Ice age data bolsters greenhouse gas, warming link
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
.
you might more accurately state the recent accumulation consists of some CO2 created from mans burning of fossil fuels.
the reason it accumulated is at best unknown for you... or because the earth is warming.
What caused the warming is the real question. How would you know if it were natural or not?
The vast majority of the recent CO2 rise is due to man burning fossil fuels. If you don't think this is true I suggest you do some reading. It's pretty basic science. This rise in CO2 (a greenhouse gas remember?) is the largest cause of the recent temperature rise. The oceans, although absorbing some of it (raising it's ph) cannot accomodate the huge amounts we're pumping into the air. We know quite well the reason it accumulated. Us.
I suggest you some reading on the basics of AGW because you seem very confused and frankly, ignorant about it. You may want to start here ....
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
The vast majority of the recent CO2 rise is due to man burning fossil fuels. If you don't think this is true I suggest you do some reading. It's pretty basic science. This rise in CO2 (a greenhouse gas remember?) is the largest cause of the recent temperature rise. The oceans, although absorbing some of it (lowering it's ph) cannot absorb the huge amounts we're pumping into the air. We know quite well the reason it accumulated. Us.
I suggest you some reading on the basics of AGW because you seem very confused and frankly, ignorant about it. You may want to start here ....
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Bump.
jem has become silent, but I guess NOAA is in on the conspiracy perpetrated by the vast, powerful green industry along with virtually every relevant scientist in the world. Wow that's some conspiracy.
They write this... without a stitch of support. Let me tell you something I once heard a judge say. When some says clearly, it is not clear at all. When someone says there is no debate, you can be sure they have a weak argument.
2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
This is garbage scientism.
Because a few questions later they admit... they know nothing for sure.
10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?
Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.
In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Without a stitch of support? Are you serious? How are you able to cross a street without getting hit by a bus with the blinders you have on ? Incredible. But you're a creationist so it's not too surprising that your logical mental faculties are limited.
No, they are sure about quite a bit. Not being completely sure about one minor aspect, which is at best a small influence compared to the forcing of greenhouse gases does NOT mean they sure about nothing. Science is NEVER completely sure. The only things completely sure are self-deluded dolts who cannot see the facts and are able to "have faith" that they are right.
Try again.
I have a 2 serious questions.
1)If the earth has warmed in the past and is warming now why does it matter?
2)Wouldn't be much easier to use technology to adapt than to think we can permanently control the whole earth's environment (within rigid constraints) like we do our living rooms?
I mean if you ask me the magnitude of hubris that must be believed to adopt the solutions of the AGW apologists is sheer madness.
We can't even prevent massive forest fires or hurricanes yet theses idiots think we can fine tune the whole earth's temperature
CO2 rises, temperature falls.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-cru-msu-co2.png?w=640
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-cru-msu-co2.png?w=640