On global warming

[lazs2]

I would suggest that if data was inconclusive but indicated more study was needed then it would behoove research groups to emphasize the data that pointed to disaster if they wished to recieve a lot of funding.   Many people are not only gulible but will search out proof that thier gullability is valid.
lazs

[Nifty]

wait, 9% over the past century, yet they're talking about melting since the 1990s?

[midnight Target]

"What's wrong with asking? "

Nothing at all, and you are correct. My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I will see what I can find out from here.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Wlfgng

gofaster,, she's not gonna' be very cute when she's got skin cancer

That's why she waited until twilight to come out from under that beach cabana.

To be honest, you bring up a good point - solar radiation.  I'm not as concerned about global warming as I am about the depletion of the ozone layer and the impact of the radiation burns on all living things.

[midnight Target]

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

[Nifty]

np, MT.  It's pretty obvious that humans are affecting the climate in this day and age.  What isn't obvious is how that affect relates to previous natural changes.  Regardless of the relationship between the current ROC and previous ROCs, humans should be more responsible with the way they interact with the environment.  However, we'll forgive Lazs if he wants to have a gas guzzling car.  

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Nifty
wait, 9% over the past century, yet they're talking about melting since the 1990s?

Look Nifty, if you really want to find out more about this, and discuss the article I link to , it might help if you actually read it.  I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing piece by piece, when the answers to most of your questions are already there.


Edit: PS, tree rings one way that climatologist find out what the temperature was like in the past.

[Fatty]

What bothers me is that none of the articles mentions the period of rapid glacial advance ending in the late 19th century, that was also unprecedented.  Greenland was not named so to hide the fact it's covered in ice, despite the pop-culture versions.

The glaciers should be receding, how much so is what should be in question.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Fatty
What bothers me is that none of the articles mentions the period of rapid glacial advance ending in the late 19th century, that was also unprecedented.

I would really appreciate it if you could post some sources for this information.

[Rude]

Life as we know it is over....play AH as much as possible in the interim.

[jdm3]

Anybody ever think that without global warming, we would still be stuck in the last ice age?

-Abunabi

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by jdm3
Anybody ever think that without global warming, we would still be stuck in the last ice age?

-Abunabi

When was the last iceage?  What was the average surface temp then.  How many millenia did it take for it to get to this surface temp now?

[Fatty]

Thrawn, search "little ice age", that's the most popular name for it.  Starting period seems to be debated from 14th to 17th centuries, but people seem to agree steam picked up in the 17th and ended in the 19th (could the industrial pollution have saved us from a major ice age?  I would find that indeed amusing).

The university of glasgow has an interesting article on the Breidamerkurjökull glacier at present levels still being 20km past what used to be farmland.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/publications/leadingedge/7/2.html

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Fatty
What bothers me is that none of the articles mentions the period of rapid glacial advance ending in the late 19th century, that was also unprecedented.  Greenland was not named so to hide the fact it's covered in ice, despite the pop-culture versions.

The glaciers should be receding, how much so is what should be in question.

"Miller's study has revealed, for example, that the Lemon Creek Glacier has receded substantially since 1759. It has also revealed that the Lemon Creek Glacier's surface has dropped overall by about 82 feet from 1953 to 1999. In 1996 and 1997, no new snow was retained on its surface."

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/052701/Ins_globalwarming.html

[Fatty]

That's a perfect example, Thrawn.  Did you wonder why he starts in 1759?  Could this perhaps have something to do with it?

The Little Ice age reached its maximum extent here about 1750, when general melting began.

That's just the background info on glacier bay Alaska, from the national parks service.
http://www.aqd.nps.gov/grd/parks/glba/