Global warming is NOT due to humankind ?
(there are 2 pages)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glob...
http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarm...
Answer:
From your own link:
' "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. '
Neither the second nor third link contains anything other than non-peer-reviewed junk in the form of personal opinion. I think it's also rather funny that the anonymous author of the third link (and how anybody can trust an anonymous author is beyond me) apparently does not realize that the large graph he puts at the top if his page contains ample evidence for increased greenhouse effect being the cause of the recent warming. Take a look at the blue line for the stratosphere, and you will see it COOLING. This happens when the greenhouse effect increases, because more heat is trapped near the ground. So the cooling stratosphere is one more nail in the coffin of the "sun is doing it" hypothesis.
If you want to read what real climate scientists say, you need to start looking at real scientific journals instead of surfing the web. Here are a few:
T. M. L. Wigley, R. L. Smith, B. D. Santer (1998) Anthropogenic Influence on the Autocorrelation Structure of Hemispheric-Mean Temperatures. Science 282(5394):1676-1679. "Solar forcing alone cannot reconcile the differences in autocorrelation structure between observations and model control-run data."
Stephen H. Schneider (1994). Detecting Climatic Change Signals: Are There Any "Fingerprints"? Science 263(5145):341-347. "an 80 to 90 percent heuristic likelihood that the 20th-century 0.5 ± 0.2°C warming trend is not a wholly natural climatic fluctuation"
T.P. Barnett, D.W. Pierce, K.M. AchutaRao, P.J. Gleckler, B.D. Santer, J.M. Gregory, W.M. Washington (2005). Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science 309(5732):284-287. "A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences."
K.Y. Vinnikov, A. Robock, R.J. Stouffer, J.E. Walsh, C.L. Parkinson, D.J. Cavalieri, J.F.B. Mitchell, D. Garrett, V.F. Zakharov (1999). Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent. Science 286(5446):1934-1937. "...the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability...is less than 2 percent for the 1978-98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953-98 sea ice trends."
P. A. Stott, S. F. B. Tett, G. S. Jones, M. R. Allen, W. J. Ingram, J. F. B. Mitchell (2001). Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes. Climate Dynamics 17(1):1-21. "The results indicate that the increases in temperature observed in the latter half of the century have been caused by warming from anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases offset by cooling from tropospheric sulfate aerosols rather than natural variability, either internal or externally forced. We also find that greenhouse gases are likely to have contributed significantly to the warming in the first half of the century."
P. A. Stott (2003) Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(14):1728-1731. "The warming effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have been detected in all the regions examined, including North America and Europe."
Benjamin D. Santer, Karl E. Taylor, Tom M. L. Wigley, Joyce E. Penner, Philip D. Jones and Ulrich Cubasch (1995). Towards the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic effect on climate. Climate Dynamics 12(2):77-100. "we have provided first evidence that both the largest-scale (global-mean) and smaller-scale (spatial anomalies about the global mean) components of a combined C02/anthropogenic sulfate aerosol signal are identifiable in the observed near-surface air temperature data ... we can be highly confident that the anthropogenic signal that we have identified is distinctly different from internally generated natural variability noise."
Simon F. B. Tett, Gareth S. Jones, Peter A. Stott, David C. Hill, John F. B. Mitchell, Myles R. Allen, William J. Ingram, Tim C. Johns, Colin E. Johnson, Andy Jones, David L. Roberts, David M. H. Sexton And Margaret J. Woodage (2000). Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to 20th Century Temperature Change. Hadley Centre Technical Note 19. "we find that we can detect the effects of changes in well-mixed greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings and natural forcings. Thus these have all had a significant impact on temperature."
A. Walter, C.D. Schönwiese (2002). Attribution and Detection of anthropogenic Climate Change using a Backpropagation Neural Network. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 11(5):335-343. "BPN succeeds with the detection of anthropogenic induced climate change on a high significance level."
Peter A. Stott, Gareth S. Jones, and John F. B. Mitchell (2003). Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change? Journal of Climate 16(24):4079-4093. "...the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century."
Of course it isn't, no matter what we dump into the air and water, everything is going to be fine so long as we vote republican.
go back to sleep
or go to China,Africa,Mexico,India and see for yourself before making these preposterous statements waving blue sentences at us
Good try... but facts will never be allowed to get in the way of feel good science and politics.
National Geographic themselves posted a refutation for the first link (1). The second link was written by Timothy Ball, the self proclaimed First Canadian PhD In Climatology who is actually the Thirtieth Or So Canadian PhD In Climatology, and so isn't worth bothering with. And the third is so nonsensical I couldn't make it past the first few paragraphs (the author presumably knows something about electrical engineering but obviously knows nothing about climate and climate modeling). Got anything better?
I'd bother to refute the articles for you myself if I thought you'd actually care. But you wouldn't so I won't.
I guess I have more patience. And Lordkelvin wanted facts.
First, Mars.
The NASA scientist who actually did the work on Mars say that it's different reasons than Earth, most likely giant dust storms which are well known to occur there.
Most of the planets are not warming, so it's not the Sun.
There are a (very) few scientists who are skeptics, and the last two articles are by two of them.
Tim Ball is a historical climatologist who has never had a paper published on modern climatology. His historically based arguments are answered by modern climatologists here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
You can read about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/timothy_f._...
The last guy doesn't give his name. Here's one thing he says that's known nonsense:
"Changes in volcanic emissions (CO2 and other substances) (are a cause)"
Volcanoes are well studied and they're a minor factor:
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoe...
Most of his other arguments are answered by the newscientist website above.
Bottom line; The world's scientists have heard all of these arguments. And the vast majority of them, after considering ALL the evidence, think global warming is real and 80-90% caused by us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...
Note the key word "quantitative" in the quote below. If you include man made greenhouse gases in the scientific equations, the numbers come out right. If you don't, they don't. The arguments on the websites you site are not quantitative, they're logical. Logical arguments are for debates, science is based on data. The profend website below has tons of quantitative data I won't repeat here.
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
Perhaps if you had actually read the article you'd know that its inaccurate. NO ONE in the article disputed that human activity causes global warming--they only speculated (NOT concluded) that changes in solar radiation might be a contributing cause on Earth and Mars.
Also--IF you actually knew anything about science, instead of listening to idiots like Rush Limbaugh, you'd know that the Mars warming turns out to be do to planetary climate shifts totally unrelated either to the sun or to what's happening on Earth.
Your remaining sources aren't even respectable--don't you know junk science and conspiracy theorists when you see them?
To your first source, in comparing Earth's situation to Mars there are 3 basic problems:
1. If the cause were a solar phenomenon then it would be affecting all planets proportionately to how close they were to the sun. This is observed to not be the case.
2. Mars has always had ice caps (probably the wrong word, they're largely frozen carbon dioxide caps) that seasonally evaporate.
3. We have solar radiation detectors and they haven't detected an increase of anything like the order necessary to account for global warmings observed effects... the only thing that correlates with the observations so far is human activity.
Your second source doesn't actually have any evidence at all, just whinges and bitches that everyone calls him a skeptic for not accepting current theoretical understanding without providing evidence for or proposing alternative causes for the observations and evidence of the vast majority of scientists studying the issue.
The last merely attacks scientists and makes claims that are flat out wrong as well as misrepresenting data - further his own graphs contradict each other, at one point suggesting that has been no increase in global mean temperature (flat out wrong) and at other points admitting that global temperatures have increased on average. He claims that variables which have been accounted for have not been, he also claims that solar radiation hasn't been examined as a possible cause and again this is flat out untrue - in fact given we can directly measure solar radiative output and have not seen an increase of the order of magnitude necessary to account for global warming we can fairly easily dismiss this argument because it fails to correlate with our observations.
Agreed; global warming is just a scare tactic
Parrot squawked:
National Geographic themselves posted a refutation for the first link (1). The second link was written by Timothy Ball, the self proclaimed First Canadian PhD In Climatology who is actually the Thirtieth Or So Canadian PhD In Climatology, and so isn't worth bothering with. And the third is so nonsensical I couldn't make it past the first few paragraphs (the author presumably knows something about electrical engineering but obviously knows nothing about climate and climate modeling). Got anything better?
Oh, Really...
1. If National Geographic"refutes" the findings, then why hasn't it removed the refuted information from their own website? They haven't figured out this goldarn interweb thingy, yet? Could it be that they publish articles of varying viewpoints - you know, like science USED TO BE? Or is it that as soon as you see any data or opinion that matches your bias, you immediately exclude everything else as a possibility? You know - like IPCC "science" is TODAY.
2. So you dismiss the second author because you believe he claims he's the first Canadian PhD, when he obviously writes "one of the" in front of "first"? Do you have a link to this unfounded claim, or is that just your recollection from perusing one of your "talking points" pages? Or maybe you are so grammatically-challenged that you don't know the meaning of "one of the"? Nevertheless, is dismissing out of hand any evidence or critical review thereof based on your allegations even logical? If so, then we all should have marginalized Gore since his self-proclaimed invention of the Internet. (Or his claim to have been the inspiration for "Love Story".)
3. You cherry pick journal articles. You dismiss climatologists whose personalities you don't like, and now you refuse to listen to any other scientist if they don't agree with your prejudice. But you accept bureaucrats, politicians, economists, and ANY researcher who tows the IPCC line.
BTW, the third link had some very interesting insights about scientific method and computer modeling, both of which he knows quite a bit. A lot of his knowledge of the particular data was not quite on the mark, but that did not detract from the primary thrust of this article.
Global Warming is due to humankind, because the spraying, burning, pollution is breaking the ozone layer, all the floods are from the melting of ice from the North Pole and South Pole, and all of the sun's rays are trapped in the earth's atmosphere, and every year the average temperature is increasing 1'(degree), this is Global Warming.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: