Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
That's not strictly true. The graph shows such increase from 1800 onwards, while it shows a huge decrease and a huge increase (before and after 1800), with no similar change in CO2.
And, any graph is potentially misleading. So let's put it another way: what evidence are you aware of CO2 causing the current warming? And what do you think about the majority of scientists who do not seem to endorse the theory that GW is man-caused?
Year to year the temperature will rise and fall. That is easy to see, what you are looking for is trends. There have always been a dryer year or hotter year or colder year or wetter year, but you need to look at decades or more. You need to look for trends. That graph clearly shows the temperature and CO2 rising.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gass? You obviously do not dispute that CO2 levels are rising.
That article you linked to does not bare reading. Anything regarding Inhofe is usually a load of steaming used grass.
The raising and falling of temperature around 1800, where CO2 was not changing along with temperature are of 25 years each, and this is obtained by taking an 11 year average (as the graph says), so in fact it is 36 years each. Is that "decades or more", or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
No, I don't dispute that. I also don't dispute that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and its amount in the atmosphere is hugely bigger than that of CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
And you know that before reading, what an objective person you are. The article, whether you read it or not, quotes a scientific paper, written by a certain Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, and the article has been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment.
Because you are so "objective" and you won't read it, I'll summarize for you:
Quote:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7% ;) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
This is simple tinchote. If the scientists don't support man-made global warming, then they are reaping huge profits from industries that create COČ, are all idiots, cannot read graphs and charts, have an evil desire to bring about the end of the world and/or are full of pooh.
If man is the cause of global warming and climate change, enlighten me as to how and why the climate has changed so many times over the course of it's history prior to the industrialization of man.
Who cares about the climate change. Climate could fluctuate as much as it wants to, our task is to play by the rules of Nature, not to expect how, when, how much climate should change. Some people seem to have forgotten that we are also part of nature. It's not just that we depend on each other, but what we do to our earth is what we do to ourselves.
I don't quite understand why the mainstream term is "global warming". Is it because this is something you can measure, make fancy scales. Make nice tools for politicians to hold the illusion of them knowing everything and keep people under control i.e. from thinking by themselves.
For sure the Earth is mightily polluted and quite beat up. Hundreds of years worth of industrial debris can't just disappear without leaving a mark. I don't think increase of deserts and decrease of rain forests are natural cycles; them to be natural would take a lot more time, barring things like huge volcano eruptions. Add there shortage of clean drinking water, decline of fish in oceans plus social things like poverty and there it is.
I could ramble on but I think I'd stop here. Ah, conclusion, you ask? Sure: global warming: dunno, really, it's hard to get your hands on an authentic study that's not been funded by some company(or political group) with vested interest. And as tinchote said in some earlier thread, statistics can show almost everything you want them to show; so I wouldn't really trust any of those charts(often contradicting each other, maybe sometimes even themselves?!). As Rollo said earlier, people won't care until not doing it would dent their wallet. This whole global warming thing is quite made into a joke, no wonder so few people take it seriously.
//wheew, that was long! :D
Ok maybe I will go down another track: what do you believe is causing global warming?Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas, however its effectis short term. CO2 will stay in the atmosphere much longer that CO2 will. An increase in global temps will also increase the water vapour in the air.
Lol, I said the article was not worth reading, I did not say I did not read the article. The article regards a survey load of misinformation that has already been debunked several times. If you need a hand with it, better look here http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfrui...to_schulte.php
This is a response to the article by the author of the original survey.
Another thing to consider is that your good Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte is a medical researcher.
Hope that helps.
Meanwhile, the question begs to be answered, what has caused all the earth's climate changes prior to the industrialization of man?
Nature. Nature's nature. It's the nature of the climate to change from time to time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Perfectly logical. :p
A range of things dude. From extremely large volcanic eruptions to meteroic impacts, even evolution itself. Solar activity will probably have affected it too. There are natural cycles to global warming and chilling, and I am not saying that the current global warming is partly a natural occurance. The problem with the effect we are having on the planet is the speed of the global warming. We are pushing things too far too quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
There are peaks and troughs in temperature (which strangely enough are mirrored by those in solar irradiance) and a steady rise in CO2 that just doesn't reflect this over any discernable period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H