Global cooling or global warming?

[Old Rocks]

This is a statement by the largest scientific society on earth, and it lists organizations that agree with it's position. Now, anybody out there have any scientific societies that say otherwise?


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Intergovernmental Panel

 

[edthecynic]

In 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists that triggered governments to do something about it or we'll live in the new ice age.

So typical of CON$, they can't even go one sentence without lying!
7 scientific articles supporting cooling out of 71 is a "consensus" to CON$ and 44 supporting warming out of 71 is a minority opinion.
Hell, there were 3 times as many neutral articles as cooling!!!
Don't you CON$ ever get tired of lying or even embarrassed?????

Global Warming Myths - EcoHuddle Community
Recent studies of the scientific literature at the time have concluded that the supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists during the 1970s is indeed a myth.

"Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

 

[Steerpike]

OldRocks:

I haven't had a chance to look at the article you linked yet. Too busy at work, but I'll get to it.

Let me just say from a scientific standpoint if anyone says, like I think you're saying, that it is definite that we're the primary cause of warming, I think they're off base. I'm sure you understand the distinction between causation and correlation. Even if those who support the idea of anthropogenic warming are correct, the best they can really provide is correlation, and then we have to extrapolate from there. Whether the correlation evidence is strong or weak is the issue. I have plenty of scientific training, and I think anyone who is honest in the area will admit that we do not know the answer to this question with absolute certainty. That is, we haven't established causation beyond any doubt. We can't, in my opinion. I don't think it is scientifically possible to do so at this point.

To that end I'll relate this - I sat down with a guy who was on the IPCC and asked him that very question. And, of course, since he's a scientist and quite a bright man, he admitted that yes, in fact we don't know the answer with absolute certainty. But his view was that the correlative evidence was extremely strong. Ok. That's fine. Say that, then. He said unless it is expressed in more absolute terms the public won't act.

Also, just to illustrate how dogmatic people are on this (and I may have mentioned this above)...I posted 40 or so article links from the primary scientific literature showing evidence of other causes of warming, both current and present. PNAS, which I think you'll agree is a good source. Nature. Science. Geophys. Res. Letters. Not a single person in that particular internet forum even bothered to look at one of the links. They just posted their own links. Which of course supports the idea that it isn't entirely settled.

I'm not going to put the time in to duplicate that research, but let me ask you this: if it is as settled as you say, why would I even be able to find articles in the primary scientific literature directed to other causes?

The problem is, this has become politicized and people want to generate political action. So they have to pretend anthropogenic warming is 100% certain, causation is proven, and the idea is as immutable as the second law of thermodynamics. It's just not the case. And I think if you look at it from a scientific perspective, look at the limited data we have and the geological timescales we're talking about, you have to admit that it probably isn't even possible for us to answer this question with absolute certainty. We have to simply do the best with what information we have.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A consensus that exists because skeptics are silenced? There is no consensus.

In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

 

[Ame®icano]

Americano, whatever you think of Al Gore is immaterial to the debate. The Earth is warming, and we are the principle cause of that warming.

You remember Gore’s movie Inconvenient truth? He show two charts that follow each other and stated that “relation in between temperature and CO2 is complicated and whenever there is more CO2, the temperature gets warmer”.

That link is in fact the opposite, temperature is the factor that is leading the quantity of CO2, therefore whenever temperature is warmer, there is more CO2. Warmer or colder temperatures are caused by solar cycles, and these cycles are causing CO2 quantity to rise and fall, naturally.

You and Gore are saying that we are principle cause of global warming and you’re probably linking it to CO2 we produce. Does that mean that everything that produce CO2 cause the global warming?

We are indeed producers of the CO2, but not a principle one. Far from it, we are not even a single digit of the total percentage CO2 producers. Volcanos produce more CO2 then all man made CO2 produced together including all factories, cars, planes etc. Animals and bacteria’s produce twenty five times more CO2 then all man made producers put together. Fallen leaves from trees in the autumn cause more CO2 then all animals and bacteria. Yet, all those put together still produce far less CO2 then one single CO2 producer – oceans. And how much CO2 is produced by oceans depends on… solar cycle.

Now tell me, do you think that quantity of CO2 is a cause of warming/cooling or the result from the same?

If you really think that CO2 is killing the earth, then you should consider your very own existence, because, you’re made of it. If you want to believe politicians when they are telling you that you should pay more (to them) just because you’re breeding and therefore polluting the planet, go ahead, knock yourself out. I posted link on Al Gore’s testimony before Senate where he said: “Put the price on the carbon, tax is the best way, cap & trade will also do it.” In other words, he wants you to pay for having children, he wants you to pay for breeding. My only questions are: Pay to whom? THEM?

 

[Old Rocks]

OldRocks:

I haven't had a chance to look at the article you linked yet. Too busy at work, but I'll get to it.

Let me just say from a scientific standpoint if anyone says, like I think you're saying, that it is definite that we're the primary cause of warming, I think they're off base. I'm sure you understand the distinction between causation and correlation. Even if those who support the idea of anthropogenic warming are correct, the best they can really provide is correlation, and then we have to extrapolate from there. Whether the correlation evidence is strong or weak is the issue. I have plenty of scientific training, and I think anyone who is honest in the area will admit that we do not know the answer to this question with absolute certainty. That is, we haven't established causation beyond any doubt. We can't, in my opinion. I don't think it is scientifically possible to do so at this point.

To that end I'll relate this - I sat down with a guy who was on the IPCC and asked him that very question. And, of course, since he's a scientist and quite a bright man, he admitted that yes, in fact we don't know the answer with absolute certainty. But his view was that the correlative evidence was extremely strong. Ok. That's fine. Say that, then. He said unless it is expressed in more absolute terms the public won't act.

Also, just to illustrate how dogmatic people are on this (and I may have mentioned this above)...I posted 40 or so article links from the primary scientific literature showing evidence of other causes of warming, both current and present. PNAS, which I think you'll agree is a good source. Nature. Science. Geophys. Res. Letters. Not a single person in that particular internet forum even bothered to look at one of the links. They just posted their own links. Which of course supports the idea that it isn't entirely settled.

I'm not going to put the time in to duplicate that research, but let me ask you this: if it is as settled as you say, why would I even be able to find articles in the primary scientific literature directed to other causes?

The problem is, this has become politicized and people want to generate political action. So they have to pretend anthropogenic warming is 100% certain, causation is proven, and the idea is as immutable as the second law of thermodynamics. It's just not the case. And I think if you look at it from a scientific perspective, look at the limited data we have and the geological timescales we're talking about, you have to admit that it probably isn't even possible for us to answer this question with absolute certainty. We have to simply do the best with what information we have.

Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570.

The first that I heard of global warming was in a geology class in the mid-60s. I have followed the growing evidence of the warming since then. And I have followed, first the denial that there was any warming, then the denial that we have anything to do with it.

The denial of the fact of the warming was continued right up until the turn of this century when there was too much in your face evidence that even the ordinery citizens of this nation were aware of. Then it switched to the "Well, sure it's warming, but we have nothing to do with it".

The fact of GHGs was noted first by Foirier of France in the 1820's. Tyndale of England isolated CO2 as the primary GHG in 1860. Svante Arrnhenius of Sweden quantifed the research and made some predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere by CO2 in 1896.

We can look back on geological history and see a very strong corelation between CO2 and temperature. In fact, we can point out times in the geological record where the GHG increase was similiar in rate of the increase at present, and see rapid warming of the earth and resultant extinctions. The P-T extinction and the PETM 55 million years ago are both examples of this.

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.

 

[Steerpike]

The other thing to keep in mind is that blindly following 'scientific consensus' can be dangerous, especially with politics and careers are on the line. You HAVE to look at the evidence yourself and evaluate it. You can't simply accept it because this or that scientific organization does so.

A perfect example is the Clovis-First theory in anthropology. If we were having this argument on that topic, in its heyday, then a supporter of Clovis-First, just like current supporters of anthropogenic warming, would be able to post innumerable links to scientific consensus for Clovis-First. The preeminent names in the scientific field endorsed it. The Smithsonian threw its full weight behind it.

In fact, scientists who dissented had careers ruined and were virtually blacklisted out of the profession. One anthropologist, when uncovering some pre-Clovis find, said "Oh, shit!" His first instinct was the cover the find up again. He knew his career could possibly be ruined because the find went against the strong dogma on which so many preeminent scientific careers were founded.

BUT - if you really looked into the literature at the time, anyone would have seen the evidence for pre-Clovis finds. Evidence put into the literature by scientists who were ridiculed and marginalized for doing it. Of course, all of these pre-Clovis scientists later turned out to be absolutely right. Even though the Clovis-First theory was supported by virtually every science of any reknown in Anthropology, and enjoyed almost complete consensus, it was entirely wrong.

The Clovis-First example is an extreme one, but it does underscore the dangers of blindly adhering to consensus, especially when politics and careers (and funding) are on the line. The ONLY way to adequately look into the issue is to look into the primary literature for oneself. And if you do that with respect to anthropogenic warming you'll find the truth - which is that we don't actually know for certain what is going on. We're just trying to make the best educated guesses we can.

 

[Steerpike]

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.

Yes, I have read about the outgassing, and I intend to read the article you posted. I also know that when you are dealing with positive feedback and systems like climate, a small shift in variables can produce large effects.

My personal opinion is that it is very likely humans are a contributing factor to the warming that trended over the past decades. I don't know that we're the primary factor, because I've seen a lot of evidence of other factors (radiative forcing for one) that I think have an impact.

I agree that we have a lot of correlative data, but the issue isn't being presented that way. It's being presented in much the same way you've presented it in this thread, with categorical assertions that go beyond what the scientific evidence can support. THAT is where my quarrel lies. I don't like seeing science used in that way to support political agendas.

Ironically, I think people like Gore and others who have made categorical assertions are the main people responsible for the fact that the public is losing interest in climate change issues. Like the boy who cried wolf, they overstated the case one too many times, we started to level out on climate, and even if our leveling out is temporary people have lost interest and the politicos who want to advance climate change as an issue have lost credibility. If they'd been honest with people in the first place it might not have happened that way.

 

[Ame®icano]

Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570.

The first that I heard of global warming was in a geology class in the mid-60s. [1] I have followed the growing evidence of the warming since then. And I have followed, first the denial that there was any warming, then the denial that we have anything to do with it.

[2] The denial of the fact of the warming was continued right up until the turn of this century when there was too much in your face evidence that even the ordinery citizens of this nation were aware of. Then it switched to the "Well, sure it's warming, but we have nothing to do with it".

The fact of GHGs was noted first by Foirier of France in the 1820's. Tyndale of England isolated CO2 as the primary GHG in 1860. Svante Arrnhenius of Sweden quantifed the research and made some predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere by CO2 in 1896.

We can look back on geological history and see a very strong corelation between CO2 and temperature. In fact, we can point out times in the geological record where the GHG increase was similiar in rate of the increase at present, and see rapid warming of the earth and resultant extinctions. The P-T extinction and the PETM 55 million years ago are both examples of this.

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.

[1] There is a warming. Now, If you red my previous post, you would find that I wrote what cause the warming. Increase of CO2 is caused by the warming, and not the other way around. If not so, how do you explain "global cooling" even when there was increased emission of CO2?

[2] I am not denying there is a warming. I am denying your statement that humans are principle cause of the warming. We are not.

Here is another question for you, and everyone else: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

 

[cbi0090]

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.

Yes, I have read about the outgassing, and I intend to read the article you posted. I also know that when you are dealing with positive feedback and systems like climate, a small shift in variables can produce large effects.

My personal opinion is that it is very likely humans are a contributing factor to the warming that trended over the past decades. I don't know that we're the primary factor, because I've seen a lot of evidence of other factors (radiative forcing for one) that I think have an impact.

I agree that we have a lot of correlative data, but the issue isn't being presented that way. It's being presented in much the same way you've presented it in this thread, with categorical assertions that go beyond what the scientific evidence can support. THAT is where my quarrel lies. I don't like seeing science used in that way to support political agendas.

Ironically, I think people like Gore and others who have made categorical assertions are the main people responsible for the fact that the public is losing interest in climate change issues. Like the boy who cried wolf, they overstated the case one too many times, we started to level out on climate, and even if our leveling out is temporary people have lost interest and the politicos who want to advance climate change as an issue have lost credibility. If they'd been honest with people in the first place it might not have happened that way.

Gosh, do you really think a politician would overstate an issue just to get attention? The real question is not whether the world is warming; it is and has been since the last ice age, and it's not the question of whether we're accelerating it; we may be. The real question is do we want bankrupt ourselves to finance some new world order to combat a something that's going to happen no matter what we do anyway? Wouldn't it be better to prepare for the inevitable and work on discovering better ways to pull fresh water out of salt water or generate energy from renewable resources? That's where we should be putting our money.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Here is another question for you, and everyone else: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Ooo, ooo . . . I know the answers.

1. Al Gorical will collect lots of money if Cap & Tax passes (via his holding interest in 'green' companies).
2. The money will be used to make him rich.

 

[Old Rocks]

The other thing to keep in mind is that blindly following 'scientific consensus' can be dangerous, especially with politics and careers are on the line. You HAVE to look at the evidence yourself and evaluate it. You can't simply accept it because this or that scientific organization does so.

A perfect example is the Clovis-First theory in anthropology. If we were having this argument on that topic, in its heyday, then a supporter of Clovis-First, just like current supporters of anthropogenic warming, would be able to post innumerable links to scientific consensus for Clovis-First. The preeminent names in the scientific field endorsed it. The Smithsonian threw its full weight behind it.

In fact, scientists who dissented had careers ruined and were virtually blacklisted out of the profession. One anthropologist, when uncovering some pre-Clovis find, said "Oh, shit!" His first instinct was the cover the find up again. He knew his career could possibly be ruined because the find went against the strong dogma on which so many preeminent scientific careers were founded.

BUT - if you really looked into the literature at the time, anyone would have seen the evidence for pre-Clovis finds. Evidence put into the literature by scientists who were ridiculed and marginalized for doing it. Of course, all of these pre-Clovis scientists later turned out to be absolutely right. Even though the Clovis-First theory was supported by virtually every science of any reknown in Anthropology, and enjoyed almost complete consensus, it was entirely wrong.

The Clovis-First example is an extreme one, but it does underscore the dangers of blindly adhering to consensus, especially when politics and careers (and funding) are on the line. The ONLY way to adequately look into the issue is to look into the primary literature for oneself. And if you do that with respect to anthropogenic warming you'll find the truth - which is that we don't actually know for certain what is going on. We're just trying to make the best educated guesses we can.

First, since I am 66 years old, I remember that idiocy very well. But it is hardly revelant to the present controversy. It involved minimal evidence on both sides.

We know from the physics of the absorbtion spectrum of CO2, first established by Tyndale in 1860, the CO2 is the primary GHG. We know from those same studies that water vapor traps far more heat than does CO2, but that it is a feedback effect of CO2.

From geological evidence, we know that correlation of episodes of high CO2 and high temperatures, low CO2 and low temperatures, to the extent of a near snowball Earth.

We are presently observing the effects of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere in everything from increased periods of drought and flooding, to the accelerating diminishment of glaciers worldwide, and the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

We know from isotopal studies that the 40% increase in CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels.

We also understand from periods in the geological past, that when the GHGs hit a certain point, that a positive feedback ensues that releases the CH4 in the ocean bottom clathrates, and a period of extinction on land and sea follows that release. In fact, we know a good deal about the timeline and agents of those extinction periods, as this online book explains. This book is well worth reading, if only for the explanation of the proxy methods of Paleoclimatology.

Methane catastrophe

 

[Old Rocks]

Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570.

The first that I heard of global warming was in a geology class in the mid-60s. [1] I have followed the growing evidence of the warming since then. And I have followed, first the denial that there was any warming, then the denial that we have anything to do with it.

[2] The denial of the fact of the warming was continued right up until the turn of this century when there was too much in your face evidence that even the ordinery citizens of this nation were aware of. Then it switched to the "Well, sure it's warming, but we have nothing to do with it".

The fact of GHGs was noted first by Foirier of France in the 1820's. Tyndale of England isolated CO2 as the primary GHG in 1860. Svante Arrnhenius of Sweden quantifed the research and made some predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere by CO2 in 1896.

We can look back on geological history and see a very strong corelation between CO2 and temperature. In fact, we can point out times in the geological record where the GHG increase was similiar in rate of the increase at present, and see rapid warming of the earth and resultant extinctions. The P-T extinction and the PETM 55 million years ago are both examples of this.

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.

[1] There is a warming. Now, If you red my previous post, you would find that I wrote what cause the warming. Increase of CO2 is caused by the warming, and not the other way around. If not so, how do you explain "global cooling" even when there was increased emission of CO2?

[2] I am not denying there is a warming. I am denying your statement that humans are principle cause of the warming. We are not.

Here is another question for you, and everyone else: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Coming out of a glacial period, at the start, CO2 does lag temperature, for the reasons stated below. However, by adding 40% CO2, 250% CH4, and other assorted industrial GHGs, we are raising the temperature at a far faster rate than it changed during de-glaciation.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Joe Barton to Al Gore: "An article from Science magazine explains a rise in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. Temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." (Source: Office of Congressman Joe Barton)

What the science says...
CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age.


Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.


Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise

Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).

 

[Ame®icano]

Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570.

The first that I heard of global warming was in a geology class in the mid-60s. [1] I have followed the growing evidence of the warming since then. And I have followed, first the denial that there was any warming, then the denial that we have anything to do with it.

[2] The denial of the fact of the warming was continued right up until the turn of this century when there was too much in your face evidence that even the ordinery citizens of this nation were aware of. Then it switched to the "Well, sure it's warming, but we have nothing to do with it".

The fact of GHGs was noted first by Foirier of France in the 1820's. Tyndale of England isolated CO2 as the primary GHG in 1860. Svante Arrnhenius of Sweden quantifed the research and made some predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere by CO2 in 1896.

We can look back on geological history and see a very strong corelation between CO2 and temperature. In fact, we can point out times in the geological record where the GHG increase was similiar in rate of the increase at present, and see rapid warming of the earth and resultant extinctions. The P-T extinction and the PETM 55 million years ago are both examples of this.

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.

[1] There is a warming. Now, If you red my previous post, you would find that I wrote what cause the warming. Increase of CO2 is caused by the warming, and not the other way around. If not so, how do you explain "global cooling" even when there was increased emission of CO2?

[2] I am not denying there is a warming. I am denying your statement that humans are principle cause of the warming. We are not.

Here is another question for you, and everyone else: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

Coming out of a glacial period, at the start, CO2 does lag temperature, for the reasons stated below. However, by adding 40% CO2, 250% CH4, and other assorted industrial GHGs, we are raising the temperature at a far faster rate than it changed during de-glaciation.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Joe Barton to Al Gore: "An article from Science magazine explains a rise in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. Temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." (Source: Office of Congressman Joe Barton)

What the science says...
CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age.


Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.


Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise

Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).

You again...

Watch the whole video, plenty of scientist's in there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY]YouTube - Global Warming Hoax[/ame]


And, you still haven't answered my question: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

 

[Old Rocks]

Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.

 

[elvis]

Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.

and you're no scientist yourself, so I guess you AND Beck should shut the fuck up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Elvis, unlike you and Beck, I am reasonably sane, and not inhabiting a transparent closet.

 

[elvis]

Elvis, unlike you and Beck, I am reasonably sane, and not inhabiting a transparent closet.

that's why you play the role of Lewinsky with nearly every post and engage in gay male chivalry every time someone attacks your boyfriend, chris.

 

[Ame®icano]

Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.

Few clips from him calling on an issue. What about scientists that were talking about the same issue? Oh, wait, they don't support your statement, so you ignore it. Anyways, who care what GB thinks, I am debating you... and if you do not respect my opinion, tell me why should I respect yours?

OK, here is on the same subject, and guess what... not from Glenn Beck. There are 8 parts, knock yourself out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME]YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)[/ame]

Still waiting on answer:

Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?

 

[mdn2000]

Mdn2000, ol' fruitcake, stick to the subject. Save your other trash for a suitable thread.

Oh my GOD, I can not believe you said something, this is rare, what happened, you could not find a link or you got tired of me using old crocks links to show old crock is just a crock.