climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[Journeyman 0]

OK! So why would a US government agency not want to publish the real facts and tell everyone that there is absolutely no real evidence to show that man made c02 is responsible for the current increase in global temperatures? Can you imagine what would be the outrage if they did? If the green movement doesn’t scare them the general opinion of the already brainwashed populous will! Then after they’ve finished with them the shareholders and employees of all the new multi million dollar industries generated by this new hype who are currently making millions to try and reduce co2 emissions will deliver them the final blow! And while they are squirming on the floor the rest of the world’s powers will condemn them even further for not complying and the general hatred of all things American will just escalate out of control! In the meantime the US government (and every other) would stand to loose out on all those taxes generated by this new industry if it were to be scrapped! That is why they have to tow the line they have no choice!

This thing has got far too big to stop! A U turn is simply not possible anymore no matter how much new research throws it into ridicule! There is far more at stake than most people realise and it is all about economics and (dare I say it) politics!  It is propaganda on an embarrassing scale! So who is to blame? I guess it would have all started in the late eighties/early nineties when there was genuine concern about our activities on this planet and some evidence that temperatures were beginning to increase. The green movements started to raise their voices and soon it started to be cool to be green! The governments (not so much America at this stage) started to feel the pressure of public opinion and decided that they needed to be seen to be doing something about it. So they started funding scientists to do research so the facts could be gathered. This IMO is where it all started to go pear shaped as here we have a situation where scientists are being funded for researching something with potentially serious consequences. They would have had (and still have) the world governments by the balls, as their word is what matters. Why should they report back with the truth of their findings when they can simply start hyping up a story that will keep them in funding for years! Lets face it they need work also and the more they make of this ‘man made catastrophe’ thing the more funding they will secure! This was well documented in the channel 4 program labelled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" shown earlier this year in the UK. Go HERE for a review.

As a result of this ‘misinformation’ the world leaders have been doing their bit to launch a whole new industry dedicated at curbing emissions to the delight of many new (and old) companies! So not only do we now have a massive new industry totally dependent on the findings of this’ bad’ research but we also have a brainwashed populous who would be highly sceptical of any new findings that showed it all to be a mistake and in no way connected to mankind’s evil activities! They would surely suspect that this would have been funded and controlled by the oil company giants who are just trying to protect their industry! This is how it would look!

Those scientists who have dared speak out the truth have had a really difficult time and they have been labelled hypocrites and accused also of being funded by the oil industry, some even have had death threats against them! That is the overwhelming force of this new belief and many people (especially green activists) are extremely passionate about it so much so that you will never convince them otherwise! It is just another example of how a little information can be dangerous and in this case wrong information backed up by our leaders!

When I gather facts I try and make sure they are from an independent source not affiliated with either government agencies or fuel industries. THIS paper is just an example of non-bias research that is far more convincing than anything coming from NASA or any other government funded agency! I also believed in all this ‘man made disaster’ hype for a long time too! Only in the past 18 months did I have the open-mindedness to read through some new research. Initially I was convinced it was just another attempt at the oil industries to protect their interests, but I read on with an open mind! (Something some of us need to practice more! ) Since then I have read, heard and seen much more of this global warming scandal and until I hear satisfactory counter claims to prop up this ‘man made disaster’ scenario I will continue to support my findings! The earth’s climate has NEVER been stable and it will continue to change regardless of what we do!  

[Kode 0]

@Red kite: you are right on everything. Only a couple of things are not exactly true. It already started in the seventies.

For people not believing him(or me) I suggest you have a look at this documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

This pretty much sums up everything.

[walker 0]

Hi all

We still come back to Red kite's very own evidence.

Looking closely at your graph it is obvious the CO2 levels (blue) fit the temperature levels (red) more closely than sunspot activity(orange) which is now in the declining part of its cycle and which your graph clearly shows.

That climate change has happened in the past is an irrelevant though undisputed fact.

What it does tell us though is that CO2 is the most closely matched factor to climactic temperature change we know that because of the Vostok Ice cores

You could not get a clearer match.

We are not bothered about long term natural changes in climactic temperature. The earth has always dealt with such it is a natural cyle. What we are bothered by is RAPID SHORT TERM LARGE SCALE CHANGE in climactic temperature that our planets natural checks and balances have no experience of or are equiped to deal with.

We are bothered about RAPID SHORT TERM LARGE SCALE CHANGE for the same reason we stopped producing CFCs, we stopped producing CFCs because there was RAPID SHORT TERM LARGE SCALE CHANGE in ozone the gas that protects us from cancer causing UV light. We as humans were indisputably destroying our ozone layer. No if buts or maybes we were. We proved this too ourselves by looking at graphs like Red kites. CFCs went up Ozone went down and cancer and cataracts went up. We decided as a planet to change our economic activity. The economy of the world was not even phased by it. We dodged a bullet.

Look through the temperature record find anytime when there was such RAPID SHORT TERM LARGE SCALE CHANGE. Oh you get rapid change for a few years after Krakatoa and the like but they are on nothing like this scale. They just are not in the same league.

Consider we have already shown the corelation of CO2 with climactic temperature.

It is why it it is called the hockey-stick graph. It is called that because there is not a similar occurrence like it.

As you can see the recent increase in CO2 is almost off the scale and completley out of the ordinary.

Once again what fator matches the RAPID SHORT TERM LARGE SCALE CHANGE in climactic temperature. Look at Red kite's own graph is CO2 not sun spots, not only does CO2 match it predicts it.

And anyone living on the planet knows it.

Kind Regards walker

[smiley nick 51]

Could we see this as a predecessor to religion in terms of "control"?

It might sound far fetched, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we started to make our own "disasters" and base it on global warming just to feed their stunt and inevitably have control.

Depriving Africa of their much needed natural resources is also a form of control, as supplies in parts of the world are running low, Africa will be like taking candy from a baby for the power hungry governments.

This is definitely a political issue and the posts by redkite and the Google vid are very informative and believing.

Thankyou

Nick

[Kode 0]

@walker: yes, CO2 is related to temperature, but CO lags 800 years behind temperature. So first you have an increase in temperature and only after 800 years you have an increase in CO2.

The fact that temperature changes happened is not irrelevant. The temperature only started rising again after 1970. Before that, from 1940 to 1970 the temperature decreased, that's 30 years that the temperature decreased, and this in the post-war economic boom, where the industry grew incredibly fast, with a huge increase in CO2.

CO2 doesn't influence temperature, but it's the other way around, temperature influences CO2.

Also do you know who/what emits the most CO2? If you think it's us humans, you are completely wrong.

[Sennacherib 0]

co2 is one of the components of the problem. don't forget chlorine and radon which destroy the ozone in the atmosphere (sorry if the names of the gazs are not the good one)

and methane is also really dangerous for the atmosphere. if the temperature of sea increases the methane frozen under the ocean (in the ground) will be released. That will heat the climate quickly, but on a short scale. that will create upheavals of the climate (glaciation or dryness)

Quote[/b] ]Also do you know who/what emits the most CO2? If you think it's us humans, you are completely wrong.

please don't tell to me that you are agree with the theory, which said, that the cows are guilty

[Kode 0]

please don't tell to me that you are agree with the theory, which said, that the cows are guilty  

Well partly cows are indeed guilty! We are guilty, all life is guilty. You and I are made from CO2! So it's logic we release CO2. Even if leaves fall from the trees in autumn, while the nature is processing them, they are releasing CO2.  Without carbondioxide we wouldn't even be living.

Also vulcano-eruptions release a massif amount of CO2. A lot of CO2 is stored into the ground, and then I'm not speaking of the amount of CO2 that is stored into the oceans. Give me 1 good reason why life wouldn't produce more CO2 then industry, knowing there are more then 6,000,000,000 people on earth, and a LOT of animals and trees aswell.

I don't know the exact number an animal or human produces, but if you count that up, you get a bigger number then industry which is at 6,5 Gigatons of CO2.  I think the amount life makes is at around 150 Gigatons of CO2. It's not a theory, it's a fact...

[Journeyman 0]

@ Walker that last graph of yours shows nothing but increases in co2 and as has already been said the science linking co2 with temperature variations is completely flawed. 14 million years ago the co2 levels were something like 5 times what they are today and there was no evidence of any massive temperature hikes in that period. So just because we have the highest co2 for several hundred thousand years does not mean we are all about to be fried! Co2 represents less than 0.067 % of the total atmospheric gasses and only a very small fraction of that is man made! Take a look at that video kindly linked by Kode I think you will find several interesting graphs in there and a lot more revelations too! As for your middle graph well that just shows what I’ve been saying: temperature goes up then co2 follows, that is what ice core research has found! Just like Al Gore you are misinterpreting the connection between co2 and variations in temperature.

As for my graph take a closer look. The main period of warming took place from the early 1900s up to 1940 a period when the industrial revolution had hardly got going so only very small amounts of man made co2 was being produced and this would have been negligible for the first half of this period and yet we see dramatic warming in this period. The co2 levels are wholly out of sync with the temperature right up until 1960 but fits nicely into the sunspot activity graph. Then in the period from 1940 to just after 1950 the temperature plummets just when the post war economic boom was under way and man made co2 emissions would have been rocketing! This would not make sense if you were to blame the industrial revolution for the current global warming period, the graph should be steadily increasing and accelerating just like your co2 graph. As for the period from 1960 onwards we see another continued rise in temperature, co2 is rising fast here also but we already know these things often go hand in hand so it does not really say that much about how they are (if at all) interacting with each other. If you notice there is a 10 year delay between sun spot peaks and temperature peaks which would make sense given the inertia of land and sea to respond to these changes.

Research has shown that increased solar activity also has an effect on the amount of cloud cover due to cosmic winds so a decreased level of cloud would easily explain an ongoing increase during a lull in sunspots as is shown from 1990 until about 1999 when it goes up again! No graph is definitive proof of anything and I do not base my entire research on them. But most graphs that I have seen in connection with this phenomenon convince me that this is a solar-based event and nothing whatsoever to do with man made co2 emissions.

BTW thanks for bringing that Vid up Kode, it was reassuring to watch it again, I’d already forgot some of those finer details!  

[ran 0]

Baaaaaaaaaaaaah!

While this may sound a bit like the noise a sheep would make, it also represents the opinion of a lot of people : let me live my life, no matter what sacrifices may be needed.

The global warming debate as much as others only annoys most people (who are, by the way, ready to put an end to some bad habits).

[Kode 0]

Baaaaaaaaaaaaah!

While this may sound a bit like the noise a sheep would make, it also represents the opinion of a lot of people : let me live my life, no matter what sacrifices may be needed.

The global warming debate as much as others only annoys most people (who are, by the way, ready to put an end to some bad habits).

In my opinion, the debate about global warming is important, as a lot of people are just plain wrong. I'm not doing this because I don't want to change my habits or anything. I want that the huge amount of money that is going into the research of global warming partly goes to more important research like processing of nuclear waste or pollution or agricultural improvements, faster computers, space-exploration,....

@Red kite: it was my pleasure . I'm always happy to support people that(I think:p) are right. And I'm happy to share my knowledge, what some people luckely appreciate

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

i know that US f*** international standarts and agreements on emmision of CO2, because they must drive thier big pickups with 7 liter engine isntead of 1.5 liter small car

i saw on TV that they throw trash to ocean ?

300 milions of people are ruining world for 6 000 000 000 of other people :/

You make a statement like this then you claim others are only falling for "propaganda."

"i saw on tv..."

You are the epitome of what is wrong in this debate.  You are the same type of person that would have screamed "the sky is falling" and the the earth is going into a freeze at the first earth day.  All because "someone said so."

If someone tells you "what is" and dose not direct you to look at the information at hand, its because they are making the assumption you are too stupid to think for yourself.

Quoting something you saw on TV proves that they are right.

Red Kite I don't agree with your position completely, but I have respect for you and your argument.  You provide information and expect that people will analize it to compare it with the information and views they already have in their knowledge base. Unfortunately for many thats a bit too much to ask for.

Some have rebutted Kite's view and data by respectfully contributing data of their own to consider.  To that I say BRAVO!  That is how a debate works.  

For those that have contributed some interesting information to read, and thus expanded my overall knowledge on the topic, thank you.

To those that spew idiodic opinion as found through their TV remote, shhhh.

[Baff1 0]

Greens are swing voters.

Climate change is a political issue out of proportion to the danger.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite

In 2006 the reported levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 380 parts per million (ppm)

In 2007 the reported levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 382 PPM thus maintining an anual increase of from 2 to 3 ppm.

14 million years ago we actually had a massive decline in CO2 not an increase as you infer.

I point you to the original research at Kiel university.

Quote[/b] ]What caused the ice sheet to grow?

New link between atmospheric CO2, temperature and the Earth's orbit

What caused the end of a warm climate phase and an expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet 14 million years ago? This is the question addressed by Kiel and Bremen palaeoclimatologists in an article for the latest issue of Nature (24/11/05). Their research uncovered a temporal link between a reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels on earth, ice sheet formation and global cooling. The "global cooling" that took place 14 million years ago is attributed by Dr. Ann Holbourn, Professor Wolfgang Kuhnt, Professor Michael Schulz and Dr. Helmut Erlenkeuser to changes in the marine carbon cycle, associated with variations in Earth's orbit and tilt.

Kuhnt: "We know that the orbital situation, i.e. the path followed by the Earth around the Sun, changes regularly. One such change occurred during the global cooling period 14 million years ago, bringing with it a period of cool Antarctic summers. The Antarctic ice sheet was no longer melting down in summer and began to grow steadily. For the first time we can reconstruct in great detail the history of this glacial expansion, which took place in about 80,000 years, a short time in geological terms."

Researchers at the Institute for Geosciences of the Christian-Albrechts-Universität in Kiel and their colleague from DFG Research Center Ocean Margins in Bremen studied marine sediments from two cores in the eastern and western subtropical Pacific. The analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes in the calcite shells of tiny organisms (foraminifers) living at the sea floor allowed to track changes in ice volume and carbon dioxide levels. The team investigated an interval of about two million years with a sampling resolution of 4,000 years...

Follow link for full article and graphs

http://www.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/pm/2005/2005-121-eisschild-e.shtml

By the way Piers Corbyn from the video is an old friend of mine.

His work is on sunspot activities altering weather not climate, which is the subject of this debate, and has proved very lucrative for him; though he has not published his methods for scientific peer review, I stil respect his expertise in sunspot activies affect on weather.

You point to CO2 following not leading climactic temperature changes, however you or the TV program you are quoting are oversymplifying a complex causal relationship and mixing up trigger conditions such as sunspot activity, el ninio type effects, earth tilt and orbital changes or tectoninc and volcanic activity that are the initial spike to climactic temperature change, that then cause natural CO2 release, that then increases climactic temperature well beyond what can be atributed to the trigger activity.

I am sorry to burst your its all a (Governmental/NASA/Charity/Treehugger/Leftee/Oil Speculator/drive down the third world) conspiracy theory, but those paleoclimactic changes in climactic temperature are far bigger than any of those factors energy levels can account for. Not to mention most of them are not producing an energy positive imput to climactic temperature at this time or near enough in the past to be a corelating fator.

And frankly I cannot for the life of me see that bunch of people all conspiring in a smokey room.

If you do not believe your own T Shirt in February going to a barbecue experience then do the math. Sunspot energy just does not account for the increase in energy levels held in the the climate sink.

You are also failing to understand that in the past CO2 was acting as a Feedback component in natural climactic temperature change cycles after a trigger event.

Now though humans have taken over the carbon cycle and dominate the annual atmospheric changes in CO2, hence the hockey-stck graph, so it is working both as trigger and more woryingly it has become a forcing agent in climactic temperature change. This looks woryingly like a force feedback loop.

Kind Regards walker

[Kode 0]

His work is on sunspot activities altering weather not climate, which is the subject of this debate, and has proved very lucrative for him; though he has not published his methods for scientific peer review, I stil respect his expertise in sunspot activies affect on weather.

So here you say that the sun can impact the weather, if it does that, why can't it impact climate? The sun isn't a constant thing. It changes all the time. Your barbecue story in T-shirt in february is true for this year, it was a warm winter in most of europe, but in the US, they had a really cold winter. And previous year was also cold here.

Also temperature hasn't increased only on eath. On mars, and I think even other planets, temperature has also increased from 1970(the start of the rising) to now with approximatly the same temperature of 0,5°C on our planet. source

This might point directly to the sun again. CO2 is perhaps rising but it's not affecting temperature. The temperature decrease from 1940-1970 is a very important timeframe which doesn't fit in the CO2 rises, temperature rises theory.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Kode

Without doubt we are dealing with complex chaotic relationship with masses of imputs and emergent behaviours when we talk about climate and weather is even more complex. That is why we have to use computer models to better understand it.

I have never said that if you apply energy to the climate equation it has no effect.

It has an effect whether it is sunspot activity, el ninio type effects, earth tilt and orbital changes or tectoninc and volcanic activity all of them cause climactic temperature changes.

CO2 DOES NOT APPLY ADDITIONAL ENERGY TO THE EQUATION!

It works by increasing energy holding capacity in the sink.

Neither is any climate change scientist denying that other factors add and reduce total energy in the sink; but none of those trigger factors energy imputs account for more than a smidgen of the total energy alteration in the earths energy sink in any of the paleoclimactic record. Those other trigger factors energy is just too small and not even remotley long lasting enough.

Sorry but none of the factors cycles last the length of time we are talking about. Look back at the Vostok Ice cores

Look at the period of tempreture change how long are you saying this volcano erupted for? or these sunspots were blasting away? or the el Ninio was in its hot phase? Or the planet had wobeled off its orbit for? Each of them has been disproved they just do not fit the facts.

They are just triggers not the actual effect. CO2 is the major ingredient in energy retention in the climactic temperature. Yes all those factors can trigger increase in its natural CO2 release and now so to can human activity but we have also added additional CO2 to the normal equation.

So not only have we created a new trigger, we keep accumulating additional trigger to the equation AND the trigger is also the key factor in the effect.

Think about it.

Kind Regards walker

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Ive now seen half of the movie so far (will see the rest later). I do find it pretty interesting that sunspot activity would be the major role in temperature rise. This can also be seen for the past 500 years in the movie.

But as Walker pointed out, we are now adding CO2 into the athmosphear which have the capacity of holding energy on the planet, instead of releasing it.

The movie so war seemed pretty reasonable, but there were a few things that struck me. For example, when they presented the Danish scientist Eigil-Friis Christensen sunspot recordings, they matched almost perfectly - but why did they stop plotting the sunspot activity after 1978?

Well, after looking on the internet for the actual numbers, it was quite clear... The sunspot activities decline while the temperature actually rises more than it have done so the past 300 years - and it keeps rising for three decades until now, and it probably will keep rising.

If I was to use the logic presented in that film, I would quickly conclude, that sunspot activity CANNOT control the temperature on this planet. I will not, however, come with such drastic conclusions as that mainstream video.

However, I must admit, the solar activity seem to have a large impact of temperature. But I don't think the 'scientists' in this video have quite understood how much a small consistent temperature rise can do, and how much a small CO2 addition actually can produce?

Let's say, hypothetically, that the temperature rise and fall until 1975 was cause by solar activity. After this, solar activity have been quite normal and shouldn't cause an incriese in temperature. However, we are not in 1750 anymore, and the athmosphere have alot of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in it. This means that some of the energy from the recent high solar activity is stored in the athmosphear, cause a small rise in the athmospheare. This rise results in a small rise in ocean temperature which therefor gives us a positive feedback system giving more CO2 to the athmosphear which then stores energy from the now normal solar activity which then again gives a small temperature rise etc.

A very simplistic view on the things, but that seems to be the logical thing that is happening. Small changes in various parts of the climate giving a positive feedback system.

One thing about the movie... I know that if I at my university was to publish data and deliberately left out data which would put my theories to pieces, I would never be taken serious again

//Edit. Here is an example of how CO2 changes temperature in a closed system, this is called the Vostock demonstration (remember this is a simulation with a stable solar activity):

(Upper one is CO2 (parts of a million), lower one is reconstruction of atmospheric temperature from measurements of the isotope Deuterium. ). (Source - http://www.aip.com)

Imagine this energy-holding capability multiplied by extra solar activity.

Stating that CO2 has absolutely no impact on temperature is ignorant

[Journeyman 0]

@ Walker I appreciate your input but you are unnecessarily complicating the whole debate with the finer sciences of climatologic (maybe in an attempt to drown out the conspiracy theory! ) and basing too much assumptions on this co2/temperature relationships while at the same time losing everyone in unnecessary mathematical equations! It seems you are deliberately avoiding the relationship that the sun has with the system focusing only on the 28 year TSI fluctuations, and not addressing the large scale variability in the Sun's UV flux and in ejections of magnetized solar plasma, both of which can have a dramatic effect on the Earth's climate.  

We all get facts wrong I’m no exception but the overall picture is what I am aiming for rather than digging deep into one area and ignoring the other issues! Have a look at THESE graphs they tell the same story about how recent solar activity fits more the pattern of recent temperature changes over any other scenario!

Are you seriously telling us that our politicians are telling us the truth and that there is absolutely no temptation whatsoever for them to distort facts in order to protect an industry and their own skin over this highly controversial issue?

I appreciate your input but I have still yet to learn anything new that convinces me away from a totally natural climatic variation.  

BTW I would really like to believe you guys that this IS really a man made impending disaster! Just like everyone else I love a disaster story, and (like I said earlier) truly believed it myself for many years too! I just wish someone could now show me something truly convincing that will sway me back the other way! Alas to date I have seen nothing, only more to the contrary!    So please all you pro 'imminent man made disaster' theorists show me something truly convincing that will blow away all that I have learned over the past few years and persuade me back into the green camp!

It might surprise some of you to learn that I was very active in Friends of the Earth in my early twenties and campaigned about lots of environmental issues in the eighties. One thing that I've learned more than anything else from that time though has ben to make sure you get your facts right first. Like I said a while back "a little knowledge can be dangerous!"  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The first goal of the spin doctor's agenda was, to turn the issue of Global Warming back into just a "theorie" instead of a "fact". And they succeded.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite.

The people on this forum are quite intelligent

First of all: You perhaps fail to appreciate the intelligence level of most of the people on this forum. I think you will find that along with mature membership a higher than normal number of people with a degree, many with a masters or PHD and even the odd Professor.

I would consider my self having a relatively low level of educational and academic ability for the standard of this forum; as I only have a BSc. degree in two subjects: Business and Computers. I studied a four year combined honours degree rather than the conventional three year single subject degree. I am looking to do my Masters in the next year.

The science is not too complex for the people here to understand

So when you say I am unnecessarily complicating things I point out that it was you who decided to bring in the graphs not I.

That was the spin doctor move that Albert and almost certainly many others on this board noticed.

I will quite happily reduce the argument to the simple level of I can now wear a T shirt at night in London in January February and we are having barbecues, when only 3 decades ago I would be bundled up in a duffel coat or Parker for four months of the year; it is odd so what the f**k is going on.

BUT you did bring the stats in so I pointed out that the very stats you were attempting to use actually pointed out your argument was wrong.

I pointed out that in your graph CO2 is now both trigger and forcing agent. The then attempt to muddy the waters by bringing in the triggering event period for the Climactic changes previous to this one was brought in. They show climactic temperature rise before CO2 rise.

CO2 is the big factor

I then pointed out the bit you perhaps find complex; that each of the CO2 rises in the past were triggered by the other factors first of all raising climactic temperature, trigger events. Trying to bring in those other trigger events was the real attempt at blinding people with science and complexity.

That was another spin doctor move that Albert and almost certainly many others on this board noticed.

I will now explain why none of the science blinding fits:

Trigger events

The Trigger events are:

1) Volcanoes: Eject ash and other aerosols. When in the atmosphere these reflect incoming sunlight thus cooling the Earth.

2) Tectonic activity: continental movement alters our climactic temperature.

3) Orbital variations: Earth orbits vary on time periods of about 25,000, 40,000, and 100,000 years. Sometimes the periods can coincide. Ice age cycles can be tracked to this trigger for millions of years.

4) Internal variability: The climate system is complicated, and internal modes of variability exist. The most well known one in the US is the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the El Nino phase, the earth is much warmer than during the opposite phase, the La Nina. In europe we worry more about the north atlantic conveyer and Gulf stream that are the North Atlantic Gyre. In India, Australia and southern Africa they worry about the Equatorial currents.

5) Solar variations: The sun is the main energy source for our planet. As the energy of the sun changes, so does the climate.

6) Natural greenhouse gas emission: CO2 and methane are trapped in various forms in the earth, plants and animals trap them in the normal biomass carbon cycle, a lot is trapped in the permafrost in Siberia even more is trapped on layers at the bottom of the oceans, some events such as large earthquakes or other global warming triggers can release this gas

7 human-emitted greenhouse gases: The new kid on the block. This is what we see in the hockey stick graph.

Which Trigger event fits?

I then pointed out that each of the other trigger events do not fit the post trigger event continuation in rise of climactic temperature or the period of this trigger event:

1) Volcano's reduce global climactic temperature not raise it; so that is out.

2 & 3) We can immediately rule out tectonic activity and orbital variations they are much much too slow to account for warming over mere decades and anyway I think we would notice new continents or a wobble in the earth.

4) There is no observed Internal variability's that fit the time period, I think we would notice such a thing. El Nino did not precede the climactic temperature rise and does not fit the long period part of the event.

5) No known solar variation events have occurred that cover more than a small part of the the recent rise in climactic temperature and in any event they are not of a long enough period to cover the long term record; they require a second factor.

6) We have not had a mass of earthquakes causing the oceans to boil and Siberian methane and CO2 emissions are triggered by a warming event. The science is well known and for obvious reasons of it being a greenhouse gas multiplier and the real cause of the LONG TERM climactic temperature variation, natural greenhouse gas is being very thoroughly studied.

Conclusion

7)human-emitted greenhouse gases: This is what we see in the hockey stick graph and are the only things that fit the time period as shown in your graph Red Kite. And CO2 has been proven by both Vostok Ice cores and the more recent and thorough Antarctic Deep Core Survey to be the key causal relationship in large scale climactic temperature  variation.

Like I said CO2 is the biggy and we as humans just added a new trigger; more CO2.

Running away from the science and into pop science TV

To come back and say I am:

Quote[/b] ]...unnecessarily complicating the whole debate...

when you brought in the graphs, not I, is a bit rich.

You then argued, with others, that the science of climactic temperature variation (the very figures you were using) was not real science but pop science brought in by the (Governmental/NASA/Charity/Tree hugger/Leftee/Oil Speculator/drive down the third world/media) conspiracy this was done by bringing in a pop science program.

Sorry but you walked in to that one all on your own.

I am not against debate and welcome your imput to that quality of the debate, but beware; make sure it is cast iron, because the people in this forum take no prisoners.

Kind Regards walker

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

The first goal of the spin doctor's agenda was, to turn the issue of Global Warming back into just a "theorie" instead of a "fact". And they succeded.

I recommend all people contributing to this thread to read Michael Crichton's book called "State of Fear". Might be an eye-opener...

[Kode 0]

hey again,

Well you made a nice list of all things. There is a relation between the current temperature rise and the increasing CO2 level. But is it influencing the temperature? And how come the CO2 level rises? The humans produces a lot of CO2, but nature itself produces more then humans...

I think that the temperature controls the CO2 levels. Perhaps it has to do with an increased activity of the sun(which is quite hard to measure, as we don't have much data about it from before the seventies.) and yes, we do know that on other planets, temperature has increased aswell.(see previous post)

Because of this CO2 could have been released from the oceans for example.(this is just an example/theory!

Also a vulcano eruption only cools the planet for a "short" period, being, depending on the power of the eruption, 2 to 20 years(maybe even more, because som eruption were really powerfull). Also a huge amount of CO2 is being catapulted in the atmospehere aswell, so if you 'd say that CO2 would warm up the earth, why wouldn't it cancel the effect of the ashes?

I'm talking of CO2 a lot because people blame only CO2 for the global warming.

edit: Just found this pic:

In here you can also see methan (CH4) and solar variation. There is one thing I'm sure of: the future will give us answers .

[karantan 0]

Hm, haven't time (neather the will) to go thoroughly thru all those massive posts above, but watched that movie (thanks Kode ), and it seems like another 'theory of conspiracy', only this time a bit twisted around and with weak reasons, and even weaker (empiric) prooves and arguments.

[Balschoiw 0]

[sarcasm] So basically all we need to stop and revert global warming are some nukes that create a lasting dustlayer in the upper atmosphere ?

Shouldn´t be hard to achieve.

Also blowing up some vulcanos really bad could save the world [/sarcasm]

Scrap the scientific approach. Let´s do it the "big boy´s way"

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

[sarcasm] So basically all we need to stop and revert global warming are some nukes that create a lasting dustlayer in the upper atmosphere ?

Shouldn´t be hard to achieve.

Also blowing up some vulcanos really bad could save the world [/sarcasm]

Scrap the scientific approach. Let´s do it the "big boy´s way"

Armageddon??

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Kode

Yes I did list each of the other possible causes and identified them as separate historical triggers but debunked each of them in turn as the current trigger for this period of warming.

I also pointed out that an additional factor was required for several of the triggers to cause the paleoclimactic temperature changes we see in the ice cores.

I also pointed out the other factors do not fit the math it is Occam's razor that it is Green house gases and in particular CO2 and methane increases that have traceable causal relationship to paleoclimactic temperature changes.

Having proved the causal link we now know CO2 contributes to paleoclimactic temperature changes.

Next the hockey stick graph shown by Red kite shows an increase CO2 and climactic temperature rise in line with it. We know how much extra CO2 we put in because we can do the math on what human activities and the amounts of extra CO2 coincide with the observed increase in CO2 ppm.

The argument about human releases being only a fraction of the CO2 production of the planet is a complete red herring and another one of those spin doctor moves that Albert and almost certainly many others on this board will have noticed.

When you are at sea it is not the depth of the ocean that sinks your boat it is the size of the waves on the surface that count. The variance and velocity of variance in CO2 is the key factor not how much there is as a steady state.

Look again at Red kite's graph

Can you see the tidal wave approaching?

Kind Regards walker