Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Can't; the paper's already corrupted.

ROFLMAO

[Bamby]

"If I wanted America to fail"

[BPL]

Originally Posted by Bamby

Respect Our Outdoor Recreational Resources
Leave No Trace Of Your Passing
"Just Your Footprints in the Sand"

But with CO2, leave as much as you like?

[hoytedow]

Trees need CO2. You love trees, don't you?

[valvebounce]

Not only corrupted,but the price is too high,and lightning free

[valvebounce]

Didn't they used to make boats out of trees?

[Petros]

Originally Posted by Boston

The term forcing agent is often used in conjunction with CO2 because it fits the description very well. ....
....From there you should be able to see that the term forcing agent isn't something I'm using out of context or a term I just ripped out of my ass, but a commonly used term to define agents that "force" our climate system into unusual patterns.

I never accused you of making it up, I asked where you learned it. Please do not read more into what I wrote than what is simply there.

I have read the links, and once again people trained in science have invented new grammar. I hate it when they do that, it confuses the issue. The author in the links calls the sun a forcing agent, but also calls other factors "forcing" agents as well. Most of which have nothing to do with human activity.

The improper use of words only obfuscates communication, and makes it that much harder to communicate. They are not helping their cause when they invent new uses of old terms. If they want to be understood they need to learn to use words properly.

There was nothing that was convincing that humans cause climate change, and in fact claimed we could not even measure the change, if any, for up to 100 years. So they have no way of knowing if their models are even correct, or what part humans play in it.

Where is your proof that humans cause LONG TERM climate change?

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Bamby

"If I wanted America to fail"

That's what they're doing!

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by BPL

But with CO2, leave as much as you like?

CO2 does not drive climate! All the ice core data shows CO2 lagging about 800 years behind temperature. The global medieval warm period, warmer than now, doesn't show elevated CO2. A 1000 years ago is only a second in geologic time scale. What caused warming then, most likely is causing warming now! Because now isn't unique! And it wasn't and isn't CO2! There is NO evidence CO2 drives climate, only opinions and unfounded theory.

Quit preaching conjecture as fact! It doesn't fly!

Prove CO2 drives climate. You can't provide one iota of evidence!

[ancient kayaker]

Global warming? Do tell!

[GTO]

Watched a Discovery show about Japanese wildlife a couple of nights ago. It was stated that the primary reason for the snow monkeys and other wildlife was the expansion and contraction of the Arctic ice pack.

According to the show, over the last 2 million years the ice pack has advanced and retreated some 20 times - varying between covering northern Japan to a small Arctic ice patch with plenty of sea room up north. Since Discovery is a typically a proponent of man made global warming, I'm surprised that they let that little bit of info slip through the editing process. Granted, it was the center piece of the research but that averages out to a 100,000 year heating/cooling cycle and given the past climate history, we are obviously on the heating side of the cycle. I remain unconvinced that the present heating trend falls outside the natural swings of such long term planetary cycles.

[Boston]

Petros, you might benefit from reading the IPCC/NOAA work on the subject. From there you should be able to realize that the use of the terms "forcing agents and feedback are entirely accurate for the context in which I used them. ;-)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/th...rcingIntro.pdf

GTO you got it entirely backwards, also the number of glacial cycles in the last million years is well known, as is the length of the cycles, so estimating the number of cycles back 2 million years is completely irrelevant to todays situation. But thats OK cause you also got where we are in what would be the present glacial cycle exactly backwards as well. Except for that the present cycle has been overwhelmed by the catastrophic increase in fossil based CO2, the major forcing within the system at this point.

we are, or I should say, were, at the top of the last cycle and should have been cooling off just as all the former cycles did, however, the burning of fossil fuels has changed all that. Which is what the big issue is. Temps are skyrocketing again and CO2 is literally off the chart.



remembering the differences between weather and climate, our climate is changing far faster than ever before found in the data. Roughly 1000 to 2000 times faster than in the High Permian Extinction Event. Depends on how you want to call the temp change from 1800 to today and compare it to the million years it took to raise temps 4°C in the HP event. But anyway you slice it, adding ~100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere in just a few years is a huge problem.

I gotta admit I'm a bit disappointed in the funnies this morning, normally at least one denier has his head completely
well a picture is worth a thousand words

[Yobarnacle]

The climate has many many contributing factors. Picking one and saying THIS is the important one, is IGNORANT! But it is the AGENDA of the warm-mongers!

It is ignorant to be suckered in by these frauds.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/...d-barry-moore/

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Boston

...

GTO you got it entirely backwards, also the number of glacial cycles in the last million years is well known, as is the length of the cycles, so estimating the number of cycles back 2 million years is completely irrelevant to todays situation. But thats OK cause you also got where we are in what would be the present glacial cycle exactly backwards as well.

...

As best as I can tell, the graph you have posted shows that we have yet to reach or exceed the max temperatures of any of the last four cycles, so your own data show that YOU have it backwards. The temperature is either still climbing or could be either side of the peak region. But definitely not well into the cooling phase, as you seem to be asserting. It's noteworthy that you believe the climate cycle over 2 million years is completely irrelevant to today's situation, but then post a 1 MILLION year chart to somehow prove your claims. You seem inconsistent in your assertions.

I also note that the period between heating and cooling has been increasing over time, while the max temperature has been trending upward for the last million years. Your graph appears to support the fact that the Earth has been much warmer in the past and is apparently trending back toward its former warm state, in a fairly predictable warming/cooling cyclic manner.

Somewhat random info: Last night the Megladon special stated one suspected reason for the giant shark's extinction was global cooling. The shark's giant prey died out and it couldn't adapt like the great white.

Observing the steady temperature trend upwards over nearly a million years makes the attempt to claim that the weather, or climate, of the last 100 to 150 years is a definitive indication of world calamity seems a reach to me.

So, despite your best attempt at petty, playground class insults and a chart that appears to refute your own assertions, I remain unconvinced.

[bntii]

Maybe it won't be so hot this summer.

I'd be cool with that..