http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html Nice...do these people have any idea what they are doing or are they sort of shoe horning stuff into their template as the need arises? As an adjunct: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm Why is that important? Simply because the greater number of sunspots, the more solar activity pumping heat towards the Earth, as sunspots decline, the Earth naturally cools, The last Maunder Minimum was the time of the Little Ice Age:
but its evil mankinds fault. if only we didnt pollute so much the temperature would never ever change
I firmly believe that our climate's temperature fluctuation is directly tied to the activity of the sun. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and has for thousands of years, the only logical explanation is that it's tied to solar activity. Now the loss of sunspots is a little alarming to me. I think they will ultimately start coming back, but the worst case scenario doomsday thought in the back of my head shows a picture of a sun hiccup creating a very large solar storm/mass ejection and sending it our way. How likely is that? I don't know, but the anomalous activity allows the mind to wonder.
NO, no, no....Tax, Tax, Tax, Cap & Trade, Green, Green, Green......!!!! ***Evil Voice*** Who is this Mojib Latif? We must pay himz a visit and make himz see daz error of his wayz!
I would not be concerned about some sort of plasma wave from the sun cooking Earth in a cataclysm. I am concerned that the history of the Earth is that of Ice Ages, with periods of explosions in life between them, our ancestors, maybe 10k or so, were all that was left of Humanity during the last major ice age when Europe and Northern Asia and North America were basically covered in ice. It amuses me somewhat at the limited data that the man centered global warming advocates have to base their claims upon, that is why I posted the first article that basically details consternation that their predictions of a inevitable rise in global temperatures has been delayed...err...ooppss
A solar storm doesn't necessarily have to incinerate the planet, it could do just as much damage by knocking out our satellites and bringing our communications to a screeching halt. Again, it's just the unknown of the situation that leads me to wonder like a little kid looking into a darkened room.
here's the big "what if" what if we are indeed in a cycle of solar cooling, and have been for some time... and global temperatures are STILL rising.. what happens when it warms back up? If for whatever reason we continue to warm in spite of less solar energy what does that portend when we cycle back out of this.
So are global temps STIL rising, or are the falling? Marty it would seem clear to me that the group of "climate" Scientists referenced in the OP know that temps are falling and they wish to ensure the "why" that is happening is answered by them "before someone else does".
You can't keep dumping tons and tons of unchecked greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and expect that it won't do damage to the environment and changes in temperatures. It is not sensible to argue that there are not cyclic changes in temperature but it is equally as ignorant to argue that man can't alter the climate.
There are a plethora of problems in predicting global climate.... agenda driving the conclusions.. limited acurate sample, ad infinitum. One of the big ones that allows for a wide range of conclusions from the same data set is cause and effect. an analogy... the longest day of the year is in July but we continue getting warmer for another monthn or more. The shortest day is in December.. but the weather continues to clobber us for two more months. I think climate fluctuations are similar. The cause and effect can be so far separated that we humans have trouble making the "proper" connections. The effect of the current solar minimum may not be fully felt for years to come and what this fella is discussing could very well happen. We as humans have no idea what "normal" means to planet earth. All we know is what sorta works for us and the only reference we really have is what is in front of our faces right now.
but they stop, and the system has a chance to recover. What we are doing only gets worse every year with no respite from our assault.
Not even close, brother. It is not volcanoes that is keeping CO2 out of balance and the chart below doesn't take into account methane, an even more destructive greenhouse gas emitted from cattle that we raise for food.
Methane occurs in nature as well does it not? It is odd that the actual information in the OP is not being challenged, the conference met basically to cover for why their predictions or not coming to pass, that is pertinent is it not?
Actually the periods of time after a major volcanic eruptions tend to be the coldest on record, other than the Munder Sunspot Minimums. And Volcanoes do not stop emitting gasses they fume constantly, an eruption merely speeds the process but they are similar to large exhaust pipes venting gases.
You must have seen that movie with Nicholas Cage about a big flare from the sun ending all life on earth. That would certainly suck.
When respiration, Co2, is considered a pollatant it would seem you will not be able to escape exposure FS...
cmon... and then we recover after the eruption ceases but the amount changes greatly.. look at Mount St Helen.. Krakatoa
Indeed, I agree, but keep in mind that what the Volcanoes produce are eventually absorbed and used by the Environment, like Carbon Dioxide is...
That would certainly be the responsible way to approach things. Or we could just assume pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect and possibly be screwed one day in the future. Even though we all know it is a fact that excessive amounts of CO2 will warm the atmosphere. And we know that there is less plant life now to filter more CO2. I don't know why people are so quick to shrug off the idea of global warming.
Well it isn't a case of man doesn't impact the climate, it's how much IMO and how does it actually impact the earth apart from the suggested temperature rise? I've read quite a few studies/articles that suggest that more co2 in the atmosphere leads to plant life thriving. How much do we impact the co2 levels and how much does the plant life reverse that process? Also how much of the measured increase is due to the oceans releasing vast amounts of co2 in recent years? There are alot of questions that seem to be unanswered. I agree that it's naive to think that we don't have any impact, but I question how much and think that the sun cycles are a bigger determining factor. The global warming scare mongers (Al Gore, the UN, etc) turn me off completely when you look at how they live and how much money they stand to make. Former UN scientists have said that global warming is the new big oil and that politics take precedent over science, that's why they've become disenchanted, their work was being ignored because the outcome has already been determined ("the discussion is over, we have a come to a consensus"). I did, but that wasn't the genesis of it. We've had alot of solar flare warnings about it impacting the satellites, and we can't forget the one that knocked out power in Quebec in the late 80's or early 90's. There was increased solar activity for each of those, but what happens now that the sunspots have seemingly been turned off? Will they start back up again slowly or will there be a larger comeback, as if someone turned on a light switch or a damn bursting releasing all of it's energy? It's the unknown that makes me wonder. It was a good movie btw
In very low levels, yes but not to the degree that would cause concern. As for the concerns of the OP not being addressed, I addressed his general concerns, but yours caught my eye as one that is easily dismissed.
In addition to creating more greenhouse gases than the biosphere can absorb, we are clearing more plants and trees than are able to use the increased CO2 levels. Not sure if your studies mentioned that point, Mike
And indoor growers have to add CO2 to their greenhouses to promote plant growth, if CO2 was such a burden on the environment it would seem they have it all wrong Of course, though a chart from Accuweather is not quite the finale that one would think it is, I am curious to see one engage in the argument in the OP. Water vapor is by far the most prolific Greenhouse Gas, and yet the focus is on a minor uptick in CO2 production, a gas that forms one of the building blocks of our productive atmosphere, why is additional CO2 inherently a bad thing and haven't we had higher, naturally occuring CO2 levels on earth before?
assuming the trees/plants could work fast enough to counter the heat caused by the gasses in the atmosphere, sure. Thats a big assumption.
No larger an assumption that because a tree is cut in one area, there is not one growing in a different area as if there are only a finite number of trees.
ive never read/heard that. The way I understand the theory is if humans continue to cut down trees at a rate greater then they can grow/be replenished, you will eventually run out of trees. Even if you could argue that there would always be one tree in existence, lets not forget, a limit is a limit. you may not ever reach it, but you can still be close to it.
Not particularly, there are local elements of course, however as a whole there is no concerted effort to deforest the planet, quite the opposite in fact.
Oh it's coming brother. In 2050, when the world's population is expected to double, humans will then be exhaling the same amount of CO2 as all industry is producing today. We're gonna have to get some kinda Logan's Run thing going here, or maybe the gom'ent could form death panels.......... OMG!
There was a subject? i had made the point that there is no concerted effort to deforest the planet, in fact there are trees growing while others are being cut down.
well you would have to assume the rate at which the trees were being cut down is equal to or less than the rate at which the trees are growing/replenished.
