Global Warming

[The_Dark]

This is a BBC Article from 1998

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

[The_Dark]

And another a bit more recent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

[kellygrrrrrl]

How interesting is that!

Thanks for posting that!

I never believed that greenhouse gasses were the cause of the "global warming"

I think it is dissolving the ozone, but not making the earth hotter.

The sun goes through cycles, making the earth go through cylces.

Core samples, fossils, and other forms of time have shown that the earth was a warmer place at one point. It was also a frozen ball too. I think we are just somewhere in the thawing phase.

there has been fossils of "Palm trees" in Michigan. I think that we will have palm trees again! maybe not in our lifetime.

[The_Dark]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

This is a rather good place to get some info

[The_Dark]

and Kelly... Thats because in the time of the Dinosaurs... the world was a hell of a lot hotter than it is now... and guesse what, there was a hell of a lot more C02 in the atmosphere.

[torn asunder]

i have two questions -

1) how long have we been keeping accurate records of global tempuratures?

2) how long has the planet been in existence?

basically, how anyone can arrive at a "global warming" theory based on such limited data is beyond me... :blink has anyone ever heard the term "inherent variation"? :erm

[Blackmail]

I've read alot from both sides on this issue and I have no idea what to believe. I think Bjorn Lumberg's "the skepticle environmentalist" was pretty good and he seemed to debunk alot of what some environmentalist say. But really, unless we are scientist, how do we know?

It does make me wonder what is so urgent about glabal warming when the earth is only 0.5 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago and that there has always been fluctuations in global temperature, as the Dark says, the earth was once warmer than it is now.

[The_Dark]

Answers:

1. About 100 years with ground based equipment and about 40 with spaced based equipment. The Pro-Global warming people do not want you to look at the spaced based numbers, they dont support thier claims. Also, we were taking less accurate readings for about 75-100 years before all this. We can also get temps and other readings from fossils, sedimentary layers and plant samples from trees.

2. No one really knows. We do know of a couple billion years or so. In that time, according to fossil records, the worlds climate has changed repeatedly. The Dinosaurs for example lived in a very warm world with a high concentration of CO2 in the air. We know of how many ices ages? The "mini" Ice Age just a couple hundred years ago. Vikings farmed on Greenland once upon a time.

From what I can see, they do it by ignoring everything that is counter to the end result they want.

[AstralCrux]

there has been fossils of "Palm trees" in Michigan.  I think that we will have palm trees again!  maybe not in our lifetime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but the continents were also connected at one point. I'm guessing MI was closer to the equator then...

[The_Dark]

Pangea, the one continent, existed in during a time when the worlds climate was far warmer and far colder... world average temp was when Pangea first came about was about 72F but near the end it was about 54F. Here...

Pangea existed during the Carboniferous Period

[The_Dark]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...09/ixworld.html

"If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

wow.... you mean that people will ignore reality in order to push their political or religious based agendas?

I am for one shocked. I am going to run out and tear up my check to the sierra club and the ALF.

[The_Dark]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

by Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.