMGW debate is on the front burner because of Gore’s movie, and his testimony before congress yesterday.
This is something that has been steadily growing for decades. It's only recently, since the science could back up the fears, that it has started to hit home to people how serious a problem it could be.
quote:
But I think this sudden force-feeding is likely to produce a public backlash.
Maybe so, but governments are passing laws, and changing policy. So backlash or not - if you can only buy an efficient lightbulb or pay through the nose to drive a big car, what are you going to do?
quote:
From what I can tell, the tide of skepticism is rising as we are lectured about our destructive lifestyles. The level of hysteria about imminent destruction of the planet simply does not match the simplistic solution of changing our light bulbs.
How and where is it rising? It appears to me to in fact be going the other way. In the UK things
