Global warming evidence, a question...

[Samm]

green house gas is a misleading term . the reason why gases like c02, h20, and methane cause global warming is becuase the reflect infared radiation .

[Samm]

Here is a usefull non politcal site on the subject .
http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/globalwarming/intro.html

[Wotan]

Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.

Then you seem to conclude

but people clearly are agents of environmental change

Like I said

The whole global warming in and of it self is conjecture and "anecdotal postulation".

Given known wheather and climate patterns over the past the 30 years no one has yet produced a model that accurrately matches what we see now based on previous known data.

Even the ozone thinning has shown that it has recovered somewhat.

Co2 levels have been higher on this planet then they are now. The earth recovered. Scientist cant even tell you if what we see now is a product of a post ice age warm up or if following the current conditions we may face a "cooling down" period later. But I care nothing about global warming, I was just pointing out that instead of taking a shot at Gruen your first replies were completely lacking in substance.

As it stands Gruen's original post and question was clear. Cut-n-Paste all you want but the others in the thread got it.

[Thrawn]

Wotan, are you saying it is isn't getting hotter, the polar ice caps aren't melting at unprecidented rate, the glaciers aren't receeding at speeds not seen in hundreds of thousands of years?

[Wotan]

the polar ice caps aren't melting at unprecidented rate

By what standard and over what time frame?

If you read his quote here

But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected.

A new five-year research plan presented this week by scientists and government officials meeting in Washington, D.C., asserts that people clearly are agents of environmental change, though it is still unclear how much human activity contributes.

Finally

Since 1979, the melt area has grown by 16 percent and is affecting higher and higher elevations.
Across the Arctic Ocean, the floating mantle of ice that covers it throughout much of the year shrank to record levels this summer, said Mark Serreze, also of the University of Colorado. In September, sea ice extent was 4 percent lower that that seen in any previous September since monitoring began in 1978.

Prove that these percentages of melt havent occurred before. Sea ice melt could be related a shift in warm water currents.


Co2 levels have been theorized to have been at much higher levels in the earths history. Life didnt end. Hi temps could mean higher humidity and water vapor trapped in the atmosphere. That could absorb the co2 bring to earth in rain and we could go into a rapid "cool down".

Anyway this is stupid issue that I care little about. As a matter of fact I work at an electric generating station that utilizes coal as a fuel source.

I will throw a couple of extra lumps on for yas.........

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Wotan
Prove that these percentages of melt havent occurred before. Sea ice melt could be related a shift in warm water currents.
B]

I didn't say NEVER before.  I said not in hundreds of thousands of years.

Snow falls in layers every year.  You can read them like the rings of a tree.


"Anyway this is stupid issue that I care little about. As a matter of fact I work at an electric generating station that utilizes coal as a fuel source. "

Flee puny mortal, for you are being crushed in the IRON GRIP of reason!!   Muahahahahah!

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Wotan
Then you seem to conclude

 

Like I said

 

Given known wheather and climate patterns over the past the 30 years no one has yet produced a model that accurrately matches what we see now based on previous known data.

Even the ozone thinning has shown that it has recovered somewhat.

Co2 levels have been higher on this planet then they are now. The earth recovered. Scientist cant even tell you if what we see now is a product of a post ice age warm up or if following the current conditions we may face a "cooling down" period later. But I care nothing about global warming, I was just pointing out that instead of taking a shot at Gruen your first replies were completely lacking in substance.

As it stands Gruen's original post and question was clear. Cut-n-Paste all you want but the others in the thread got it.

Actaully all the 'cut and pastes' are from the same source material.

My actual answer to the question was:

Possibly - but people clearly are agents of environmental change and considering the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution clearly predates the 1930's. Coupled with the fact that most proper records of climate change (ie. ice melt) seem to have been recorded from the late 20th century then it is entirely possible that early pollution and temps are linked.

or did you miss that?

 Tronsky

[hardcase]

Sunlight enters with all frequencies heating the earth. The earth radiates in the infrared. The Greenhouse gases absorb and reradiate that frequency range. Random chance over time reflects the energy back toward the earth reducing the amout chance lets back into space.


England is getting colder and storms are increasing in intensity, Alaskan Glaciers are ,melting and European Galcier are doing the same. Climate is following the  computer models.


I don't live on the coast, do you?

HC

[whgates3]

the average temperatue differences between am ice age and a warm age (is there a term for the opposite of an ice age?) are surprisinly small - about 8 - 10 degrees.  that being said it is also important to note that the late 1800s were unusually cold (maybe somewhat due to krakatoa dust), sometimes called a mini ice age, so the temperature charts starting there are a bit misleading, as is calling penn state is non-political

[Wotan]

20th century then it is entirely possible that early pollution and temps are linked.

So the conclusion is that is possible.......big deal.

It took you numerous threads to cut n paste an answer to a question you originally deemed "conjecture".

The answer to the question is irrelevant to me as I stated above. As it seems its just more "conjecture" then the original question.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hello:
 
When I read reports about new global warming evidence and rersearch I often see a statement like: "these are the highest temperatures ever seen in the area since the 19XX" or one on CNN.com now that says "Greenland is experiencing a warm spell unseen since the 1930s", as opposed to highest temperature on record statistics.  Well doesnt this go against the argument they are making that these temperatures are unnnatural and due to recent modern human pollution if they were seen so long ago before the vast majority of human polluting activity?

Anyone?

Well, some people argue that there is a difference between raised average temperatures (something that would indicate global warming) and recorded high temperatures (something that has got nothing to do with global warming at all).

[straffo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, some people argue that there is a difference between raised average temperatures (something that would indicate global warming) and recorded high temperatures (something that has got nothing to do with global warming at all).

I'm glad you don't do math for living

Otherwise you would be jobless quite fast

[Hortlund]

What do you mean?

[straffo]

comparing average and maximun as no sense !

[lazs2]

I am extremely glad that it appears that we have averted the inevitable ice age that was due here by now or within the next ten years... I have been biting my nails (and puncturing freon tanks) for thirty or more years ever since all the TV shows and Time magazine article on the coming ice age that was to be in full swing by now..  
lazs