BF2S Forums Global Dimming!

Vilham wrote:

cheekyninja06 wrote:

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=64 wrote:

    A survey of state climatologists by Citizens for a Sound Economy found that there is little support for the global warming hypothesis. When asked if they agreed with the statement by President Clinton, "The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now a fact, that global warming is for real. There is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate." 36 percent agreed, while 58 percent disagreed.

    Asked whether "recent global warming is largely a natural phenomenon," 44 percent said yes while 17 percent said no. Nine out of ten surveyed agreed that "scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time." Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors," and 61 percent said that the historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels." http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=64

    S. Fred Singer wrote:

    The ambiguous phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" has been (mis)interpreted by policymakers to mean that a major global warming catastrophe will soon be upon us;

"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" being the conclusion of the IPCC in their 1995 report.


    wikipedia wrote:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … umbers.png
    This figure summarizes the 400 years of regular sunspot number observations. Since ~1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figure are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).

    The most prominent feature of this graph is the ~11 year solar magnetic cycle which is associated with the natural waxing and waning of solar activity.

    On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principle causes of the Little Ice Age. Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming, especially the temperature increases between 1900 and 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png

if you look at the solar activity chart, you can see that yes it does vary and yes it does effect global temperature. One of the most obvious correlations is between the "maunder minimum" and the "little ice age"

    Little Ice Age From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote:

    The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling lasting approximately from the 14th to the mid-19th centuries (some say from 13th to 17th), although there is no generally agreed start or end date: some confine the period to 1550-1850.

ooh that fits pretty perfectly with the maunder minimum. notice how the solar activity was low and the global temperature was low? well i was thinking see how the solar activity is higher now, well i thought maybe that would mean a higher temp ATM? I mean it is at least logical.

    SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project wrote:

    Is the climate stable or is it changing?

    The climate is never just "average"; it changes all the time, from season to season, year to year, and over the millennia. And that includes not only temperature, but rain, snow, droughts, storms, and every conceivable feature of the weather. So watch out when you read about the "hottest year", "longest drought", or "biggest hurricane".

    But are there long-term climate trends? Is it getting warmer or is it getting colder?

    The correct answer is: Yes. It all depends on the time scale you choose. The global climate has warmed over the last 100 years, but not appreciably over the last 50 years. And it is colder now than it was 1000 years ago. And did you know that over the last 50 years the frequency of hurricanes has been dropping?

    Are human activities influencing climate?

    Yes, of course. The rise of agriculture and the growth of cities have changed the local climate significantly. With rising populations and rising industrial activity there have also been some worldwide changes: Temperature extremes have softened, the stratosphere is cooling, the frequency of hurricanes has been diminishing--all of these are thought to be human influences on the atmosphere. But this does not mean that there will be a catastrophic or even a substantial warming of the climate in the next century.

    But isn't there climate warming already because of the increased burning of fossil fuels--oil, gas, and coal--that creates more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

    True, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are rising, but the climate seems not to be warming. It did warm greatly between 1880 and 1940--long before CO2 increased significantly. But since 1940, weather satellites, tree ring data, and corrected thermometer readings all agree that climate has not warmed--even though CO2 levels rose.

    And why hasn't climate warmed, when theory clearly expects this to happen?

    The answer must be that even our best current models of the atmosphere are incomplete and leave out important features. Only in the last few years have modelers started to include ocean currents, atmospheric aerosol particles and dust into climate models. Most now suspect that clouds are the reason why models and observations do not agree.

    So, would a global warming be good or bad?

    Probably both, but warming is definitely better than cooling. It is certainly better for agriculture and therefore for basic human existence. All historical evidence shows that during the warm periods of the Middle Ages people were better off than during the hard times of the "Little Ice Age" (1650-1850) when crops failed and people starved.

    When it comes to it, what can we do about climate warming?

    We can do little about the climate itself, but we could try to stop the increase of atmospheric CO2. Even that task is daunting; it requires that we cut emissions--worldwide--by 60 to 80 percent. In effect, this means cutting energy consumption by comparable amounts--including all transportation, heating, air conditioning, and electricity use. It would have an enormous negative impact on people's welfare--particularly for the poor and those in developing countries.

    http://www.sepp.org/

So the models don't agree with the observations. Why do they think this is? because of clouds. hmm lets see what the IPCC say about the inclusion of clouds in their models?

    IPCC wrote:

    there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols.

wow they sound confident. Oh no wait they say something else on the matter:

    IPCC (again) wrote:

    Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities

But they also state that water vapor is "The main greenhouse gas," yet there is a significant lack of knowledge on water vapor, in fact it is not even represented on most models...how can they predict the global temperature without taking into account "The main greenhouse gas, water vapor."

    IPCC wrote:

    Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealized scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used.

so they get the right results if they use "idealized scenarios" e.g. if you leave a rabbit on a typewriter for long enough, eventually it will right Alice in wonderland. Doesn't mean that rabbits love to write Alice in wonderland, although this could be a logical conclusion, you could also conclude that it was one clever rabbit. however if you didn't put the rabbit on the typewriter and put it in the middle of the woods, i.e. how it really is, i don't think it would write Alice in wonderland.

ELITE-UK wrote:

americans eh...pffft! fools, so many fools.

i bet george bush said to you all, theres no such thing as global warming, and you all believed him because how else can you guys not think this is a problem!!!

B.Schuss wrote:

hm, I wonder what President Bush will say when he sees his silly fellow countrymen stab his back in a public forum.

Even he ain't stupid enough to deny global warming and the greenhouse effect, as outlined in the latest State of the Union adress.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … l_warming/

I never thought I'd say that one day, but:

Bush>you

B.Schuss wrote:

hm, I wonder what President Bush will say when he sees his silly fellow countrymen stab his back in a public forum.

Even he ain't stupid enough to deny global warming and the greenhouse effect, as outlined in the latest State of the Union adress.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … l_warming/

I never thought I'd say that one day, but:

Bush>you

ELITE-UK wrote:

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

hm, I wonder what President Bush will say when he sees his silly fellow countrymen stab his back in a public forum.

Even he ain't stupid enough to deny global warming and the greenhouse effect, as outlined in the latest State of the Union adress.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … l_warming/

I never thought I'd say that one day, but:

Bush>you

Ok Susan, pay attention now, I know it hurts, but focus here.....I AM NOT DENYING GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS, HOWEVER, A NATURAL PHENOMENON.  There, think you got it now? Or do I need to state it again, using monosyllabic words?

yes its a natural penomenon..BUT! it slows at a very slow rate over thousands of years, this is happening in 1-2 hundred of years dude to humans and the pollution we cause..our planet simply cannot cope with all this pollution.


i dont know if this is of any use but i think of what is happening a bit like this...
your in a room, you take in oxygen, and breathe out the waste, you fart burp our more waste and your body heal contrubutes to the heat in the room, but only a slight bit, so the rom stays at a pretty stable temperature only rising slowly...but!! when more people join that room the combined heat and excess air you breathe out makes it warmer alot faster and the heat cannot escape fast enough out of the walls...just like the earths atmosphere.

vilham wrote:

Ok, America produces the most polution FACT! To even say that isnt true instantly makes everyone know not to take you seriously, which is what im going to do from now on.

klassekock wrote:

I have a quick question to all of you nonbelievers of global warming out there.
Do you really think that the way we live our lives with excess consumption and pollution has NO effect on the planet?

and further....

Do you have any plans of changing your way of living to help preserve our planet?

And beware!! If you say no I'm gonna come over there and bitchslap you cause it's my planet too........

Last edited by Chappy556 (2007-01-31 11:28:28)

Chappy556 wrote:

global warming/dimming = junk science

twenty years ago, we were heading for a new ice age...scientists need to put their efforts towards something useful like curing cancer, not if next winter is going to be a little warmer

its arrogant for humans to think that we can do anything to hurt this earth...we cannot make ozone, we cannot destroy ozone, the levels rise and fall naturally due to natural factors

i hear the greenies start talking and its like what my dog hears, blah blah blah blah eat blah blah blah walk blah blah blah poop

ELITE-UK wrote:

Chappy556 wrote:

global warming/dimming = junk science

twenty years ago, we were heading for a new ice age...scientists need to put their efforts towards something useful like curing cancer, not if next winter is going to be a little warmer

its arrogant for humans to think that we can do anything to hurt this earth...we cannot make ozone, we cannot destroy ozone, the levels rise and fall naturally due to natural factors

i hear the greenies start talking and its like what my dog hears, blah blah blah blah eat blah blah blah walk blah blah blah poop

i bet your an american right? americans always seem to be in denyal about global warming!

always denying the fact that this world needs saving, and how can it be arrogant to think we humans hurt the earth....THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER! its arrogant for people like you blond to the fact of the global problem we face.