Still doesn’t tell me much. This is still just someone saying something. Why should I believe this picture? I really don’t feel like putting the work into it, but if you are a little bit familiar with Photoshop you will know that I can take that image and simply turn that spike around and change the word ‘Rise’ to ‘Drop.’

As I said, and as I tried to indicate this with the neo-Nazi reference, just one source, just one picture, just one 'here, look at this’ is no evidence. If you only get one piece of evidence, that evidence is always absolutely clear and all saying. But where is the reference? Where is the source of the picture? Where is the underlying study? Where is the second, independent counter study? Preferably done even by a different country?

This is nothing more than one course claiming something. This is nothing more than Colin Powell standing in front of the United Nations with all this so overly obvious evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

And then, again, who is to say that it never happened before? Just because it didn’t happen in the last half million years, who is the say that it didn’t happen before that? Dinosaurs also didn’t walk on the Earth in the last half million years. Does that mean that they never existed? Well, no, since we have all this clear evidence that they did exist. They can find dinosaur bones, that means that they can find fossils and obviously dirt and rocks from that exact time. Why not study that and then tell us how the air was then? I have seen on Discovery how they can take small fossilized shell animals from around that time and test their shells and see what the living conditions were when they were alive. Why not do that?

It didn’t happen in half a million years?
On the scale of the time that Earth exists that is the same as watching 1 minute on a shop security tape and then when you see no break in saying ‘here is absolute proof that nobody broke into the store in the last 24 hours.’

Or how about this one? If a cop clocks you speeding today at 90mph, and he does the same tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that. He then has clear evidence that you were speeding at exactly the same speed four days in a row, how would you feel if he then said, ‘well, you were speeding at 90mph for four days now, because this is clear evidence that you always speed, I’m also going to write you a ticket for every day of the last year as well. Would you then say ‘you know, you are probably right.’ Or would you say ‘first proof it.’

And on that note, again, just one study ‘claiming’ something is no evidence; it’s just a claim.

Mind you, I’m not saying this isn’t true; it might very well be. All I’m saying is that it isn’t enough evidence. It doesn’t proof that it never happened before, and it doesn’t proof that the story is absolutely correct. Who knows, maybe that spike is nothing more than the result of someone accidentally writing down one zero too much, or forgetting a comma. Like 300, oeps, that was supposed to be 30,0.
(Alright, that’s just joking, I assume that they checked and crosschecked their data. )

H.W.

so some of you think the world can handel the increase of pulution we are putting out?

But i see no point in debating this any more we have the evidance and more and more people are getting the msg. The people who dont understand the diffracnce proof and belife. Its proved that man is a big cource. So the thing is what you belice the consequance is.

quote:

Originally posted by smith-b-d:
This was never implied, it was never my intention to imply that what happens in one area happens in all, or that australias been the only place to do research. However according to our news alot of the research into global warming is been headed by australian research teams, and also according to our news the first actual research initiative (as opposed to just scientific speculation or aka just the opinions of some guy) into global warming has only just reciently begun around about september last year. Another first:Dated: Friday Mar 2 16:24 AED.

Can you backup these claims about previous research into global warming, a quick search in google showed nothing, nothing that wasnt just speculation or biased opinions.

The Faroese news also claim that our research that's ben done the last 10 years is among the very best in the world. For some resaon I doubt that is true, but it sure does sell better than if we don't have anything at all to do with it... Probably the same in your place.
I've read about that before they've had several researchs like that before, isn't only the very plausible and scientifically correct Day After Tomorrow that they do that in. All those researchs show that more CO2 = more heath. The only question is what came first, since more CO2 most likely means more heath, and more heath means more CO2 since the frozen CO2 gets out and the ocean and forests release more of it's CO2 than normally.

Actually I have two problems regarding sources. Most of them are in Danish, Faroese, German or Norsh. I know where to find the Danish ones online, but the rest is all magazines and books, so... it's a bit hard to find them.- I don't really trust the internet. To easy to manipulate the results, and harder to check the truth behind everything.
And in order to find them I've got to use google, and that site only shows the most popular places which either means it's the ones with most money or the ones with the most controversial claims, since those are the most popular sites. Neither of those are what I would characterize as believable, whereas libraries and the more serious magazines give you facts and figures.

quote:

quote:

From 'an inconcievable truth':
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050

Statements such as these are a huge heap of bullsh_t, there are 1.2 million recorded species on this planet, none of them are effected in the temperature changes suggested if you look at the temperature ranges they can survive in and campare them thier current evironments temperature (It is known a penguin can live between -60c & +30c, the average temerature of earth is only 14c... so even if global temperature were to rise by 26c there will still be a suitable habitate for penguins to live). Fish and other sea animals are the only creatures effected by such small temperature changes as they have suggested, but as anyone who has owned fish as pets knows they adjust if the changes are slow not instantainious... e.g. lobsters can survive up to increadible temperatures by doing this. Also species dont survive off a single diet e.g. mosquitoes can live off blood or pollen it makes not difference to them what type of plant or animal it comes from, does a lion care if it feeds off a human, goat or pig... no it couldn't care less, meats meat with the occaisional expection such as snake or tortious.. both of which can be either extremely poisionious or diseased.
Also one thing that has been indirectly learned through the introduction of species to new environments is that if you remove one animal the others thrive even better, this is because when you remove a species you are removing the preditor of another species alowing it to breed more & thus provide more food for its other preditors and so all other species make up for the loss of one, the environment balances itself better than we ever could.

I've never seen the movie, but that does indeed sounds like bull****. However, I do not agree completely with the rest of your post.
Some animals might, at first, easily survive the changes. However that is far from true with the rest. Such a basic thing as plankton

quote:

Plankton are defined as any drifting organism that inhabits the water column of oceans, seas, and bodies of fresh water. They are widely considered to be some of the most important organisms on Earth, due to the food supply they provide to most aquatic life.

From the "very" believable internet site called wikipedia or something like that...

And further:

quote:

While some forms of plankton are capable of independent movement and can swim up to several hundreds of meters vertically in a single day (a behavior called diel vertical migration), their horizontal position is primarily determined by currents in the body of water they inhabit. By definition, organisms classified as "plankton" are unable to resist ocean currents.

And one thing that is 100% sure is that the ocean currents are changing. If it's just the normal thing, see my earlier post, or if it is because the world is getting warmer due to humans we don't know. But we do know, that if it is getting warmer, then the biggest current, again wikipedia, is going down because the fresh water from ice that drives it is going down. First it'll be pushed closer together because there is more fresh water, and later it'll seize since the ice is gone. The would mean that the plankton won't be able to move, but that's not the onyl problem according to the wikipedia article and any book I've read about it.

quote:

A secondary source of variability is that of nutrient availability. Although large areas of the tropical and sub-tropical oceans have abundant light, they experience relatively low primary production because of the poor availability of nutrients such as nitrate, phosphate and silicate. This is a product of large-scale ocean circulation and stratification of the water column. In such regions, primary production, still usually occurs at greater depth, although at a reduced level (because of reduced light).

So no currents = no plankton. Most likely other currents will come in time, probably not so strong or global though, but how will the fish know where the cold and warm currents come together? and how should the animals at the coastlines follow the seaanimals or plants they use to eat? If that happens, then that'll mean scientiffical and Disneycial (as in Disneyficiatin, all the poor animals die) disaster. Ofcourse they'll get back in time, and were to weak to survive, but for some reason it still feels wrong to maybe kill billions of animals. and atleast a few thousand species.
Ofocurse there is also the problem that we've got no idea what'll come instead, and what should replace the food sources (fish) untill whatever comes instead comes.
And that is jsut because of the plankton which will move/die. There are, unfortunatly, also other species like that. And history has shon us, perhaps especially in Australia? That we don't know what the species do untill they are gone.
- Plankton does by the way also like to consume CO2, so if they disapear or decrease we'll be in even more trouble. Some even say they devour way more than forests.

quote:

Oh really, were you there? do you have pictures or proof? pfftt, thought not... whether this is true or not i dont care, at the moment no ones convincing me of anything when they cannot back up there arguments without so much as a quote or reference... its nothing personal & im not calling you a liar or anything, i just once had a b_tch m_stress of a teacher(and researcher) once that really knew her stuff an rammed into me just how important quote & references are when trying to make a point.

Actually I only was there the lst time. It was pretty funny, we could always play in the snow, but it got kinda boring. So after some time I found myself a cave under the ice and went to sleep
Nah, more seriously, here is again a reference to Wikipedia, you can go look for yourself and check their sources if you don't believe me:

quote:

Evidence for ice ages
There are three main types of evidence for ice ages: geological, chemical, and paleontological. Geological evidence for ice ages comes in various forms, including rock scouring and scratching, glacial moraines, drumlins, valley cutting, and the deposition of till or tillites and glacial erratics. Successive glaciations tend to distort and erase the geological evidence, making it difficult to interpret. It took some time for the current theory to be worked out.

The chemical evidence mainly consists of variations in the ratios of isotopes in sedimentary rocks, ocean sediment cores, and for the most recent glacial periods, ice cores. This evidence is also difficult to interpret since other factors can change isotope ratios. For example a major mass extinction increases the proportion of lighter isotopes in sediments and ice because biological processes preferentially use lighter isotopes and a reduction in biological processes makes larger quantities of lighter isotopes available for deposition.

The paleontological evidence consists of changes in the geographical distribution of fossils - during a glacial period cold-adapted organisms spread into lower latitudes, and organisms that prefer warmer conditions become extinct or are squeezed into lower latitudes. This evidence is also difficult to interpret because it requires: (1) sequences of sediments which cover a long time-span and wide range of latitudes and are easily correlated, (2) ancient organisms which survive for several million years without change and whose temperature preferences are easily diagnosed, and (3) the finding of the relevant fossils, which requires a lot of luck.

Despite the difficulties, analyses of ice cores and ocean sediment cores unambiguously show the record of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years. These also confirm the linkage between ice ages and continental crust phenomena such as glacial moraines, drumlins, and glacial erratics. Hence the continental crust phenomena are accepted as good evidence of earlier ice ages when they are found in layers created much earlier than the time range for which ice cores and ocean sediment cores are available.


[edit] Major ice ages
There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past. The earliest hypothesized ice age is believed to have occurred around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.

The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 800 to 600 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent sea ice extended to or very near the equator. It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Cambrian Explosion, though this theory is recent and controversial.

A minor ice age occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician Period. There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.


Sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and interglacials during the last several million years.The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica. It intensified during the Pleistocene (starting around 3 million years ago) with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales. The last glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago.

It was the earliest one, the snow ball icea age, I refered too.



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

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

@ alias-hw

I don't dispute the fact that numbers and facts can be altered. Yes I only posted one simple graph. There is tons more data out there. And yes, you could just as easily state that this data is altered too. If you want to maintain the stance that this is some political agenda and that global warming isn't real, then nothing I say or post would change that. But don't assume that there isn't acurate data or large enough amounts of data. There is. There's an overabundance of it actually. And people with agendas can make that data look like they want it to and to back up their claims.

But regardless of all of that, there's one undisputed truth here. The CO2 emissions of people worldwide had skyrocketed over the past 100 years. The number of plants/trees worldwide has plummetted over the past 100 years. You do the math. The worldwide ecosystem is a very delicate balance. It doesn't take much to alter that balance into a very unpreditable result. But this one isn't unpredictable. When the atmosphere gains an overabundance of CO2 in the air, the radiant heat that the sun brings to earth can't escape the atmosphere. Hence, the hot air gets trapped in our atmosphere. There is a direct correlation between the rise in Co2 levels and the rise in worldwide temperatures. This is fact. Undisputed fact. Yes there have been ice ages in the past and yes I'm sure there have been trends of global warming in the past. However, if the levels of Co2 rise as they have the past 100 years, what do you think that direct correlation will be in the worldwide temperatures? I'm sorry, but people can spin this anyway they want to, but it remains an indisputable fact that the Co2 levels have hit record numbers. It's also undisputed fact that in the past 20 years, we've seen more than 10 of the hottest average worldwide yearly temperatures EVER. Just a coincidence? Highly unlikely.

So like I said, there's tons of data out there, but no I'm not going to dig it all up just to prove a point. I do have a life. :O) It's out there, just look for it. Remain skeptical. That's the best way to filter out fact from fiction. Just take the problem seriously. And whether you believe the truthfulness of the film or not, I still highly recommend that everyone see it. If nothing else, it makes you think about these problems on a GLOBAL scale.


~edit~ And in regards to your comment about checking the air quality/temperature in the age of the dinosaurs....they did. They've taken ice core samples from glaciers which contain minute traces that can tell scientists not only what the air quality was like during that time-frame, but also the temperatue of that air. This isn't just one group doing these studies. This isn't just Al Gore and his group of cronies. These are worldwide scientists from dozens of different countries.

They did not get quite back to the age of the dinosaurs with that. There they use stone and ancient dirth.

And I will return to combat the evil Alias

Speaking of political agendas, it is worth to consider motivations.
First of all, it is not the politicians who made up all those facts about the enviromental changes. It's the scientists.
Why would the scientists, who are often funded by industrial concerns, who invented most of the things that caused the global warming in the first place, have an agenda to trick people into believing that there is global warming?

On the other hand, there are LOTS of people who have very good reasons to have an agenda to fool people into believing there is NOT any global warming at all. Oil companies. Bush(whose election campaign was sponsored by oil companies). Car companies. Just about anybody who earns ANY money on anything that adds to global warming. And politicians. You can get a lot of votes by saying: "Don't listen to those other guys who say you have to worry! Vote on me! Everything will be allright if you vote on me! You can keep your big car! You can waste as much energy as you like! Life is good! Vote on me!"

Practically all scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans and is a very serious issue.
Sure, most of the data is uncertain. It could be better than it seems. It could also be worse.

I could be lying about all this. Sure. But why would I?

quote:

Originally posted by znork:
so some of you think the world can handel the increase of pulution we are putting out?

But i see no point in debating this any more we have the evidance and more and more people are getting the msg. The people who dont understand the diffracnce proof and belife. Its proved that man is a big cource. So the thing is what you belice the consequance is.

I assume that you mean me with that as well, but then it’s misplaced. If you reread my posts you will find that I said that I worry very much about pollution, about the number of people on earth, about trees being cut down.

For me global warming and pollution are two different matters. The fact that there is a gas that has a baring on both categories doesn’t change the fact that it are indeed two categories.

I also stated that I think that there is no debating that global warming IS happening. All that I’m saying is that I still don’t see the absolute evidence that humans are the direct result of global warming.

It’s a fact that for every study that is shown there is also a counter study that proofs the first study wrong. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t change my mind on ONE study saying that it’s so. Also, don’t think that I want to stick to my opinion no matter what. This is just a forum and whether I agree or not, it won’t change a thing, so I can change my opinion here without there being any consequences. All that I’m saying that that I have an opinion, and if you (general you) want to convince me otherwise, you have to do just that; convince me.

Also, isn’t the whole point of a discussion to exchange opinions? Saying ‘I see no point is debating this anymore’ is not a debate; it’s a statement. More so because this is actually your first post in this topic and therefore you did not yet debate anything here. Therefore you can also not stop debating; you never started.

So why don't you actually do debate this? Why don’t you explain why you think humans are the reason? You say that there is a lot of evidence. But there is also a lot of evidence against, so did you form your opinion on the evidence you prefer and ignore the rest, or is there a clear reason you can state as to why you believe the one over the other?

H.W.

quote:

Originally posted by C_h_u_c_k_l_e_s:
@ alias-hw

I don't dispute the fact that numbers and facts can be altered. Yes I only posted one simple graph. There is tons more data out there. And yes, you could just as easily state that this data is altered too.

If I gave the impression that I meant that all evidence can be altered, then I apologize, that was not what I meant. What I meant is that I could just as easily show you some evidence that points the other way. At this point it would have come from me altering the picture, but what I was trying to get across what that you would not know the underlying data. You would not know if this study is a real study that took years, or just a ‘study’ that was done in one day by some ‘institute’ that got paid a million or two just to come up with some study about how co2 levels are actually dropping.

quote:

If you want to maintain the stance that this is some political agenda and that global warming isn't real,

Who, wait a minute. I never stated either of those. It was Smith that mentioned the political agenda. And second, I in fact clearly stated that I DO believe that global warming is happening. I even stated that the fact that global warming is happening is beyond debate. My point was, and is, where is the proof that this global warming is done by humans?
Where is the proof that clearly states that this is NOT nature by itself?

quote:

But don't assume that there isn't acurate data or large enough amounts of data. There is. There's an overabundance of it actually. And people with agendas can make that data look like they want it to and to back up their claims.

I don’t assume that there is no evidence. I know for a fact that there is. My whole point is what you said you self. Allow me to use your words:

And people with agendas can make that data look like they want it to and to back up their claims.

That is my point. Studies can be presented in all kinds of ways. If used enough words, shi* can be turned in to a highly valuated substance that is extremely well suited to make all kinds of plants grow good.

quote:

But regardless of all of that, there's one undisputed truth here. The CO2 emissions of people worldwide had skyrocketed over the past 100 years. The number of plants/trees worldwide has plummetted over the past 100 years.

That I fully agree with.

But my point is, again, just where is the proof that on a global scale this matters?
On discovery (on a different subject) a scientist mentioned that there is enough CO2 in the water of the oceans that if for some reason it was released all now than it would be enough to suffocate every animal (man included) on earth 4x over. That’s a lot, and that’s just in the water. When a volcano goes, that’s tons of CO2 as well. It's also in every rock in the world. That is my point. Where is the proof that the CO2 that we produce (which I don’t deny) weighs up against what nature herself does? Where is the proof that shows that all the CO2 produced my humans is more than, say, 1 tenth of a present of what nature herself produces when it goes through it’s normal changes. And again, keep in mind that normal changes can be before recorded history. The Medieval warm period I mentioned before wasn’t a fluke; it lasted 4 centuries. And I admit that I didn’t read all what was in that article but as far is I know there is no explanation for that warm period to date.

quote:

The worldwide ecosystem is a very delicate balance. It doesn't take much to alter that balance into a very unpreditable result. But this one isn't unpredictable. When the atmosphere gains an overabundance of CO2 in the air, the radiant heat that the sun brings to earth can't escape the atmosphere. Hence, the hot air gets trapped in our atmosphere. There is a direct correlation between the rise in Co2 levels and the rise in worldwide temperatures. This is fact. Undisputed fact.

That I fully agree with, but see my point about whether or not the CO2 we produce might mater on a global scale, or is it simply, say, more CO2 than normal escaping out of the ocean water for a perfectly normal natural reason?

quote:

Yes there have been ice ages in the past and yes I'm sure there have been trends of global warming in the past. However, if the levels of Co2 rise as they have the past 100 years, what do you think that direct correlation will be in the worldwide temperatures? I'm sorry, but people can spin this anyway they want to, but it remains an indisputable fact that the Co2 levels have hit record numbers.

Again, I do not at all dispute that we are on a fast track to global warming. It IS happening right now.

But where is the proof that CO2 levels are at a record number? Where is the proof that one million years ago the CO2 wasn’t twice as high as it is now (the one million is just a number.)

quote:

It's also undisputed fact that in the past 20 years, we've seen more than 10 of the hottest average worldwide yearly temperatures EVER. Just a coincidence? Highly unlikely.

Ever? You do know that they did find rests of tropical plant life on the north pole... um, south pole... um the one that actually has the land. So there is evidence that at least once in Earth’s history it was a lot warmer than it is now. Isn’t your ‘ever’ ‘ever’ in recorded history. Well, recorded history is, what? 5 thousand years? 10 thousand? As stated before, it has been said/proven that the earth climate has been relatively stable for the last 10 thousand years, which means that it was the same for recorded history, but not before.

quote:

Remain skeptical. That's the best way to filter out fact from fiction. Just take the problem seriously.

Oh, but I AM skeptical, don’t get me wrong. Truthfully I trust people that say ‘it’s all right’ about as far as would trust Bush when he would now say that they found weapons of mass destruction in Iran (yes, Iran.) In fact, I lean more towards the fact of indeed saying that we humans do play a part. My point is that I’m not convinced about how big humans part is. I’m not convinced either way.

Also, though not mentioned before, let me also add another reason why I don’t worry so much about global warming. As stated by us all, it HAS happened before, and clearly the world can take it and survive. Yes, parts on earth that bbecome livable or barren shift, but all in all the world can survive. But can we survive the pollution? Isn’t it a sad fact that in the ‘civilized’ world chemical have to be added to water just to make it drinkable. I remember as a kid playing in the forest and drinking this clear and tasty water from a little forest creek. I wouldn’t want to risk that nowadays, only 25 years later.

I also do take the problem seriously, don’t think that I’m dismissive of it.

Do I think that something should be done about CO2 emissions created by humans? Sure, but simply because it cannot hurt to start producing less. But I still don’t have any clear proof tat we HAVE to stop, or else.

BTW, another fun fact that I heard on Discovery, but I don’t know how true it is. Did you know that all the cows in the world actually produce twice as much CO2 as all the cars in the world. Why? Because a cow produces it (breathing, and excrement) 24/7. While a car is only used, on average, for 1 hour a day and stands unused for the rest of the day and therefore doesn’t produce any CO2.

So, if we would all become vegetarians, we could still drive our cars and still half air pollution.

quote:

~edit~ And in regards to your comment about checking the air quality/temperature in the age of the dinosaurs....they did. They've taken ice core samples from glaciers which contain minute traces that can tell scientists not only what the air quality was like during that time-frame, but also the temperatue of that air. This isn't just one group doing these studies. This isn't just Al Gore and his group of cronies. These are worldwide scientists from dozens of different countries.

So, if they did this study, then where is that report that does state that the CO2 levels we have now have never existed before in the last, say 100 million years?

Oh, and please, don’t take my ‘where is it’ as me literally asking you to surf the web for hours to find something. All that I’m saying is that it can be debated. You yourself said that there is evidence in both directions. As to how relievable that evidence is, now that is another matter. But fact is that for every study there is a counter study. It is up to the individual to see which study they believe more, and all that I’m saying is that I do NOT blindly trust studies that say that all is gloom and doom. Just as I do NOT believe the studies that say that all is perfect.

I still don’t see any undisputed proof that it’s humans that are the cause of global warming and not simply nature doing it’s thing.
As I said from the beginning; I see a clear line between global warming and pollution. And it might very well be that we kill every living thing on earth with pollution long before we would have any affect on global warming.

And lastly about Al Gore. I like the guy, don’t get me wrong. I truly wish that he had become the President because I truly believe that some very severe measures are needed to stop the pollution on Earth.


H.W.
(Who thinks that this might just be the longest post of him ever on this forum. )

no alias-hw i have not realy read youre post. And i dont suspect you of beeig stupid(to be on the safe side her: no im not calling anyone stupied, im not trying offend anyone, and i mean what i say i dont suspect alias-hw to be stupid. Sorry just had to be carfull her)

What im saying there is proffe that global warming is man made, the UN said so. Im not in to debatinf IF there is global warming and its man made. Im in to what is the consquvnece of global warming. And i think it not good, and i belive norway will come good out of global warming.

I belive we all have a job to do. We need to think about it. I belive ME as a farly well off norwegian has a bigger responseblitey then many of you. But we all need to do ouer part.

So alias-hw global warming is man made, you and me have to somthing about it.

Im chaning my light bulbs, im buying carboon sertificates for my hony moon. Im getting an hubrid car for my next car!

a;y belife is this do what you can it dosent take muche we just need to stop the sensless waste and use what we have smarter!


Ps since im farly wasted if you feel that i called anyone stupid or inderectly made that clame ill edit this post when im sober

Lol. No need for editing, I assure you.

quote:

Originally posted by Justice:
They did not get quite back to the age of the dinosaurs with that. There they use stone and ancient dirth.

Yes, I know. I was just trying to point out that they did go VERY far back. When you're talking millions of years, specific eras are just semantics. :O)

@ alias-hw

Sorry, I know you didn't specifically state some of those things. I was specifically responding to your statements and then I went into some general responses to average doubts about the validity of global warming. I was just too lazy to break everything out into separate quotes and such. I know you're a very logical and open-minded person....didn't mean to label you with one broad brush-stroke bud. Sorry.

And yes, my statement of "ever" was in terms of recorded history (or at least as far back as science has been able to detect).

I'd heard that fun-fact about the cows before. I got quite a kick out of it too. I also understand your statement about the Co2 from the oceans. But the Co2 from the oceanic evaporation has been going on forever, while the Co2 we've personally been generating the past 100 years or so has dramatically increased that output. The studies that they've done have been from testing the actual atmosphere (and from soil/ice-core samples as well). So all Co2 emissions should have been taken into account with that meathod. So it should be a fairly accurate recording of the percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere.

By the way, I haven't seen it in one of your posts yet (or I may have overlooked it)....have you seen this film yet? Or not? Just curious.

This will feel a lot more liek just copying what others have written than acutally doing something... But I guess that's what you watn since I'm no scientist.- I've only taken work that is spesifically said to be legal to copy.
I've also listed sources under each of the graphs and such, but only a few of them are of such a lenght, or quality, that they are worth the time to look them up.- I'll say which I find to be of such quality/lenght.

quote:

Originally posted by alias-hw:
Now, here’s my reasoning. If there have been 17 ice ages, logic dictates that there have also been 17 instances of global warming, otherwise the ice could not have melted. In that same part where they mentioned the ice ages they also said that in general the temperature on Earth has been very erratic, and only in the last 10 000 years has the temperature been relatively stable.

quote:

This graph shows the newest Ice Core data for Atmospheric CO2 from air bubbles in the ice. I tried to connect it to the glacial cycles by marking 230 ppm as a transition level and colored "glacial periods" blue and interglacial periods yellow. There's a clear 80,000-110,000 period of repeating glacier even if they vary in quality.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif )

quote:

This figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the left.

The first two curves shows local changes in temperature at two sites in Antarctica as derived from deuterium isotopic measurements (δD) on ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999). The final plot shows a reconstruction of global ice volume based on δ18O measurments on benthic foraminifera from a composite of globally distributed sediment cores and is scaled to match the scale of fluctuations in Antarctic temperature (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). Note that changes in global ice volume and changes in Antarctic temperature are highly correlated, so one is a good estimate of the other, but differences in the sediment record do not necessarily reflect differences in paleotemperature. Horizontal lines indicate modern temperatures and ice volume. Differences in the alignment of various features reflect dating uncertainty and do not indicate different timing at different sites.

The Antarctic temperature records indicate that the present interglacial is relatively cool compared to previous interglacials, at least at these sites. The Liesecki & Raymo (2005) sediment reconstruction does not indicate significant differences between modern ice volume and previous interglacials, though some other studies do report slightly lower ice volumes / higher sea levels during the 120 ka and 400 ka interglacials (Karner et al. 2001, Hearty and Kaufman 2000).

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png )

quote:

The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperatures, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. The inset plot compares the most recent two millennia of the average to other high resolution reconstructions of this period.

quote:

The following data sources were used in constructing the main plot:

(dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N.A.S. Beveridge, N.J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton (1995). "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675.
(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436.
(light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: Alley, R.B. (2000). "The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland". Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.
(green) Kilimanjaro ice core, δ18O, Eastern Central Africa: Thompson, L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis, K.A. Henderson, H.H. Brecher, V.S. Zagorodnov, T.A. Mashiotta, P.-N. Lin, V.N. Mikhalenko, D.R. Hardy, and J. Beer (2002). "Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa". Science 298 (5593): 589-593.
(yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: Lea, D.W., D.K. Pak, L.C. Peterson, and K.A. Hughen (2003). "Synchroneity of tropical and high-latitude Atlantic temperatures over the last glacial termination". Science 301 (5638): 1361-1364.
(orange) Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: B.A.S. Davis, S. Brewer, A.C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). "The temperature of Europe during the Holocene reconstructed from pollen data". Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1701-1716.
(red) EPICA ice core, interpreted site temperature, Central Antarctica: B. Stenni, J. Jouzel, V. Masson-Delmotte R. Roethlisberger, E. Castellano, O. Cattani, S. Falourd, S.J. Johnsen, A. Longinelli, J.P. Sachs, E. Selmo, R. Souchez, J.P. Steffensen, R. Udisti (2003). "A late-glacial high-resolution site and source temperature record derived from the EPICA Dome C isotope records (East Antarctica)". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217: 183-195. DOI:10.1038/nature02599
(dark red) Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L.D. Stott, K.G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G.H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). "Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch". Nature 431: 56-59.

This is one of the articles it might be an idea to follow up uppon, since it seems like one of the better ones, and he explains in details exactly why the graph is as it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

And unless you, or someone else, spesifically asks me to find sometihng older than 5 million years, this graph of the last 2000 years is the last one:

quote:

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years

quote:

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. DOI:10.1191/095968398667194956
(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. DOI:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. DOI:10.1029/2000JD900617
(light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. DOI:10.1126/science.1066208
(yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
(orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
(red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.

This is again one that's worth to check out, altohugh it is quite short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I'm not going to tell you what you should think about these graphs, since you always have shown yourself as a intelligent guy.- And I believe you'll want to think for yourself rather than hearing me say why this indicates that something is a bit stranger than usually.
If you want me to post my view of these graph though, then I'll gladly do so

quote:

Originally posted by alias-hw:
But even there you have to look at the word ‘relatively’ because even in relative recent history have there been quite severe changes. For instance, did you know that there was at least one time in Greenland’s history where there were lush lands and abundant wildlife? It was during that time that Vikings started to settle there. It is assumed that this is also the reason why they eventually disappeared there. Why? Because the Medieval warm period had ended.

I would just liek to point out that it also was during that period that the Faore Islands were inhabitated, although recent studies sow that people where here as early as 6000 or even 10.000 years ago, although the proofs are very vague and they left after some thousand years. And that it was during this time the vikings went to America or Vínland the changes were neither so big that Greenalnd was a lush and pleasant land. It was just less hostile, and it was possible for vikings to survie there.- It was also far enough away from their pursuers back in Norway.
That was neither the onyl period of that kind, far from actually. It is also believed that the Inuits went to Greenland in two or three periods like that, although those from the first either died or went to America.

quote:

Originally posted by alias-hw:
So, global warming has accrued and changed the livable places on earth long before Humans had the ability to leave a true impression behind on nature. And with that, let me bring the attention to the: Medieval warm period.

(no need ot quote the rest, the post is long enough as it is)

I believe most scientists are aware of that, but most of them again think this time it is a bit out of proportion.

Here is and article on normal greenhous effects, if anyone wonders esactly what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

This article sows how the opinions have changed over the last 15 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

This is a long article about Global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

This being the most shocking piece of info, atleast for me:

quote:

Ocean acidification
Main article: Ocean acidification
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans.[4] Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid resulting in ocean acidification. Since biosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this is a serious concern directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2 and not global warming.

And here is the last article I'll dig out. It explaind what are the msot likely causes, and why those are beleived to be most likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

So all in all, scientists have taken into account that the climate changes, and still a big majority says humans are most liekly the main culprit.

quote:

Originally posted by alias-hw:
I could go on, but work is once again calling. Just let me quickly add that during my Wiki search I also found that when a singe (big) volcano erupts that right there can change the entire world temperature. So, are we going to say that Volcanoes ar