Global Warming, etc....what if

iceaura said:
It is a hypothesis with mechanism, evidence, and data support.

And it is the only hypothesis so far that has mechanism, evidence, and data support.

What do you mean by "at best" ? At best it's a confirmed event. At minimum it's a likelihod with no plausible alternative yet advanced.
Click to expand...

As I said....there seems to be an issue with seperating the two......global warming and man made global warming....

Global Warming is a confirmed event......but the connection between global warming and human pollution is at best.....a hypothesis.

No ammount of current evidence you throw at me nor anyone else could be considered anywhere near the realm of valid unless it involves knowing the cycle of the earth in all its history, which it doesnt.

so yes....at best the global warming caused by human pollution idea is at best a hypothesis.
 
You are quite mistaken, sly1. By no means do we need to know the entire "cycle of the earth in all it's history", to conclude that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2, and therefore the warming trend we observe.
 
sly said:
so yes....at best the global warming caused by human pollution idea is at best a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
It's a hypothesis with mechanism, evidence, data support, and no plausible alternative yet advanced.

As "hypotheses" go, that's pretty good.

I don't know what you want the " cycle of the earth in all its history" for - the human boost in CO2 is a unique event anyway; you aren't going to find other examples of the current situation in the climate record.
 
spidergoat said:
You are quite mistaken, sly1. By no means do we need to know the entire "cycle of the earth in all it's history", to conclude that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2, and therefore the warming trend we observe.
Click to expand...


and why not?

humans produce CO2, we observe an increase in CO2, so therefore the CO2 increase is due to humans? Seems simple enough.

Maybe your right and it is that easy......maybe the saying rings true....where there is smoke there is fire.

Do you agree that it is also possible and probable that Global Warming is a natural occurance and would possibly take place regardless of wether or not man increased CO2 levels on the planet?

What the planet seems to be going through at this point could be a natural occurance enhanced by man.

I will not accept that global warming is solely caused by man, I will not be nieve enough to assume that is the case.
 
sly1 said:
and why not?

humans produce CO2, we observe an increase in CO2, so therefore the CO2 increase is due to humans? Seems simple enough.

Maybe your right and it is that easy......maybe the saying rings true....where there is smoke there is fire.

Do you agree that it is also possible and probable that Global Warming is a natural occurance and would possibly take place regardless of wether or not man increased CO2 levels on the planet?

What the planet seems to be going through at this point could be a natural occurance enhanced by man.

I will not accept that global warming is solely caused by man, I will not be nieve enough to assume that is the case.
Click to expand...

You will need to show where all that extra CO2 is coming from then, if not from humans..
 
I absolutly hate linking and repeating recycled information but here we go:

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/wc98-1web.htm
or
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Well I belive personally that there could be a mix of "problems"

I think the majority of the serious heating issues are due to solar flares and the solar cycle. I think that the reductions of plant life ie: Rain Forest is the reason for the Co2 increase (of course fossil fuels as well)......which isnt helping the heating situation and possibly worsening or enhancing the effects of the solar flares.

I belive the heating of the planet would happen regardless of the help from human Co2 production, just not as fast.
 
If "reductions of plant life ie: Rain Forest is the reason for the Co2 increase (of course fossil fuels as well)..." is correct, how are humans not responsible ?
 
Enmos said:
If "reductions of plant life ie: Rain Forest is the reason for the Co2 increase (of course fossil fuels as well)..." is correct, how are humans not responsible ?
Click to expand...

Because I belive that regardless of the Co2 increase the planet would be warming anyway.
 
sly1 said:
I absolutly hate linking and repeating recycled information but here we go:

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/wc98-1web.htm
or
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Well I belive personally that there could be a mix of "problems"

I think the majority of the serious heating issues are due to solar flares and the solar cycle. I think that the reductions of plant life ie: Rain Forest is the reason for the Co2 increase (of course fossil fuels as well)......which isnt helping the heating situation and possibly worsening or enhancing the effects of the solar flares.

I belive the heating of the planet would happen regardless of the help from human Co2 production, just not as fast.
Click to expand...


^^^
 
Enmos said:
You said that CO2 was to blame in that post.. or is it your believe that solar flares are only of this day and age ?
Click to expand...

http://www.spacew.com/astroalert.html

Solar flares are increasing in occurance and intensity. Of course I do realise that our study and understanding of the sun and its solar flares are just as much in its infancy as our understanding of our own planet.

This is why I believe global warming to be a mix of both man co2 increase and natural solar flare cycle.

Im not going to label any of my thoughts or beliefs as fact. I will not claim ownership to any truth, I can and only will offer an insight to what I belive. Take from it what you will or walk on it how you want.

I feel a need to post links to resources in order to justify my opinions sometimes which I dont like to do anymore. High school debate class hampered my ability to think for myself and have my own opinions and im trying to get that creative side back.

Anyhow not to derail the thread any further.....

I believe that solar flares from the sun are increasing in occurance and durations......these flares that wouldnt be as "climate changing" to a virgin planet are possibly having a much more significant change on the current planet, the one man has helped change significantly.

The fossil fuel co2 is enhanced by the reduction of the rain forest and so many plants to use that co2.

The continous fires in california/colorado/arizona are not helping the situation at all either.
 
It's an 11-year cycle.. :shrug:

"Solar activity varies with an 11-year cycle (the solar cycle). At the peak of the cycle there are typically more sunspots on the Sun, and hence more solar flares." ~Wikpedia
 
Enmos said:
It's an 11-year cycle.. :shrug:

"Solar activity varies with an 11-year cycle (the solar cycle). At the peak of the cycle there are typically more sunspots on the Sun, and hence more solar flares." ~Wikpedia
Click to expand...


was unaware of that. :bugeye:

maybe co2 is playing a larger role in global warming then I thought......however I am still not sure its the entire reason the planet is warming.
 
sly1 said:
was unaware of that. :bugeye:

maybe co2 is playing a larger role in global warming then I thought......however I am still not sure its the entire reason the planet is warming.
Click to expand...

;)

Maybe there's more to it, but if there is it's as of yet unknown..
 
Enmos said:
It's an 11-year cycle.. :shrug:

"Solar activity varies with an 11-year cycle (the solar cycle). At the peak of the cycle there are typically more sunspots on the Sun, and hence more solar flares." ~Wikpedia
Click to expand...

There are two clear cycles. The 11 year cycle and the 22 year cycle.

There are other cycles being seen also:

87 years (70-100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005)

210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005).

2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle

Other patterns have been detected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
 
milkweed said:
There are two clear cycles. The 11 year cycle and the 22 year cycle.

There are other cycles being seen also:

87 years (70-100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005)

210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005).

2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle

Other patterns have been detected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Click to expand...

True, thanks for correcting me.
But the point is that these cycles are known and therefor would have been taken into consideration in any calculations of any global warmth trends..
 
Enmos said:
True, thanks for correcting me.
But the point is that these cycles are known and therefor would have been taken into consideration in any calculations of any global warmth trends..
Click to expand...

Really?

The most complete data I am aware of is this:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/IRRAD97.PDF

By smoothing, it is claimed to cover one 22 year sun cycle and two 11 year cycles. 6 different satellites covering various time periods and variables in data obtained range up to 10 W/m2. What is clear is there is a 2 W/m2 difference in the suns output no matter which piece of equipment is gathering the data.

Given the amount of energy radiated by the sun and the average Earth-sun distance of 149.5 million kilometers, the amount of radiation intercepted by the outer limits of the atmosphere can be calculated to be around 1,367 W/m2 (watts per square meter). Only about 40% of the solar energy intercepted at the top of Earth's atmosphere passes through to
the surface.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

Hence, the average incoming solar radiation (called sometimes the solar irradiance), taking into account the half of the planet not receiving any solar radiation at all, is one fourth the solar constant or ~342 W/m². At any given location and time, the amount received at the surface depends on the state of the atmosphere and the latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

From the IPCC report:
"For the first time, the combined RF for all anthropogenic agents is derived. Estimates are also made for the fi rst time of the separate RF components associated with the emissions of each agent. The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8] W/m2"

Less than the variable in sun output (W/m2) in the small sample slice of whats 'normal' for the sun.

Yes I am skeptical of the IPCC.
 
Basically the net effect, IF there IS global warming, is:

Less food.

Right?

So that means a few more people starving in Africa, India, etc? That's natures way of saying, only give birth to what you can feed.
 
sly1 said:
and why not?

humans produce CO2, we observe an increase in CO2, so therefore the CO2 increase is due to humans? Seems simple enough.

Maybe your right and it is that easy......maybe the saying rings true....where there is smoke there is fire.

Do you agree that it is also possible and probable that Global Warming is a natural occurance and would possibly take place regardless of wether or not man increased CO2 levels on the planet?

What the planet seems to be going through at this point could be a natural occurance enhanced by man.

I will not accept that global warming is solely caused by man, I will not be nieve enough to assume that is the case.
Click to expand...

No because the rate of increase is unlike in the past. Natural change is accounted for, this is different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top