Is the earth getting warmer as part of a natural cycle?
Tee Quake
2012/07/26 18:46:17
|
|
|||||
|
6 votes
|
|
38% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
25% | |||
|
6 votes
|
|
38% | |||
Yes
Are you just trying to get to level 20?
Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate - Meehl et al 2004: http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff...
Numerous studies show that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate -
Whether the earth is cooling or warming depends totally on how many years you look at in your analysis. This latest analysis of tree rings going back 2000 years says the earth is cooling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sc...
http://www.skepticalscience.c...
Of course, it's also being accelerated by increased carbon emmisions in the atmosphere, their interaction with IR light, and it's effects on "Globabl warming" are well known, and scientifically explained.
Of course, accurate observations going back far enough to prove this is the case is tricky to come by.
The Earth's is in a NATURAL constant fluctuation. The Earth has many systems of checks and balances to take care of C02. Which it has been doing and we are jstu beginning to see its results.
That's why ice all over the planet is melting at an accelerating rate.
Also, chlorophyll levels have also leveled off. The alarmist's models suggest it should be decreasing. As the years go by the computer model's of the past based on the collected data for the past 100 years has shown its holes.
Mother Earth has taken care of the extra carbon via the green life.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data...
^this recent study has proven so.
That would explain the accelerating meltdown of Arctic sea ice -
... and the ice on Antarctica and Greenland -
... as well as mountain glaciers and ice caps worldwide -
It would also explain why global sea level is still rising -
So it would be nice to think that global warming was slowing down, but unfortunately that's not what the evidence shows.
"the Earth has been gaining heat at a faster rate in the most recent decade than in the two previous ones:"
^this is not true.
Arctic and Antarctic ice ARE extending.
^wouldn't be happening if Man mad C02 was the main culprit in driving global warming.
Looks to me like a natural fluctuation.
Global warming is real. Anyone who says its not is kidding themselves. What I am saying is, the rate should have increased much faster since man C02 emission has doubled in 10 years. I do not fall in line with the alarmists trying to tell us we are the cause of it. I'm not falling for the green energy agenda.
The fact is, neither side has compelling evidence to say so. I feel comfortable in believing in the system mother nature has.
THere is no evidence human C02 causes the increase....Just theories and models which took solar intensity into affect and were still wrong. By their studies the temp should have increased almost 1.5. it is 0.7. Their models are all wro...
"the Earth has been gaining heat at a faster rate in the most recent decade than in the two previous ones:"
^this is not true.
Arctic and Antarctic ice ARE extending.
^wouldn't be happening if Man mad C02 was the main culprit in driving global warming.
Looks to me like a natural fluctuation.
Global warming is real. Anyone who says its not is kidding themselves. What I am saying is, the rate should have increased much faster since man C02 emission has doubled in 10 years. I do not fall in line with the alarmists trying to tell us we are the cause of it. I'm not falling for the green energy agenda.
The fact is, neither side has compelling evidence to say so. I feel comfortable in believing in the system mother nature has.
THere is no evidence human C02 causes the increase....Just theories and models which took solar intensity into affect and were still wrong. By their studies the temp should have increased almost 1.5. it is 0.7. Their models are all wrong. Il nina should be stronger with each passing cycle based on their models...SO MUCH WRONG and still people follow the models.
none of my links worked "Can not parse HTML: malformed start tag"
You're back to the same erroneous argument though, citing 10 years of data this time, even less than before. The solar cycle is 11 years so it's futile to try to pin down a long-term trend in anything less than two solar cycles, and three is safer. ENSO also has a large effect over periods of a few years. Since we have a fairly good idea of how these factors affect climate, we can do an analysis. Here's the warming we expect to see if CO₂ were the *only* influence on global climate:
Add the fluctuations in solar irradiance due to the 11-year solar cycle:
... and then the fluctuations due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
These are the most significant influences on global mean temperature. We can now see how this constructed temperature series compares to observations:
A remarkably close fit. The early 90s dip in temperature was caused by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Just to confirm this result, we can see how well the reconstruction matches global temperature if the influence of CO₂ is not taken into account:
Conclusion...
You're back to the same erroneous argument though, citing 10 years of data this time, even less than before. The solar cycle is 11 years so it's futile to try to pin down a long-term trend in anything less than two solar cycles, and three is safer. ENSO also has a large effect over periods of a few years. Since we have a fairly good idea of how these factors affect climate, we can do an analysis. Here's the warming we expect to see if CO₂ were the *only* influence on global climate:
Add the fluctuations in solar irradiance due to the 11-year solar cycle:
... and then the fluctuations due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
These are the most significant influences on global mean temperature. We can now see how this constructed temperature series compares to observations:
A remarkably close fit. The early 90s dip in temperature was caused by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Just to confirm this result, we can see how well the reconstruction matches global temperature if the influence of CO₂ is not taken into account:
Conclusion: Same as many recent papers - global warming cannot be explained without including the anthropogenic influences.
So you add flux of both solar intensity and El nino....And what is it you alarmists say?
It is IMPOSSIBLE with our current tech to deterimine how much of the C02 in our atmosphere is caused by man. IMMPOSSIBLE as of now.
Do you know how they even determine which c02 molecules are from man?
Anyway, my whole point is, we do not have enough data to conclude the primary driving force is human caused. Too many factors are in play. We cannot even predict the weather......
Jumping to this conclusion has only caused the exploitation of the people with raised taxes.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/846...