Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[tR1cKy]

Sorry about that Tricky, didn't realise you would get so bugged out about it. So how are you feeling about the matter so far anyway? Myth or science?

No problem, i'm just trying to keep the discussion "a discussion" and not a flamefest. About my opinion, i must confess that i'm somewhat confused. I don't think global warming is a myth. There are enough data to show that in the last century the global temperature has risen up, and there's enough consensus that human activity has an important role into it. What i'm not sure about are the consequences, expecially long-term ones, on the planet. Although i consider some "end of the world" scenarios as radical environmentalist rubbish, there will be surely some effects to be considered. Not only on the climate itself, but also how it will affect the global economy and such.

Think about the possibility that the gulf stream will be disrupted. Europe will cool out year after year. It will translate into troubles in the agriculture and into a bigger energetic demand. How it will affect the "health" of the countries involved? This is a prolific matter of discussion, at least IMO.

 

[Rambuchan]

I agree that the main problem is agreeing on what will happen and then how to deal with that. Between global warming, global dimming, altering salinity levels and shifting predictions of oceanic streams - we simply cannot agree! This poses major problems for us, as you say.

1) Do we gear up our tidal and coastal defences for the rising sea levels? - Well no say some, because salinity levels will cause altered tidal flows and temperatures which may not raise sea levels.

2) Do we slash these greenhouse gases to curb carbon emissions eroding the ozone layer? - Well no say the global dimming guys, they reckon the gases are helping to shield us from the rays pouring through the ozone hole.

3) Do we prepare for hotter climates? - Well there are those who predict a new ice age.

I'm as lost as you on these I have to admit. Atm I tend to agree with the question side on the three points above. I believe the rising temperatures will continue to melt polar ice caps, major ones at that, and sea levels will rise in 99% of the world's coastline areas. Therefore coastal defences and low lying areas like the Netherlands, SE UK, Bangladesh, Houston area, Florida etc all need to have plans in place for this. Either barricades (stupid to take on the sea IMO) and relocation to higher ground are the immediate things to start planning for IMO.

It's also going to get hotter IMO. We have simply been swinging that way so far and I remain unconvinced about a pending ice age. The way we build houses in the UK for example (to keep us warm in cold weather) will have to change. Places like Saudi Arabia or Greece which experience increasingly oppressive temperatures will have to raise their dehydration and heat exhaustion facilities at hospitals, have an infrastructure in place to protect the more vulnerable by offering more shelter and rehydration. Portugal is one place atm which does not need to be reminded of the perils of forest fires, Australia is another. Fire fighting teams will face an increasing burden and adequate resources need to be allocated there. These fires have devastated much of the local economies. As it advances our crop ranges may have to change also. The list could go on but that's a start

These are just some of the things which need to be done IMO.

 

[Urederra]

Hi all,

First of all, thanks tricky to open this interesting thread.

Second, I think there are two issues here, one is if there is global warming or not. The second is if that global warming is due to human activities or not. The first question is not easy to answer, the second is even more difficult, IMHO.

If you look at the temperature levels we had in Europe last winter, you'll find that they were lower than the usual. And that was a bad thing, the vegetables got frozen and the prices of fresh veggies risen up. However, that does not prove that there is not global warming, but what if proves is that you have to study the phenomenom for a long time, one winter is nothing if you want to prove that the global climate is changing.

But, even if you prove that global warming is real, to prove that it is caused ONLY by human factors is even more difficult. There are too many factors that can contribute to the climate on Earth that to study them is very difficult. And we are talking about long term changes and long term consequences, which is far more difficult to forecast than next week's weather. Scientists were wrong when they predicted a new ice age 20 years ago, Why should we trust them now?

Just one fact to make you guys think. about 800 years ago the vikings were on their golden age. ( Increased money and shield production ) and they traveled around Europe and beyond. They even reached a land which they called Greenland, because it was green (at least in its most southern part). They even established colonies over there, because the conditions were good enough to live there.

Now Greenland is not green any more, it is covered by ice. The colonies had to be abandoned some 500 - 600 years ago (My memory is not good for recalling dates, and I am a bit lazy to find out the data, maybe in another post ) Why Greenland was green when the Vikings discovered it? Why is not any green in Greenland any more? Why the vikings had its golden age some 800 years ago? The answer might be because climate changes and they had a warm period 800 years ago that finished about 500 years ago.

And why the climate was warmer when the Vikings arrived to Greenland? Was because of human generated air pollution? I don't think so. Maybe the reason is this one:

The graph shows the relationship between insolation (incoming solar radiation) and earth's average temperature. The correlation is undeniable, and even in later years deviation is minimal. The conclusion any sentient person would come to is that CO2 emissions from technology are not the main cause, or even a significant factor in, global warming.

Just a thing for you to read, if you are interested in the issue:

http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm

(That is a very good book with loads of references and information)

Denying an argument or a piece of data saying that is corporate propaganda sounds like green activists propaganda to me. Like Greenpeace dirty bussiness, you know what I mean....

Nice thread, tr1cky, goodbye to all.

 

[Pikachu]

one winter is nothing if you want to prove that the global climate is changing.

I think climatologists are aware of that

But, even if you prove that global warming is real, to prove that it is caused ONLY by human factors is even more difficult.

Who says it is caused ONLY by human factors? The only thing that needs to be proven is that the human factors are significant, and that is of course well proven.

There are too many factors that can contribute to the climate on Earth that to study them is very difficult.

But the scientists in the field are very clever. I think they are able to study difficult things

Scientists were wrong when they predicted a new ice age 20 years ago, Why should we trust them now?

How were they wrong? I don’t think they predicted a new ice age within 20 years?

The answer might be because climate changes and they had a warm period 800 years ago that finished about 500 years ago.

I believe climatologists are aware of this too. They may even be able to explain why we had a warm period back then

Denying an argument or a piece of data saying that is corporate propaganda sounds like green activists propaganda to me. Like Greenpeace dirty bussiness, you know what I mean....

Who is denying data on that ground? Such data are denied because it is not produced in a scientific way or because it is proven to be wrong by later scientific work.

 

[carlosMM]

Why? The goal of the tread is not to negate or confirm the global warming. It's more about its consequences. Less heat on the north would mean more heat on the equatorial area. It should translate into a wider temperature gap between the (today) temperate regions and the tropics. What about the consequences on the climate? This is interesting. I can imagine the european glaciers stop melting, the agricolture on some european regions quite at stake, and an advancement of the Sahara desert and such. It's actually a point that deserves to be discussed further. Say your opinion on the matter if you like.

As I already pointed out, the reduction of precipitation will mean less snow and ice, thus more absorption of solar heat, near the pole. This means that the north pole will not get significantly colder (although Europe will). The influence on the equator-pole gradient though will not be significant enough to counter the current ice-melting trend. After all, a few square miles of glaciers in the Alps will not do much - remember that these glaciers cover large differences in elevation if they extend while artic ice is 'flat' (most of it). Thus a cooling of the same magnitude will produce relatively little ice in Europe compared to what it could produce at the pole - but there won't be any snow to make ice from at the pole..... See where this is heading? It ain't doing much to stop the heating up worldwide.

EDIT: CarlosMM: that would be interesting. Please post the links. A brief resume would be also welcome, if you have the time.

I'll try - he's in Tibet atm so I can't simply walk over and ask him for the links/PowerPoint files.

 

[carlosMM]

I wonder something. Let suppose we indeed have an ice age in Northern Europe and it leads to a lowering of the sea.

Do ypu think we could use the new lands to build? Or will it remain untouched, just to avoid being flooded at the end of the ice age?

If we get a 'proper' ice age, then there's no reason not to build an Autobahn from Hambrug to London (except if the British fear a German invasion ) After all, it'll be a while until the north sea gets flodded again.

Sadly, this 'if' is a pure hypothetical - earth climate is leaving the 'window' for ice ages quickly and decisively - if you check the graphs in the Ruddiman paper you'll see we have a massive warming coming naturally, adding to the human-made warming we already have - and are then close to the Eocene climate. Ice ages require far lower pole temperatures and a far steeper equator-pole gradient than will be possible for a loooong time!


btw, if you do a world-wide CO2 balance for the last 100,000 years and for the Eocene, you'll see we are actually likely to approach Eocene levels soon. Same goes for methane, once more land gets flooded and some methane ice comes up off the ocean shelfs.

 

[carlosMM]

Hi all,[snip]

pickachu answered you very well so far, but I do take issue with you relying on data that HAS BEEN SHOWN WRONG AND RETRACTED IN THE VERY JOURNAL IT WAS PUBLICHES IN - in this very thread!!!!

And why the climate was warmer when the Vikings arrived to Greenland? Was because of human generated air pollution? I don't think so. Maybe the reason is this one:

Originally Posted by FearlessLeader2
The graph shows the relationship between insolation (incoming solar radiation) and earth's average temperature. The correlation is undeniable, and even in later years deviation is minimal. The conclusion any sentient person would come to is that CO2 emissions from technology are not the main cause, or even a significant factor in, global warming.

see, this VERY THING was hown to be WRONG - did you simply not read the thread ordid you ignore that it is false?

Just a thing for you to read, if you are interested in the issue:

http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm

(That is a very good book with loads of references and information)

erhm, if you bother to check his own website you'll see he has published absolutely nothing scientific in the field. He uses footnotes and gives sources - wow golly, that's standard practice - if you need to endorse a book by saying itr gives sources then the book can't be much...


Also, check this:

Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved.

Now, if I take data from a Mars explorer that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND I can also prove whatever I want using statistics. The problem will be that I have no clue whether my question makes sense

Does this guy anywhere actually try to defeine 'worse' and 'better' - and what's his definition of 'global environment'?

Sorry, I have read too much industry-funded nonsense by people from different fields that I can't take anyome serious anymore who doesn't have a proper list of proper publications in respectable, peer-reviewd journals.
Also, I have seen proven by statistics that earth has a 45 hour day - as usual, as soon as you seperate the numbers from the principle they represent, they are just that - numbers - and you can crunch them any way you want. AS soon as you re-apply them to anything else you'll find that you need to understand these things - Mr. Lombrog has nothign showing for him that indicaes he understands ecosystems - let alone climatology. He is a M.A. in political science (Cand.scient.pol.) 1991.
Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994.
Assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, 1994-1996.
Associate professor 1997-2005.
see?

and if you check thqat independent institute he was director for you will find it has a deploring lack of biologists and climatologists, not even a meteorologist. And their job is assessment, that is second-hand data handling. These people have NO PLACE to pretend to have first-hand research results.

 

[tR1cKy]

As I already pointed out, the reduction of precipitation will mean less snow and ice, thus more absorption of solar heat, near the pole. This means that the north pole will not get significantly colder (although Europe will)....

You have already pointed out it, and you were pretty clear. However this doesn't cover the regional issues in the short term. As you say, Europe will get colder. And since it's a rich, populated and industrialized area, its status is important worldwide. Its average temperature dropping a few degrees will surely have a significant impact. The 1st things that comes into my mind are the harvests disrupted by colder winters, and the rise in energy demand needed to heaten up living areas.

How the increased demand of oil and food will impact the worldwide economy? This is interesting, since the price of oil is already skyrocketing today. And this increased demand will add up to the increased need of some rapidly developing countries, such as China. I don't know much about the worldwide supply of corn and such things, a shortage of food doesn't seem something to happen tomorrow, at least in the industrialized countries. But we have today a good part of the world living in poverty, and some whole populations relying entirely on humanitarian aids. The flow of excess food to those paupered area could be at stake, just to say one. The worsening of the European economy could hamper the flow of humanitarian aids in these countries. I'm just making hypotesis here. Anyone is better informed?

 

[carlosMM]

You have already pointed out it, and you were pretty clear. However this doesn't cover the regional issues in the short term. As you say, Europe will get colder. And since it's a rich, populated and industrialized area, its status is important worldwide. Its average temperature dropping a few degrees will surely have a significant impact. The 1st things that comes into my mind are the harvests disrupted by colder winters, and the rise in energy demand needed to heaten up living areas.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you then - the questions you ask are actually a topic of their own though.

Your scenario isn't half bad - harvests will be hurt, as will be the availability of drinking water (going from say Maine to Utah levels - we will have to learn how to conserve water a lot better, and we will have to invest time, money and energy into cleaning it better).

etc., as delineated by you.

 

[tR1cKy]

Uh! Yeah, i'm probably widening the topic too much... anyway CarlosMM, thanks for the effort you put in the discussion. I see you have a tremendous talent in debunking questionable statements. Not a bad quality at all, since without skepticism there would be no science.

Anyway, where are the environmentalists? I invited a few folks to post here their views, but they didn't show up. Don't be scared! I have stated in the first post that propaganda is useless and unwelcome, but that shouldn't stop a "greenie" to post his opinions. Oviously, if you put here some radical environmentalist crap, such as end-of-the-world scenarios or "we humans are like cancerous cells", expect to be ridiculed by folks like CarlosMM, but as long as you post reasoned views, it's ok.

Just to say one, how global warming and climate chances will impact endangered species? Is another mass extintion upcoming? If yes, why? Should we worry about that? What species are more at risk? How much resources should we invest in saving them?

 

[TruePurple]

salinity levels will cause altered tidal flows and temperatures which may not raise sea levels.

What gibberish is this? Global warming will cause rising waters, its doing so right now, measurably and visibly so, islands and coast line are disappearing.

gear up our tidal and coastal defences for the rising sea levels

Come now, what are you going to do, build a giant wall around the coast of Florida, Britain, etc? That can't be good for tourism, just imagine going to the beach only to see wall cutting you off from the water.

there are those who predict a new ice age.

Who? And whats their proof?

where are the environmentalists?

So what your admitting is that you haven't read many of the replies of this thread.

And I seriously question your definition of "propaganda"

 

[carlosMM]

Anyway, where are the environmentalists?

Wel,, I for am an environmentalist - just not a nutty one

Just to say one, how global warming and climate chances will impact endangered species?

It will kill them, unless we manage beforehand, with a 99% probability. After all, they are close to the end already now.

Is another mass extintion upcoming?

Yes

If yes, why?

Extremely rapid change - in every category! Climate will change everywhere, thus also the most important factors that determine plant cover - humidity, precipitation, evaporation, temperature, snow cover. A total change in these in a short time means massive deforestation, e.g. - simply because a forest can't 'wander' 1000 miles in 1 generation. And this change in vegetation will go up along the food chain. And quick!

The total number of species will rapidly decrease - after all, how should new species evolve quickly in large numbers when most of the 'base' they could evolve from is already dead or massively reduced in numbers? Chances are just so much smaller if a population consists of a few hundreds to ten thousands instead of numbering in the hundred thousands to millions?

Should we worry about that?

Indeed!

What species are more at risk?

more at risk for low population count, very dispersed populations, more rapid or fundamental change of environment.

How much resources should we invest in saving them?

Little - each single species may or may not evolve on to adapt to the climate changes - and who know when some sort of climate stability will be achieved?

OTOH, generally keeping ecosystems large, complex and diverse is a good idea - that keeps material around that cna evolve!

 

[Urederra]

I had a good time reading the whole thread yesterday so I posted a quick letter with my thoughts and just one question that keeps me worrying about the climate change. So far, the question hasn’t been answered, but I had some posts pointing out some things I said in my first post.

Let me post a more elaborated letter. CarlosMM complains about me not reading the whole thread before posting, Let's see who is not reading the whole thread before posting.

Who says it is caused ONLY by human factors?

Pikachu, many of the posts here say that human factor is the ONLY, the principal one or that the other factors are negligible. The fourth post is an example.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3005333&postcount=4
It is undoubtedly true we are in a period of global warming and almost all evidence points to human activity as the culprit. The effects of this climactic change both in the medium and long run are debated.

And the number 41.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3006651&postcount=41
The warming isn't natural, its caused by humans. Our pollution is almost the only factor. (few others, but mostly too small to mention in comparative scale) And the warming is much faster compared to what scientists make of earths previous history of warming and cooling.

And the number 47.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3006754&postcount=47
As my scientific beliefs tend to be fact-based and not faith-based, global warming is a reality, not a myth. It is a fact that the Earth is warming. It is a well-supported theory that this warming is caused by pollution, a theory which I support because it is backed by a myriad of facts.

I said “Denying an argument or a piece of data saying that is corporate propaganda sounds like green activists propaganda to me. Like Greenpeace dirty business, you know what I mean....”

Pikachu replied, “Who is denying data on that ground? Such data are denied because it is not produced in a scientific way or because it is proven to be wrong by later scientific work.”

Poster number 78 is a very clear example:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3007726&postcount=78
I'm actually saying we should be away of the corporate propaganda, which persuades people to start up threads wondering if Climate Change really is happening or not.

Another question Pikachu raised about my post is the Ice age predicted in the 70’s (sorry, I said 20 years ago, I should have said 30 years ago. Time flies ) I don’t have a good memory for dates, but I do have it for facts. 30 years ago scientists were predicting an Ice age, Don’t you remember?, let me refresh your memory:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
(there is a bunch of links over there with old scientific articles predicting a new Ice Age, just because they had some cold winters the decade before).


And, Pikachu, I would really appreciate if you don’t crop my sentences when you cite me. I regard that as being very rude, since the meaning of the cropped sentence might change when you remove part of it. I am referring to the first of my cropped sentence you copied and pasted in your last post.

Well, at the end of Pickachu's post it seems that there is still no answer to the only question I made in my last post. What caused the so-called Medieval Warm Period, (the period when the climate was even warmer than nowadays http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A347_0_2_0_C/ , and when there were even colonies in Greenland) In order to probe that the human activity is drifting earth temperatures worldwide scientists have to explain what were the causes of the Medieval Warm Period (I am sure it wasn’t car pollution ). Only if you know those cause(s) you can study if the global warming you guys say we have nowadays can be explained only by the same causes that triggered the Medieval Warm Period, only by human activity or a mixture of both of them. That would be science to me.

You can find information about the so-called Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period using Google. I just copy some links in case you feel lazy.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/possible_causes.html
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A347_0_2_0_C/

I will reply to CarlosMM next monday, That will require more time and I am not have enough now (I am heading to the countryside to spend the weekend ). Then we can discuss about The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and how Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph fails to show the MWP.

 

[tR1cKy]

Interesting:

gear up our tidal and coastal defences for the rising sea levels

Come now, what are you going to do, build a giant wall around the coast of Florida, Britain, etc? That can't be good for tourism, just imagine going to the beach only to see wall cutting you off from the water.

In Venezia there's something called MOSE under construction now. It's a set of submerged barriers that emerge when the sea level goes up and protect the city from being flooded.

For another example on how coastal barriers can do great things: any Dutch around here?!?

Funny:

there are those who predict a new ice age.

Who? And whats their proof?

In Italy, there's a (usually) well-respected scientific show (documentary?) called SuperQuark. A year or so ago i saw a report on global warming and how it would have changed the climate on the future years. It ended up stating that the melting of Greenland and Artic ice caps would have cooled the ocean so much that a new ice age would have begun.

Probably they need to check their sources better.

Short replies:

So what your admitting is that you haven't read many of the replies of this thread.

Oh no! I don't miss a single row of text in any post. It's been a quite interesting thread so far. Just to say one: silliness, spam and moronic posts are at the bare minimum. Quite a good accomplishment! And obviously, there are lots of things to read and to think about.

There were some people arguing about global warming in your thread and i invited them to post their opinions here, but they didn't show up so far. At least one of them has strong environmentalist views. Didn't you read your own thread?

Sidenote:

And I seriously question your definition of "propaganda"

I didn't give a definition of "propaganda"... so you'll have a hard time questioning it, i suppose

This could actually bring some interest into the discussion. Let's consider a statement that feels strong and convincing emotionally, but on a rational basis is nothing more than "a statement", expressing a strong idea or position about something or a suggestion to take a course of action. The statement is not backed up by any fact, reference, proof or what else. It's purpose is not to explain a fact, a phenomenon... but to convince people to have the "right" idea, to vote for the "right" party, to support the "right" initiative, to donate for the "right" charity and so on.

I consider such statements as "propaganda". Obviously, they do nothing useful when there's a rational debate in course. And since they're useless, they're unwelcome. This could actually be debated though.

Now, CarlosMM, Pikachu, Urederra, TruePurple and anyone else here: let's not forget that this is a sensitive argument, where many people have strong position in merit and sometimes freak out when they are contradicted. Let's keep the tone down for what is possible. This will keep the thread alive and interesting, and avoid it to turn into a flame festival.

Once again, thanx to everyone sharing its view here.

Uh, TruePurple, don't worry. I've read your PM. A reply will come, i'm only waiting a pair of days to consider what you say.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I recall back in my college days I had a project to determine the effects of the sun on climate changes. As it turns out, the Sun does not exactly produce a constant output of solar radiation. its much like a variable star, its intensity varies on a scale which can be seen over a period of decades or centuries.

currently, we are experiencing an era of increased solar luminosity, in effect the sun is actually brighter today than it was just a 100 years ago. this has an effect on global temperatures and can raise temperatures even a degree or two, which, coincidentally is the temperature change some scientist have associated with 'global warming' caused by gaseous emissions.

even though i was once a strong advocate of taking measures to limit gases that contribute to global warming, my research led me to believe that the problem is not as serious as it once seemed to be, the over-all dominant factor in global warming turns out not to be manmade gas emissions all, but Sol itself, which we have absolutely no control over.

the gas emissions can't be helping though, so of course, lets do what we can to clean the air. keeping our air clean is just common sense for healthy living.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'm interested in what are the different opinions about global warming and what could be the long-term effect on world climate. Feel free to post your point of view, being them environmentalist or skeptic. But please don't post useless slogans or propaganda. Put reasons explaining why you think what. Thanks.

As far as I know, the scientific community is fairly united in the notion that global warming, as a consequence of pollution and various other human-mediated interferences, is a fact. The contention appears to only be in the details, as in how much one thing impacts vs. another. Time and time, evidence has been found to implicate rapid climate change in the last 100 years, such that natural forces cannot account. This correlates roughly with the industrial revolution.

 

[tR1cKy]

Aleph-Null, i don't want to belittle your work... but probably a single research made by a student at the college isn't enough to classify the global warming as a phenomenon in which human activity doesn't play a significant role over natural causes. There is plenty of data, research and scientific consensus over the fact that human activity is indeed the key factor.

 

[carlosMM]

Pikachu, many of the posts here say that human factor is the ONLY, the principal one or that the other factors are negligible. The fourth post is an example.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3005333&postcount=4
It is undoubtedly true we are in a period of global warming and almost all evidence points to human activity as the culprit. The effects of this climactic change both in the medium and long run are debated.

And the number 41.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3006651&postcount=41
The warming isn't natural, its caused by humans. Our pollution is almost the only factor. (few others, but mostly too small to mention in comparative scale) And the warming is much faster compared to what scientists make of earths previous history of warming and cooling.

And the number 47.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3006754&postcount=47
As my scientific beliefs tend to be fact-based and not faith-based, global warming is a reality, not a myth. It is a fact that the Earth is warming. It is a well-supported theory that this warming is caused by pollution, a theory which I support because it is backed by a myriad of facts.

A clear case of mixing two different things up - maybe we should reexamine this?

I understood you as saying that people claim climate is generally only changing because of human activity, whcih is a bit different from what they are actually saying: that climate RIGHT NOW changing because of human activity. Actually, most mean MOSTLY ebcause of, too. They say, as is entirely correct in my opinion, that natural causes contribute a negligilbe part ot the recent warming trend.
If you check the paper by Ruddiman I posted you will see this is true.

I said “Denying an argument or a piece of data saying that is corporate propaganda sounds like green activists propaganda to me. Like Greenpeace dirty business, you know what I mean....”

Pikachu replied, “Who is denying data on that ground? Such data are denied because it is not produced in a scientific way or because it is proven to be wrong by later scientific work.”

Poster number 78 is a very clear example:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3007726&postcount=78
I'm actually saying we should be away of the corporate propaganda, which persuades people to start up threads wondering if Climate Change really is happening or not.

Well, have you ever bothered to actually check who's behind all the n'global warming is nonsense' or 'global warming is natural' claims?

I remember well how Basket Case made a long list of links recently - and ALL went to companies or institutes with direct funding by industries who have an interest in GW not being man's fault. OTOH, even all the big oil companies acknowledge it happenes, and CO2 from fossil fuels is a culprit; thus if there really was research showing that'Äs wrong wouldn't we expect them to trumpet that around?

Conclusion: the constant claims of 'It's not true' are nothing but propaganda. Show me any serious independent research that stands up to close scruntity and casts reasonable doubt on human-caused massive warming in the last 8000 years. Can you?

Nope, you can't. Says it all.

Another question Pikachu raised about my post is the Ice age predicted in the 70’s (sorry, I said 20 years ago, I should have said 30 years ago. Time flies ) I don’t have a good memory for dates, but I do have it for facts. 30 years ago scientists were predicting an Ice age, Don’t you remember?, let me refresh your memory:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
(there is a bunch of links over there with old scientific articles predicting a new Ice Age, just because they had some cold winters the decade before).

True - SOME FEW people - this was far from a consensus and at a time when climate research was just getting off the ground. Today, no respectable scientist makes such general and sweeping predictions - after all we know a lot more about the countereffects.

Well, at the end of Pickachu's post it seems that there is still no answer to the only question I made in my last post. What caused the so-called Medieval Warm Period, (the period when the climate was even warmer than nowadays http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A347_0_2_0_C/ , and when there were even colonies in Greenland) In order to probe that the human activity is drifting earth temperatures worldwide scientists have to explain what were the causes of the Medieval Warm Period (I am sure it wasn’t car pollution ). Only if you know those cause(s) you can study if the global warming you guys say we have nowadays can be explained only by the same causes that triggered the Medieval Warm Period, only by human activity or a mixture of both of them. That would be science to me.

erhm, sorry to bust your bubble, but your post sounded like hell to me that you bring forth a debunked source as proof we are clueless. Thus my Q whether you read the thread or not.

And thus I deemed it unnecesary to give you a course in climate history 101 - if you rely on debunked sources, why bother?


Now, Monday's a good day, as my GF will kill me now if I don't log off - I'll explain it to you, then! it is easy, and the little ice age and the warm period are easily explained - man didn't cause these, btw! (well, only partly, see Ruddiman paper).

 

[Pikachu]

Pikachu, many of the posts here say that human factor is the ONLY, the principal one or that the other factors are negligible. The fourth post is an example.

There is a difference between claiming human factors to be the only cause, and to claim it to be the principal cause. I would have no problems with your statement if you moderated it to “caused primarily by human factors” or something.

corporate propaganda

Maybe I used an unwise formulation about this. The thing is that sources characterised as “corporate propaganda” usually are unscientific in nature. Such sources do not deserve serious consideration, but the reason to reject them is because they are unscientific. Scientific works sponsored by businesses should not be rejected that easily I think.

However, I have a not been able to locate any major corporations that reject man made global warming. While I visited the web pages of the biggest oil companies in the world a while ago and searched for info on this topic, I realized that most of them acknowledge anthropogenic global warming as a real problem, and none of them even try to question that theory.

Another question Pikachu raised about my post is the Ice age predicted in the 70’s
…
Don’t you remember?, let me refresh your memory:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
(there is a bunch of links over there with old scientific articles predicting a new Ice Age, just because they had some cold winters the decade before).

One of those links says that the new ice age was “due within the next few centuries, according to one extreme view”. Accordingly the majority must have predicted it to not happen until many centuries or millennia from now. This theory could still be valid for all I know, but please tell me if you have scientific information on it being proven wrong. I guess they didn’t account for the extreme increase in human greenhouse gas emissions since the seventies though, so the predictions may be invalidated by unpredicted human activities.

And, Pikachu, I would really appreciate if you don’t crop my sentences when you cite me.

I like to keep quotes as short as possible. Sometimes cropping sentences is necessary to achieve that goal. It was not my intention to change the meaning of what I quoted, and I cannot see that the meaning did change. Anyway, I apologize for my ignorance.

I have posted a new thread to find out if cropping in quotes indeed is rude. I’ll wait for the response in that thread before I consider changing my policy.

Only if you know those cause(s) you can study if the global warming you guys say we have nowadays can be explained only by the same causes that triggered the Medieval Warm Period, only by human activity or a mixture of both of them. That would be science to me.

Unfortunately I don’t know much about what caused the medieval warm period, but I am pretty sure some reputable scientists have made the analysis you miss. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can help settle this issue.

Of course the small warming of the global temperature we observe is in itself nothing to worry about. The worrying part is what we know about the causes for this insignificant warming. We know for sure that our planet will continue to heat up at an increasing rate, and that could possibly be a serious problem.

Measurements of incoming sun energy reveals that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface has gone down by about 2-3% every decade since the measurements started in the fifties. So measurements prove that the solar energy that reaches the surface is in fact declining, but still the global temperature is increasing. How could that be possible? (Hint: more GHG in the atmosphere will make less energy escape)

Edit: Carlos answered some of this better than me. Thank you

 

[BasketCase]

Aleph-Null, i don't want to belittle your work... but probably a single research made by a student at the college isn't enough to classify the global warming as a phenomenon in which human activity doesn't play a significant role over natural causes. There is plenty of data, research and scientific consensus over the fact that human activity is indeed the key factor.

Why is the theory Aleph-Null posted so hard to believe? We've already got something to show how strongly the sun influences the Earth.

The seasons.

Tilt part of the planet up to a higher angle, and that part of the planet cools off within a matter of weeks. For all this talk about greenhouse gases warming the planet by one degree over the last century, simply turning down the light a little produces much larger changes in temperature, much faster. Pump a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it seems plausible to me that we might see the results in weeks, instead of years.

The only problem I see with that possibility right now is that it doesn't produce the results the global warming people want to reach.....