Global Warming?

[pisshead]

Not just Jupiter, each planet in our solar system has shown an incrimental increase in relative temp. Unless someone can explaing how people are causing that, simplest explanation seems the most logical, might have something to do with the GIANT BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY!!:jointsmile:

that's got my vote...

[8182KSKUSH]

Temperature increases do release CO2 trapped in permafrost and can increase decomposition of organic matter into CO2. There is some concern that this feedback loop may exacerbate the human caused waming by dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere as warming procedes. But what is the evidence that historical CO2 levels have spiked as a result of temperature increases? For someone who doubts that CO2 effects temperature, which is a fairly well modeled phenomenon, you seem pretty confident that warming affects CO2. You don't believe that the past century's increase in CO2 concentrations are the result of warming, do you? I think that it has been proven that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is fossil carbon, not carbon from the normal atmospheric carbon cycle.



What evidence is there that the whole solar system is warming? I heard someone else say that the other day. First I've heard of it. The sun does vary its output over time, but I have not heard that it has been measured actually doing so to the point of affecting global (or solar system) temperatures. And I have not heard that other planets have been measured to be experiencing warming. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. It seems amazing to me that we could actually prove that other planets are heating up, but according to some we can't prove that our own is heating up. Maybe we need to get some of those thermometers they are using in space.



Climate variability is a naturally occuring phenomenon --- everyone knows that. There have been multiple ice ages and warmer periods throughout geologic history. There are long term periodic cycles that have to do with changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun and the angle of the axis on which the earth spins. There are also cycles within the atmosphere and oceans that change the climate over time. The rise of a mountain range over millions of years alters climate for entire continents and even the whole planet. Catastrophic events like meteor impacts alter the climate.

But just because climate change occurs naturally does not mean that human activity is not also affecting the climate. Human activity has indisputably alterd the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Why is it difficult to believe that changing the atmosphere would have consequences?



Certainly no one has ever claimed that we are warming all of the other planets in our solar system.

I don't believe that man made co2 is the cause of the warming trend on our planet or any of the other planets in our solar system. I believe that there is just as much data that better coorlates the temp increase with measured sun activity. I still say the giant glowing ball of fire in the sky is the real cause. It is human nature to assume that we are the cause. What about the rise in co2 levels that coorspond with temp increases on earth that predate the use of fossil fuels? I look at global warming as if I were on a jury, I am not going to convict human civilization without rock solid conclusive evidence, and yes there are plenty of scientests that oppose the popular theory that actually study climate change. This is by far not an open and shut case. Until someone can explain the warming trends that are happening throughout the entire solar system as well as the ones that predate the use of fossil fuels, I am calling bull shit! Even NASA, who does know a thing or two about the atmosphere and our planet has provided evidence to the contrary or the popular belief. It's also HIGHLY suspicious that now there are people out to make money on global warming, they are also the same people that are pushing this dogma down our throats, do I need to name names?:jointsmile:

I have a bridge that I can sell you too with that carbon offset!

[8182KSKUSH]

What evidence is there that the whole solar system is warming? I heard someone else say that the other day. First I've heard of it. The sun does vary its output over time, but I have not heard that it has been measured actually doing so to the point of affecting global (or solar system) temperatures. And I have not heard that other planets have been measured to be experiencing warming. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. It seems amazing to me that we could actually prove that other planets are heating up, but according to some we can't prove that our own is heating up. Maybe we need to get some of those thermometers they are using in space.

It's not the "solar system" per say, it's the temps of the individual planets, and yes that is easily measurable. Check out some of the studies that NASA has done, or better yet just google search "global warming debate" there is plenty of contradictory evidence for it being an open and shut "consenses"? The New York Times also ran a story on this as well as The Boston Globe last summer, and they aren't exactly right wing schills. The fact is that sure there is alot of evidence that can be interputted to support the popular theory, ONLY IF you disregard anything else that contradicts it. I am just speculating that it's bull shit just like anyone else would speculate that it's real. Fact is no one, nobody, really knows. Everytime there is a "New" piece of evidence there is always a contradiction that can be found. But thank you for being civilized despite the fact that we disagree, that's more than I can say for some people!:thumbsup:

[8182KSKUSH]

here is a link to just a random story about it that I clicked on with a google search on said topic. Offers both sides, the fact that there is evidence to the contrary leads me to believe that someone is just out to make a buck!

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience

[8182KSKUSH]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

[8182KSKUSH]

Other Side of the Global Warming Debate

[8182KSKUSH]

Looks like there is plenty to debate.

[Fencewalker]

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

To read the entire report, click here.

[8182KSKUSH]

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

To read the entire report, click here.

I don't know if this talks specifically about what I am going to say or not, but it should be noted that the UN study that everyone claims proves beyond a doubt that it's real, was HEAVILY altered from it's original content, and that multiple scientest that have their name attributed to that study threatened law suits over what they claim was a misrepresentation of their findings. It should also be noted that not all the "names" on the study are names of people that are even remotely scientests. To my knowledge, no one has actually seen the original un-edited study, I wonder why?:wtf:

[dragonrider]

I don't believe that man made co2 is the cause of the warming trend on our planet or any of the other planets in our solar system. I believe that there is just as much data that better coorlates the temp increase with measured sun activity. I still say the giant glowing ball of fire in the sky is the real cause. It is human nature to assume that we are the cause. What about the rise in co2 levels that coorspond with temp increases on earth that predate the use of fossil fuels? I look at global warming as if I were on a jury, I am not going to convict human civilization without rock solid conclusive evidence, and yes there are plenty of scientests that oppose the popular theory that actually study climate change. This is by far not an open and shut case. Until someone can explain the warming trends that are happening throughout the entire solar system as well as the ones that predate the use of fossil fuels, I am calling bull shit! Even NASA, who does know a thing or two about the atmosphere and our planet has provided evidence to the contrary or the popular belief. It's also HIGHLY suspicious that now there are people out to make money on global warming, they are also the same people that are pushing this dogma down our throats, do I need to name names?:jointsmile:

I have a bridge that I can sell you too with that carbon offset!

I had to go look up this solar system warming thing because it was pretty much the first I had heard about it. This is the first article I found: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience

Sounds like it basically says the other temperature changes on other planets have alternative explanations specific to each planet, not a result of solar increase, and they are also not of the same scope as what we are experiencing here on earth. The solar variation is about 1/10th of 1 percent --- not enough to cause significant climate change. The big glowing ball of fire is too stable to account for the temp increases we are getting here.

You said, "It is human nature to assume that we are the cause." I actually think it is the opposite. Most sceptics I have spoken to seem to think it is impossible that human activity is significant enough to affect the weather of the entire planet. They think the world is too big for us to fuck it up. It's not. Six billion of us digging carbon out of the ground and putting it up in the air has changed the atmosphere of the entire planet. Human activity has nearly doubled the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere and is proceding at an increasing rate. If this were a jury trial, the defense would have to at least stipulate that part because it is conclusively proven. The only question is what will the affect be.

I don't think of it as if I'm on a jury and need proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think of it more as a bus driver who has been warned that the bridge around the bend may be washed out. Should I put on the brakes until I know for sure what is up ahead? Or should I keep my foot on the gas even though it might be too late once I verify for myself if it is safe ahead? I don't typically gamble more than I can afford to lose. I'm the kind to heed the warning.

There are a lot of very smart people working on this who DO NOT have a financial incentive to come to one conclusion or another. Most of them think the warming is real. Our dumbass president likes to let market forces solve the world's problems, and that is where we are getting those jumping in to make a buck offereing solutions --- I say more power to them, but it probably won't be enough. The real people with a financial stake in this debate are the fossil fuel companies and auto comapanies and large users of energy (just about all industry and consumers) who don't want to have their business disrupted to make the changes that may be necessary. That is where the real money is, and I think that where this sceptical crap about lack of conclusive proof comes from.

EDIT: Looks like you found a lot more links while I was posting. I'll take a look at those later. Gotta go to bed now.