Climate Change - Reliable & Honest Reporting

[MangoChutney]

One of my interests, and the reason I joined this forum, is climate change.

 

I am sceptical of rising temperatures being solely down to man and believe man contributes but not significantly. I understand the link between CO2 and the atmosphere, but I think water vapour plays a much more significant role in global warming.

 

What I would really like is to find a reliable, unbiased, honest, unpolitical website, which reports what is really happening on climate change. I like the CO2 Science website, because it is fairly open with it's funding, gives references for all it's articles and because it coincides with my current view. I'm not so keen on Real Climate, because they have a tendancy to shout down any desenters from their view, often without reference.

 

Does anybody know of any such websites that I can refer to?

 

TIA

[markus.dnd]

i dont know about the web but as i remember from my geography lessons it happens with or without human help... climate is gonna change!

[jackson33]

What your asking for is a site, which agrees with your thinking. While I agree with your rather brief summation, the best way to learn the various viewpoints is read the extremes. While your at it, you might check out historical climate change, which involves cycles which the planet has endured with some evidence back millions of years. Additionally there are many who feel, solar activity is involved. I do question *references* since any view, pro/con, mans involvement are well documented and easily researched...

[MangoChutney]

What your asking for is a site, which agrees with your thinking. While I agree with your rather brief summation, the best way to learn the various viewpoints is read the extremes.

 

I don't think I'm looking for a site that agrees with me, just one that presents factual information and conclusions without bias and I do try to read the extremes of both sides. The problem with most sites that I have come across, is they take the attitude that you are for us or against us - and that's on both sides of the argument.

 

While your at it, you might check out historical climate change, which involves cycles which the planet has endured with some evidence back millions of years.

 

One thing I find very telling is the IPCC AR4, which clearly states there is insufficient data for the last few thousand years for the southern hemisphere and the tropics. More than 50% of the planet has insufficient data! I understand the principles of statistics and extrapolation, but it seems a mighty big "guess" for something so important. Refer to Section 6 for the statements.

 

Additionally there are many who feel, solar activity is involved. I do question *references* since any view, pro/con, mans involvement are well documented and easily researched...

 

Add in the weakening strength of the magnetic field, the flood that happened only 8000 years ago in the North Sea, clouds that we really don't know enough about, the jet stream changing position etc and I think much more research is required on both sides of the argument before we spend billions on preventing something that may be unpreventable.

 

Still Al Gore and Generation Investment Management are doing well at out of the Climate Change Global Business

 

JMHO

[lucaspa]

One of my interests, and the reason I joined this forum, is climate change.

 

I am sceptical of rising temperatures being solely down to man and believe man contributes but not significantly.

 

What I would really like is to find a reliable, unbiased, honest, unpolitical website, which reports what is really happening on climate change.

 

The IPCC website is unbiased and unpolitical. Politicians have tried to mess with the data (people who share your view), but the scientists have put the data there.

 

You can also go to the July Scientific American and see a reliable, unbiased, hones, and unpolitical articles summarizing the work of climatologists to date: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=B1182F51-E7F2-99DF-30CB2EAAC975FE93

 

Water vapor isn't going to account for the increase observed in average temperature. Remember, there is only so much water vapor the atmosphere can hold, so there is an upper limit.

 

One thing I find very telling is the IPCC AR4, which clearly states there is insufficient data for the last few thousand years for the southern hemisphere and the tropics. More than 50% of the planet has insufficient data! I understand the principles of statistics and extrapolation, but it seems a mighty big "guess" for something so important. Refer to Section 6 for the statements.

 

Is it "insufficient" to determine that global warming is happening? Or is it just "insufficient" in terms of understanding the exact paleoclimate of the area? When you talk of data, you must always keep in mind the hypothesis being discussed. In this case, if you read carefully, you will find the "insufficient" refers to only an auxiliary hypothesis, not the major one: anthropogenic global warming.

 

Add in the weakening strength of the magnetic field, the flood that happened only 8000 years ago in the North Sea,

 

What flood? I have seen articles that there were settlements 8,000 years ago on parts of the North Sea now flooded, but the data I've seen says that the "North Sea" flooded over a period of 12,000 years (18000 - 6,000 years ago) as the Ice Age ended. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6584011.stm

 

I think much more research is required on both sides of the argument before we spend billions on preventing something that may be unpreventable.

 

So this is about the $$. Not about the science. You are trying to confuse the science issue so the $$ doesn't have to be spent. Thanks for making your agenda clear.

[Dak]

The IPCC website is unbiased and unpolitical. Politicians have tried to mess with the data (people who share your view), but the scientists have put the data there.

 

normally i'd agree with you, and with most the IPCC publications I do; however, do you have any specific reason to treat the most recent as science? last i heard, there were some moanings from the scientists responsable for it about ommitions due to political pressure and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus.

[lucaspa]

normally i'd agree with you, and with most the IPCC publications I do; however, do you have any specific reason to treat the most recent as science? last i heard, there were some moanings from the scientists responsable for it about ommitions due to political pressure and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus.

 

You are right, of course. The politicians did screw around with the summary statement for the politicians and there was quite a stink. Several scientists walked out and some said they would never work with the IPCC again due to the interference of politicians trying to water down the conclusions. China wanted the number of projected deaths made vague, and the certainty was higher than 90%. However, in terms of what MangoChutney wants, this makes the statement weaker for anthropogenic climate change than what the scientists think it should be. So MangoChutney can trust any statements for GW, knowing that scientists feel the changes should have been stronger.

 

I find the SciAm article very convincing. The first figure looking at the contributions of various factors on forcing temperature change blows away SkepticLance's oftstated claim that solar activity is greater than human activity. The graphs on modeling also blow away any claims that they are unreliable, since they match the existing data very well. I haven't been able to copy any figures and graphs out of the PDF for pasting here. I'm hoping someone else will have more luck.

[jackson33]

Mango; My hope is the United Nations will become an Organization, which can play a roll in World Affairs. However, as for the recent reports inferring GW is a man made event caused by industrialized nations is to far out of line with reality and obviously oriented to distribution of National Wealth, I would rather not argue their findings. I do find it interesting, your quoting IPCC while asking for independent thoughts over the WEB.

 

NASA, has charge of the Antarctica Outpost, which has taken Ice Cores from what the SH should have been like going well back in time. Northern Poles have been explored nearly as far back in time, with Ocean core samples, geological finds and many other sources computed give a pretty clear picture of at least what things should have been like, back to 240 million years ago, the beginning of the Dino period or end of a rather large Ice Age. These figures for GH gases are fairly constant to what probably was before then and actual weather patterns can be simulated to a degree. If this is not a form to conclusive, I can only argue these findings do not show it inconclusive.

 

Personally, I don't' oppose any research into GW, man made or not, however when that question is present to usual automatic reply is to alter mans activity or do nothing to upset the status quo and I'll side with letting the research go on, but leave the blame open.

 

Weather conditions, primarily atmospheric moisture/clouds/rain-snow fall, are very important to short time changes. Most occur over the 70% of Earths surface, the oceans and we have very little historical statistics to go by. IMO, the pre 40's warm dry spells, the pre 80's cold spells and the current warming trend are more related to these conditions which I also feel are headed back to cooler weather patterns.

 

The Magnetic Field shifts, may have value but we do know the Sun shifts every 11 years or so W/O major changes, that Mars had a last one, some time ago and know very little of our own.

[1veedo]

Additionally there are many who feel, solar activity is involved.

Just like many feel at one point in the past there was a great flood and Noah put all the little animals on a giant boat to save them.

normally i'd agree with you' date=' and with most the IPCC publications I do; however, do you have any specific reason to treat the most recent as science? last i heard, there were some moanings from the scientists responsable for it about ommitions due to political pressure and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus.[/quote']Well the politicians wanted the conclusions to seem more mellow then they actually are. Scientists think global warming is actually going to be worse than what is predicted in Summary for Policy Makers.

What I would really like is to find a reliable' date=' unbiased, honest, unpolitical website, which reports what is really happening on climate change.[/quote']Sure.

 

http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://eo.ucar.edu/

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

[MangoChutney]

The IPCC website is unbiased and unpolitical. Politicians have tried to mess with the data (people who share your view), but the scientists have put the data there.

 

In the UK at least, I am sure the majority of the politicians do not share my view, but see GW as a way of extracting even more taxes. If GW isn't a way of extracting even more taxes, why don't they allow renewables and energy saving measures to be VAT free? VAT is charged on everything at 17.5%. Why are they bulldozing whole neighbourhoods and rebuilding them, when bringing the existing housing up to modern standards is much more energy efficient and cheaper? Why is VAT charged on bringing these houses uptodate and not on new build houses? Why is a possible (part) solution to GW ignored? The use of intensive and extensive roof gardens could help to reduce temperatures by 4C, attenuate rain water flooding and freshen the air

 

Water vapor isn't going to account for the increase observed in average temperature. Remember, there is only so much water vapor the atmosphere can hold, so there is an upper limit.

 

But as the temperature rises so does the capacity for the atmosphere to retain more water vapour.

 

Is it "insufficient" to determine that global warming is happening? Or is it just "insufficient" in terms of understanding the exact paleoclimate of the area? When you talk of data, you must always keep in mind the hypothesis being discussed. In this case, if you read carefully, you will find the "insufficient" refers to only an auxiliary hypothesis, not the major one: anthropogenic global warming.

 

Give me a chance to re-read and I will try to remember to come back to you on this one

 

What flood? I have seen articles that there were settlements 8,000 years ago on parts of the North Sea now flooded, but the data I've seen says that the "North Sea" flooded over a period of 12,000 years (18000 - 6,000 years ago) as the Ice Age ended. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6584011.stm.

 

The BBC is a very left wing organisation and tends to be a little biased on it's reporting these days. Gone are the days when the BBC presented balanced reporting. Refer to the following, which indicate rapid flooding of the North Sea

 

http://www.arch-ant.bham.ac.uk/research/fieldwork_research_themes/projects/North_Sea_Palaeolandscapes/project_outline/01_Introduction.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(prehistoric)

 

So this is about the $$. Not about the science. You are trying to confuse the science issue so the $$ doesn't have to be spent. Thanks for making your agenda clear.

 

In part, yes. I don't want my money being spent on trying to solve a crisis that may not exist.

 

In the UK, we are already one of the most taxed nations in the world. We pay petrol duty and VAT at around 90%, we pay green tax on flights, they are looking at pay-as-you-drive schemes on top of road tax and petrol taxes, the list will become endless as they come up with more schemes to tax us.

 

But the other part is, we have to accept that global warming is happening, because we can measure the rise in temperature. We know this will effect the poorest people in the world, who already suffer from the effects on dirty water etc. If I am going to have punitive taxes forced on me, I want the money spent on providing clean water, sanitation etc for the millions affected, not on some climatic event that may be natural.

 

I drive a small 2 seater car that is economically good, although because I work from home, I don't use the car often, choosing to walk most places, I have recycled long before it became fashionable, and I do try to be as environmentally aware as I can be.

 

The reason I started this thread is because I genuinely want to try to find both sides and understand what is happening.

 

I find it shocking that an EU conference on GW hosted by Lord Lawson, former chancellor in the UK, to give a voice to the climate, and other, scientists who did not believe GW was MM, received very little or no media reporting - not even to laugh at their theories.

 

Thanks for all contributions, I am trying to look at the websites and understand more about this phenomena, so please keep suggestions coming in

 

Just like many feel at one point in the past there was a great flood and Noah put all the little animals on a giant boat to save them

 

You mean this didn't happen? Damn!

 

Thanks for the links, I will look at them, although a brief look does mention that abrupt climate change can happen naturally

 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#rates

[1veedo]

But as the temperature rises so does the capacity for the atmosphere to retain more water vapour.

And why did temepratures rise in the first place? Greenhouse gases! There's actually a little feedback relation between vator vapour and climate forcing (like greenhouse gases) and specifically CO2 known surprisingly as the CO2-temperature feedback system. One of the reasons CO2 is so powerful in our atmosphere (while making up such a small porition of it) is because of it's effects on other factors in the climate, including water vapour. Namely more CO2 = more water vapour = higher global temperatures.

 

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10850

You mean this didn't happen? Damn!

 

Thanks for the links, I will look at them, although a brief look does mention that abrupt climate change can happen naturally

 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#rates

Well noone is denying this. Current warming seems to be faster, actually more than 100 times faster than any other time in the history of this planet that we have evidence for, but there are theories about "snowball Earth" and the like (which don't have any evidence btw, but this is beside the point).

 

I don't see what you can deduce form saying that climate change in the past was natural though. If we just accept this premise the only logical conclusion that you can come up with is that current warming could be natural in origin, which is something we already have an answer for (read: we already know that current warming is primarily caused by humans). And this is further supported by the fact that, as the epa says, "While abrupt climate changes have occurred throughout the Earth's history, human civilization arose during a period of relative climate stability."

 

Some people like to claim that sense the climate has changed in the past, current warming shouldn't be that big of a deal. Ergo, what is natural is necessarily good. But there are plenty of natural things which are bad, examples being floods and plagues.

 

As humans we can cause plagues with the same order of magnitude as previous plagues but I don't think any logically thinking human would claim that sense plagues are natural we shouldn't worry about this. No, governments across the world actively protect stores that contain potential biological weapons from groups like terrorists. Similarly many societies try to prevent flooding. Examples being the dams all around the planet and the Netherlands who are preventing sea level rise from flooding the entire country. Global warming in this regard is very similar.

[alvinwriter]

Hi! I'm writing from TheScienceDesk at TheNewsRoom. I agree with what the others are saying here. As with other views, we need confirmation that ours is a valid one. Unfortunately, global warming sites will always have leanings, unless it's a really open forum. Nevertheless, you will still see the opinions of both sides in most sites whether these are pro or anti anthropogenic global warming. I suggest that you go to news sites that simply give the news as they come. The more you read, the more informed you will be and the better you'll be able to form conclusions or simply theorize about what's really happening to the Earth.

 

Here's a link to TheNewsRoom which I think might interest you. It's about how math is used to asses the impact of solar cycles on the Earth's atmosphere: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/561532?c_id=wom-bc-ar

 

We already have a group of users who have a genuine interest in global warming who have found news that they have successfully used in their sites. If you're interested, you may email jtowns@voxant.com. We'll be happy to accommodate your inquiries.

[Sisyphus]

This is such a weird debate. The science is not completely conclusive, but the best information we have points to man as the current primary engine of climate change, and it is becoming more certain all the time. So why are people so skeptical? You get people claiming that "science can't really predict these things," then spouting their own personal theories on how it can't be true, sometimes in the same sentence! You get mountains of obfuscation in the form of true but irrelevant information ("Man accounts for less than 1% of CO2!" "...so?"). You get every ad hominem attack out there. You get attempts at censorship by elected officials. You get conspiracy theories, for god's sake ("GW is a myth devised by... scientists... to redistribute wealth! Yeah, that's it!"). What is going on here?

[iNow]

This is such a weird debate. The science is not completely conclusive, but the best information we have points to man as the current primary engine of climate change, and it is becoming more certain all the time. So why are people so skeptical? You get people claiming that "science can't really predict these things," then spouting their own personal theories on how it can't be true, sometimes in the same sentence! You get mountains of obfuscation in the form of true but irrelevant information ("Man accounts for less than 1% of CO2!" "...so?"). You get every ad hominem attack out there. You get attempts at censorship by elected officials. You get conspiracy theories, for god's sake ("GW is a myth devised by... scientists... to redistribute wealth! Yeah, that's it!"). What is going on here?

 

If you read the actual science journals on climate, or you go to any university and speak with professors in the climate or meteorology departments, there is no doubt that a significant portion of global climate change is the result of human activity. If you were, however, to watch the news, you get about 50% saying it's due to human activity and about 50% saying it's not.

 

There really is no disagreement among those who actually understand the climatology, just among those who do not. It's really the media, and the insanity which is our current political process who say most of the issues with climate we are experiencing are not anthropogenic in nature.

 

Are there natural cycles? Of course there are. Are we humans causing a major impact on those cycles? You bet your hindquarters.

 

 

In response to your question, "What's going on here?" ... It's a really really big problem, and it's really really hard to fix, so many of our government officials who are in a position to actually do something would rather bury their head's in the sand, cause doubt in the populace that it's happening, and ignore it until they are out of office and somebody else has to step up to make changes.

 

Fortunately, the global consciousness is really waking up to this issue, and those in power will not be able to ignore it for long. It's no longer in their best interest to ignore it (which, I suggest, they did previously in order to protect their own "pocket-books" and "wallets). Even major corporations are "going green," because they know that they will lose money if the public thinks they are not taking actions to help resolve the issue.

 

 

If only people in power had listened to what was being said in the 60's. Instead, many were just called names and made fun of for loving those around them and the sphere on which they stood.

[1veedo]

If only people in power had listened to what was being said in the 60's. Instead, many were just called names and made fun of for loving those around them and the sphere on which they stood.

Yeah but remember in the 70's scientists were going crazy about global cooling OMFG the scientists cant make up their minds!!1!?!!

[jackson33]

iNow; Would you like a list of things, Science or Medical folks have said were going to prematurely kill humans and the eventual the next generations of S&M people revoked. Someplace, I read a study written around 1900, by a group of scientist saying man would never survive traveling in a car over 40 MPH.

 

Most non MMGW-believers I know, say study SHOULD continue on GW, whether directed at Man Made or Natural Causes, but insist to alter current activity or be punished or to try and alter economical advancements is at best pre-mature.

 

Business/Corporations are in business to make money. Much of going green is for now acceptable new concepts such as bio-degradable, cleaning waste water for agricultural use, aluminum studding and paper not made from trees (a little expensive) and many others. Except for aluminum & maybe batteries, *Recycling* is NOT cost effective, but many of us do it and all waste management companies have elaborate programs.

 

Government will embrace GW for a variety of reason. Not only for the Taxes the idea offers, but for granting research money and the resulting business activity which can be created.

 

S; W/O getting into battle over future problems, Carbon Credits are referenced in Kyoto and IMCC, although neither spelled out just how it will work (as a failure to comply punishment) but most do think in the end, non-producing Nations will gain over the producers. I look at this as redistributions of nation wealth.

[iNow]

iNow; Would you like a list of things, Science or Medical folks have said were going to prematurely kill humans and the eventual the next generations of S&M people revoked.

Actually, no, because that has zero to do with this thread. The OP asked for sources which described the science of global warming, not an off topic rant or argument about how poorly we've made decisions as a result of our drive to obtain wealth and money.

 

 

Redistrbute wealth all you want, I'd rather spend time discussing the redistribution of our impact on the planet... preferably, toward the positive.

[1veedo]

iNow; Would you like a list of things, Science or Medical folks have said were going to prematurely kill humans and the eventual the next generations of S&M people revoked. Someplace, I read a study written around 1900, by a group of scientist saying man would never survive traveling in a car over 40 MPH.

 

Most non MMGW-believers I know, say study SHOULD continue on GW, whether directed at Man Made or Natural Causes, but insist to alter current activity or be punished or to try and alter economical advancements is at best pre-mature.

 

Business/Corporations are in business to make money. Much of going green is for now acceptable new concepts such as bio-degradable, cleaning waste water for agricultural use, aluminum studding and paper not made from trees (a little expensive) and many others. Except for aluminum & maybe batteries, *Recycling* is NOT cost effective, but many of us do it and all waste management companies have elaborate programs.

 

Government will embrace GW for a variety of reason. Not only for the Taxes the idea offers, but for granting research money and the resulting business activity which can be created.

 

S; W/O getting into battle over future problems, Carbon Credits are referenced in Kyoto and IMCC, although neither spelled out just how it will work (as a failure to comply punishment) but most do think in the end, non-producing Nations will gain over the producers. I look at this as redistributions of nation wealth.

You belong in a political forum, not a science forum. Try to stay on topic. And please, please learn proper English. Your grammar is horrible. I know kids can drop out of school at age 16 but I strongly recommend you stay in school, and more importantly pay attention while you're there.

[Pangloss]

1veedo, knock off the ad-hom or I'll change your name to "1glasshouse". You can criticize other people's grammer when you're perfect.

[jackson33]

"Climate change - RELIABLE & HONEST REPORTING". In equating historical reporting to the current issue Climate Change or GW is relevant to the thread and the questions asked by the author. Very few sources offer opposing viewpoints to the agenda seemingly shown in editorials, comments or news stories used if they have an agenda, even when their audience may be divided, on the GW issue.

 

On IPCC, not all (if not most), those listed as contributors to the recent report agree *in total* with the findings or pending catastrophic results for *no action*.

 

In response to iNow, on "toward the positive". IMO; We are on track for an improved International Economic impact, which could be hurt by many of the suggested remedies for GW. Call it trickle down or an effort to influence, but many Nations in addition to China and China (a third of the worlds people) are direct examples of such advancement.

 

In response to 1veedo, Grammar. I have heard this to many times to argue and have apologized many times, which I now do to you, even if a second time, at this forum.

 

Mango; Evaporation, which causes moisture/cloud cover, is the result of the sun. CO2 or other so called MM or natural emissions prevent the sun rays from getting to the planets surface. This would mean less moisture, less rain and less cleaning of the atmosphere by falling Rain/Snow. Its this scenario which some feel will lead (as it has) to an Ice Age. Also a prime argument opposing GW as other than a cycle, in this case with-in a cycle. At least its the way I understand it....

[iNow]

In response to iNow, on "toward the positive". IMO; We are on track for an improved International Economic impact, which could be hurt by many of the suggested remedies for GW. Call it trickle down or an effort to influence, but many Nations in addition to China and China (a third of the worlds people) are direct examples of such advancement.

I suppose you missed the point I made above. I don't think this particular thread is about the economics of it all. It's about the environment itself, and the damage we are doing to the system in which all living organisms reside.

 

So, to be clear, your comments about the economics seem off topic, since this thread resides in the "Ecology and Environment" forum, and the OP specifically asked:

 

 

One of my interests, and the reason I joined this forum, is climate change.

 

I am sceptical of rising temperatures being solely down to man and believe man contributes but not significantly. I understand the link between CO2 and the atmosphere, but I think water vapour plays a much more significant role in global warming.

 

What I would really like is to find a reliable, unbiased, honest, unpolitical website, which reports what is really happening on climate change. I like the CO2 Science website, because it is fairly open with it's funding, gives references for all it's articles and because it coincides with my current view. I'm not so keen on Real Climate, because they have a tendancy to shout down any desenters from their view, often without reference.

 

Does anybody know of any such websites that I can refer to?

 

 

Yet you, Jackson33, continue to respond "Redistribution of wealth! Political spin! Trickle down economics!"

 

 

 

Don't trolls live under bridges?

[1veedo]

In response to 1veedo, Grammar. I have heard this to many times to argue and have apologized many times, which I now do to you, even if a second time, at this forum.

I was not arguing against your post on the basis of grammar. The first two paragraphs just make no sense, except some of the second one about doing more research but I still don't know what you were trying to say. Nothing personal though it's just light-hearted literary word play (we are in fact on the Internet ). Lots of people never seem to proof-read their posts and on most forums you'll get torn apart by bad spelling and grammar mistakes (meaning the post is hard to follow).

 

At most I pointed out that it was off-topic. So is the post above by Pangloss. I wish you could ignore Pangloss but the forums wont let you. I figure I can consciously ignore his posts though anyway; they never seem to add anything constructive and he seems to have some sort of girlish vendetta against me.

Mango; Evaporation, which causes moisture/cloud cover, is the result of the sun. CO2 or other so called MM or natural emissions prevent the sun rays from getting to the planets surface. This would mean less moisture, less rain and less cleaning of the atmosphere by falling Rain/Snow. Its this scenario which some feel will lead (as it has) to an Ice Age. Also a prime argument opposing GW as other than a cycle, in this case with-in a cycle. At least its the way I understand it....

I think you are slightly mistaken here. Read about the CO2-temperature feedback system.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

 

One of the reasons CO2 is so powerful is because of it's effects on other factors in the climate, including water vapour. Specifically more CO2 = more water vapour. This then causes temperatures to go up which causes more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere, causing even more of a temperature rise. Negative feedbacks or sinks tend to keep this in line but these sinks can and do overflow.

[jackson33]

1veedo; Have already asked for forgiveness for lack in grammar skill and will add debate skills if you like. On the post you refereed to was a direct response to the previous post by iNow, last three paragraphs. I did respond to off topic comment, but maybe not the only guilty party.

 

Don't understand you statement on Pangloss, since his/her responses/post seem to be articulate, in general.

 

On moisture/rainfall/clouds, as said is the way I understand it. Atmospheric moisture and related CO2 levels are not relate-able IMO. Unless you account for the retention of heat to allow liquid water. Climate conditions, primarily cloud cover, front movements and temperatures are reasonably constant. The problem is most observations are local to the 10-15% of earths mass we inhabit. What goes on over oceans, desert or remote areas have not been counted in any historic figure and recent surveys are just beginning to include these stats. Also note the near instant alteration of temperature with Cloud cover, compared to what CO2 levels contribute over decades or centuries. Rather than rambling on, IMO, cycles are the reason for any increased temperature and IMO the only result of mans CO2 emission has resulted in the said to be current heaviest forestation on the planet, since possibly the Dino period.

[1veedo]

No jackson33 everything's perfectly ok. Nothing's wrong with debating or grammar it was just this from a page ago,

iNow; Would you like a list of things, Science or Medical folks have said were going to prematurely kill humans and the eventual the next generations of S&M people revoked. Someplace, I read a study written around 1900, by a group of scientist saying man would never survive traveling in a car over 40 MPH.

 

Most non MMGW-believers I know, say study SHOULD continue on GW, whether directed at Man Made or Natural Causes, but insist to alter current activity or be punished or to try and alter economical advancements is at best pre-mature.

Forgive me if I ask you to proof-read before you post because I really didn't understand this, especially the first paragraph. Don't worry about it though.

Also note the near instant alteration of temperature with Cloud cover, compared to what CO2 levels contribute over decades or centuries. Rather than rambling on, IMO, cycles are the reason for any increased temperature and IMO the only result of mans CO2 emission has resulted in the said to be current heaviest forestation on the planet, since possibly the Dino period.

Well current cycles indicate the Earth should be getting cooler right now, not warmer. And this has in fact been occurring for about 8 thousand years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

 

Cycles are usually driven by the sun and research indicates that the sun hasn't been warming up any. Some studies actually show a decrease in solar activity after 1950, and a slight decrease from 1976 to today (though an increase up to the 50s).

 

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27453

[jackson33]

1veedo; Rather than going back over historical reporting of an issue, please read Paragraph 1, post 20.

 

On current long term cycle, solar involvement; I have no argument and agree they are involved. I would think our outer 2-3 layers of Atmosphere are more involved, but NASA is just now getting to this study....