In an effort of transparency, honesty and full disclosure:
According to the APS website (http://www.aps.org/)
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
*** *** ***
To see the full study, see the following links:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/new...00807/
index.cfm
&
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/new...07/
monckton.cfm
Some patience and respect for the scientific process might be appropriate. Lets wait until the peer-review process has time to analyse these results before jumping to inflammatory conclusions...
Best,
kparso
Global warming must be true. After all the ManBearPig says it is real. And his home in Tenn. is so green.
"Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.'
Oops.
Next time please get your science information from science sources.
Check out a university website.
Check out NASA.
It's free!
It doesn't matter which one.
No university science department in ANY field ON THE PLANET denies global warming.
Scientific opinion on climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sci..._climate_change
Edited By Siteowner to include commenter's name
Sorry.
Previous comment was mine.
Not Anonymous.
Hi Cedric, thanks for commenting.
I'm assuming that you missed the middle of my post about the Science and Public Policy Institute?
Many scientists have indeed jumped to conclusions about anthropogenic climate change and the supposed crisis. There's no doubt that mankind should do all we can to reduce the amount of pollution we create, but the eco-hoax that's been instigated by faulty science is just plain bunk and that fact is now coming to light more and more.
Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society
Our recent climate change is more a result of solar activity, as evidenced by Jupiter's recent climate change.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/...28401211915191/
(Unless, of course, evil corporations have managed to set up shop on Jupiter and pump their atmosphere full of eeeeeeevil carbon!)
As to getting my facts from scientific sources, perhaps you just don't like the Science and Public Policy Institute. Maybe you'd prefer to hear it from Ohio State's research communications:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/arch...e/ 5200event.htm
Or the American Geophysical Union:
http://www.agu.org/history/sv/ar...icles/ ARTL.html
Or ScienceWeek:
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw05.../sw050408- 2.htm
How about physicists from Duke University?
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/200...09/ sunwarm.html
Or the Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/sps...binson- 2008.htm
Or any of the 17,200 scientists who signed a petition stating currently available scientific data does not support anthropogenic global warming and they believe it to be a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/ ar..._Global_Warming
I'll bet you can come up with a list of scientific sources supporting your position as well. So the bottom line here is that we don't know for sure what's causing our climate variations. There are many scientific theories. But it's hardly the man-made crisis that Al Gore and others are making it out to be, and contrary to Gore's ludicrous statement, the debate on global warming is far from "over."
First, look at those who are profiting from the panic and consider the source of the dire warnings. Then look at the science.
The article of contention, “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”, within this blog stream was posted on one of the 39 journals within the American Physical Society (APS) website. In regard to this article, the main APS site and the APS Forum on Physics & Society site have posted numerous disclaimers stating that the article has NOT been peer-reviewed. The following is a list of all the disclaimers – none of which were referenced when this article was originally posted on this blog (nor on Rush Limbaugh’s website) – that would have been too inconvenient…
APS Homepage:
http://www.aps.org/
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
Read: APS Climate Change Statement
The APS Climate Change Statement:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statem...ements/
07_1.cfm
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
The American Physics Society Forum on Physics & Society page:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/new...00807/
index.cfm
The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published
I would appreciate an answer to why these numerously occurring disclaimers were omitted from the original posting of this article.
If your reasoning for the lack of a disclaimer is that you did not obtain the study from the APS site (but rather from another source), then I would expect that this blog provide that pertinent information (that the study is NOT yet peer-reviewed) to its readership.
Your audience, as hopefully respectful of the scientific process, expects full transparency in regard to such an important issue.
In regard to the study, it seems to be well-researched and documented – with leading institutions and names behind it. However, one NON peer-reviewed study is insufficient to overturn the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have been done over decades on this issue. Nonetheless, it is my hope that the study is taken seriously and is reviewed thoroughly; the results, no matter which direction they point, can only add to the scientific process and bolster our understanding of climate science.
As per the sun’s influence and other natural variation - Hadley website:
The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corp...yths/
index.html
On another note, forget climate science all together. The fact of the matter is, CO2 emissions are increasing due to mankind – that is NOT natural variation – and I doubt that anyone can argue the contrary. The effects of CO2 go well beyond climate disturbances - It affects the carbon cycle and the pH levels of the oceans. The following articles explain in detail:
(http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/
80_percent_of_coral_caribbean_reefs_destroyed.htm)
:
"
Acid seas kill off coral reefs
JONATHAN LEAKE, ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
THE world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new studies into man’s impact on the oceans.
Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea. The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral, crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out, say the researchers.
“Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared,” said Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s global ecology department.
Or this report (http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/
Coral.html ):
Coral Reefs and Carbon Dioxide
Increasing ocean acidity threatens coral reefs worldwide
Coral reefs are one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems present on earth. Within the hard reef framework of limestone, built by coral animals and their symbiotic zooxanthellae plants, are habitats for at least 25 percent of all marine species. In addition to their intrinsic natural value, coral reefs provide important benefits to society from tourism, fisheries and coastline protection during storms. Recent estimates suggest that the net economic benefit of the world's coral reefs is approximately $30 billion annually
Over the last few decades, at least 10% of tropical and subtropical coral reefs have been lost, and those that remain show signs of moderate to severe deterioration. The degradation of the world's coral reefs has been caused by a host of human-related (anthropogenic) factors, including urban coastline development and habitat modification, pollution, nutrient and sediment overloading, direct destruction, and over-fishing. These environmental pressures, along with natural phenomena, such as El Niño events, increase the susceptibility of corals to disease and bleaching, when corals lose their zooxanthellae partners.
The long-term sustainability of these valuable coral reefs is also threatened by global climate change induced by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from human activities. Rising ocean temperatures have been implicated in coral disease and mass coral bleaching, and worldwide research efforts have been targeted at understanding the interactions and impacts on coral reef ecosystems from global warming, rising sea levels and anthropogenic factors. But a hidden danger to the long-term sustainability of the world's coral reefs has recently emerged: the increasing acidification of the ocean.
Over the last century or so, the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and deforestation has led to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Because carbon dioxide is a soluble gas, it is rapidly absorbed by seawater, and anthropogenic carbon dioxide has accumulated in the world's oceans. For example, changes in oceanic carbon dioxide levels have been observed in the surface waters off Bermuda by scientists in BIOS's Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study . Over the next century, atmospheric carbon dioxide is likely to double from about 370 to about 700 parts per million, with similar increases in the levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean. The problem for marine ecosystems lies in the finding that the acidity of the ocean has and will continue to change, with acidity increasing by the end of this century to levels not observed for millions of years.
The limestone, or calcium carbonate, structures of coral reefs are constructed by coral animals from the calcium and carbonate dissolved in seawater. In the future, the increasing aci
In the future, the increasing acidity of the ocean will reduce the amount of carbonate available in seawater, and there is growing concern that these changes in the chemistry of the ocean will reduce the ability of coral animals to construct limestone reefs and the habitats they provide. Some scientists have warned, for example, that the Great Barrier Reef may be lost sometime between 2050 and 2100, or at least the ecosystem changed in profound ways.
Hi Kparso,
Thanks for the comments. If you'll check back to my original post, I did post an update on the same day linking information about the APS's clarification, it's right below the Inigo Montoya clip. I did NOT omit the news of the disclaimer. But thanks for keeping me honest all the same.
New updates to climate science occur daily – in fact there are new updates to all the fields of science – but new data does not automatically debunk a theory. None of the links provided above by Reverse_Vampyr do anything to debunk the generally held theory concerning anthropogenically induced climate change. I would like to learn specifically of what eco-hoax & faulty science that Reverse_Vampyr is referring to.
No one (not even Al Gore) doubts natural variation’s role in the climate. No one (not even Al Gore) doubts that new data will present itself and add to the overall understanding of climate science – it is obviously an extremely large and complex field.
Yet, it is inaccurate and misleading for anyone to claim the following:
“The bottom line here is that we don't know for sure what's causing our climate variations.”
We don’t know conclusively what gravity is, but the theory, based upon the best available data at hand, seems to be working rather well for the time being.
Best,
Kparso
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories)
, a scientific theory is:
“In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.
According to the National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
The above descriptions of a scientific theory is what Al Gore is referring to when he states that the science and theory of climate change is sound.
See below in regard to Reverse_Vampyr’s posting of articles, via which he incorrectly (foolishly) attempts to debunk the theory of anthropogenically-induced climate change with articles that speak of solar fluctuation but do nothing to debunk man’s role in climate change.
[Um, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it, Kparso? I posted those articles in response to Cedric's snarky challenge to post articles from scientific sources. So I did. I didn't claim to debunk manmade global warming in just a few clipped articles, I simply reinforced my opinion that the debate isn't "over," even among scientists. Sheesh. - R_V]
Quotes below are taken directly from the articles posted above by Reverse_Vampyr who kindly provides the ammunition to shoot his own argument full of holes – thanks Vampy!
http://researchnews.osu.edu/arch...e/
5200event.htm
“The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability,” he said. “It’s likely that it is EQUALLY SENSITIVE TO EFFECTS BROUGHT ON BY HUMAN ACTIVITY, CHANGES LIKE INCREASED GREENHOUSE GASES, ALTERED LAND-USE POLICIES AND FOSSIL-FUEL DEPENDENCE.
http://www.agu.org/history/sv/ar...icles/
ARTL.html
No-one doubts natural variability – but why pour salt on a wound?
As the article states:
“Anxiety over the contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming had motivated these calculations of global temperature. But Eddy's line of argument suggested that PART of the temperature change MIGHT result from solar variation.”
[You might wanna read the entire article rather than simply clipping a sentence from it and capping words in an attempt to minimize the overall gist of the piece. The debate over the degree of man's influence in global warming isn't over yet, thankfully. - R_V]
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw05.../sw050408-
2.htm
1) The global warming observed over the past century has been attributed to both natural and HUMAN FORCINGS.
2) However, over an 11-year sunspot cycle, the irradiance varies by only about 0.08% -- PROBABLY TOO LITTLE FOR A MEANINGFUL INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE.
[And I'm guessing you would expect me to not want to include information on BOTH sides of the debate? The debate isn't over. - R_V]
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/200...09/
sunwarm.html
“Study does NOT discount the suspected contributions of 'greenhouse gases' in elevating surface temperatures.”
“Their findings” (solar variability) “do NOT argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.”
[Well, if you wanna pick and choose snippets from the article, don't forget this one. "This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, they stressed. 'Those gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought,' Scafetta said. - R_V]
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/sps...binson-
2008.htm
The article is mostly polemic in nature. it is an economist’s interpretation – NOT a scientific study - with approximately half of the article’s references dating from around the 1940's-1975.
[Again, reading comprehension seems to be a problem for you, Kparso. Sheesh, this is tedious. Many of Robinson's sources are part of the overall discussion of how true believers demagogue their critics, as you are doing here. He cites 70s sources in discussing the doomsday "coming ice age" scare that was pushed by alarmists of that day. Read the entire article, in context, rather than try to refute just a few sentences to the readers here. Given the fact that economic action is being proposed by the proponents of climate apocalypse, a balanced approach from a variety of viewpoints is not a bad thing. - R_V]
The author contends, “There is considerable controversy over the significance of man-made emissions, compared with all the other effects on temperature. Most climate scientists would, like most economists, readily admit that their models are gross simplifications and that large areas of ignorance remain.”
If that is the case, we still have a lot to figure out about the “THEORY” of Gravity as well.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/
ar..._Global_Warming
There seems to be a lot of mixed information concerning the means of the petition's collection, the misleading wording and presentation of the petition, duplication of signatories, the viability of experts within the petition (a Spice Girl?), and the reliability of the petition in general.
[Spice Girl Geri Halliwell was planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and her name was soon removed. - R_V]
For more info, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ore...Oregon_Petition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index...ce_and_Medicine
Edited By Siteowner
Reverse said..."Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society"
[Let's clarify; the above line was a quote from the Science and Public Policy Institute article. At least get it straight before you start your rant, thanks. - R_V]
Actually, this is a lie.
The paper was not peer-reviewed.
It was an opinion puff piece in the APS newsletter section.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
But maybe you didn't know that.
Reverse said..."Maybe you'd prefer to hear it from Ohio State's research communications."
Yes I would actually.
I looked at the article you cited.
They don't deny global warming at all.
Same thing with Duke University.
[Yes, but did you READ them? And, more importantly, have you read what I've written here? Your comments seem to indicate otherwise. I didn't deny global warming, nor have I ever. I am skeptical of your assertions, that man is the primary cause of recent climate change and that government must take drastic action to "correct" it based on questionable findings of the IPCC. - R_V]
I have no idea why you bothered to put up the economist's viewepoint.
It's not like climate change is his field or anything.
[Yeah, how DARE he have an opinion on something that will affect his livelihood or try to put the frenzied calls for action into perspective. - R_V]
Yet Kparso has given you a stern fisking already about your links and sources. Kudos to Kparso.
Reverse, If you're going to discuss science then why are you not prepared to actually check out university web-sites and other respected scienctific communites to find out what global warming is all about?
What's the point of looking up articles if you're just going to 'spin' them?
Reverse said..."Many scientists have indeed jumped to conclusions about anthropogenic climate change and the supposed crisis."
Not according to the global scientific consensus on global warming.
Sounds like empty hand-waving to me.
"...the eco-hoax that's been instigated by faulty science is just plain bunk..."
Not according to the global scientific community.
"I'll bet you can come up with a list of scientific sources supporting your position as well."
Oh yes. All I have to do is invite you to contact your local unversity science department. They will tell you that global warming is real.
Lound and clear.
It doesn't matter which science department or which university you contact; they'll ALL tell you the same thing.
(Psst. Scientific consensus an' all)
Contact NASA. They're pretty famous. Oddly enough, they also seem to be on board with global warming. Wierd, huh?
"So the bottom line here is that we don't know for sure what's causing our climate variations. "
No. The bottom line is that you prefer to get your science information pre-digested for you by global warming deniers.
I can go straight to the universities.
I can go straight to the scientific communites.
All of them.
I can find out what the people actually doing the hard scientific work are saying.
It's really easy. They actually put up easy-to-understand information on their web-sites to communicate with the general public.
It's all free.
Every single scientific community on the planet is on my side.
I'm not saying SOME of them or even MOST of them, I really and truely mean ALL OF THEM.
Scientific consensus.
If somebody out there has new evidence that will overturn the data collected over the last fory-odd years or so.. then let them present it.
Newsletter articles and no-name denialist web-sites don
Edited By Siteowner
Hmm.
Got cut off.
One final thing.
Have you noticed how the global warming deniers spread their information? The tactics they use?
Why they use the same propoganda style as the "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" lobby?
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2...h?
v=2T4UF_Rmlio
And kudos to you as well Cedric!
You raise excellent points - none of which will be reasonably addressed by Vampy (although he has since claimed - after being called to task & the deceit initially spread - to have posted the disclaimer)
Note, the Rush Limbaugh website has done the same as Vampy - gleefully paraded the study, “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”, but oh so conveniently omitted the disclaimer.
I wrote the Rush webmaster for an explanation and a request that the disclaimer be posted - have yet to get a response (of course...)
Cedric, be careful as per your comment that "ALL" scientific communities confirm climate change - there are always the highly reputable Bob Jones-type Universities (Massive Sarcasm intended...).
It's time to put a stake in Vampy and nail his coffin shut.
Go Ostriches!
(deniers with heads deep in the sand - probably lookin for more oil...)
Tchau,
kparso
Ah yes.
Bob Jones 'University'.
It's academic excellence is challanged only by Liberty 'University'.
(giggle)
Even Foxnews has gotten the message....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,387542,00.html
Kparso (and Cedric),
You're right, it IS easy to find a wealth of information which supports your information. I didn't deny that, nor do I deny that climate change is real. I am skeptical of the degree of anthropogenic global warming, the way it is frequently reported as hard fact, and the so-called "consensus" used to berate anyone who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid (kinda like the turn this thread has taken). Which is what I have repeatedly said, and why I posted articles which detail other possible causes and questions.
Both of you exhibit a startling degree of hostility toward anyone who doesn't believe in the alleged planetary emergency, as though somehow they must be stupid for not going along with the crowd. Even the National Academy of Sciences conceded, "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." Yet according to you two, unless I or someone else puts forth a competing theory, everyone must accept anthropogenic global warming as true. That's faulty reasoning.
Go check out some of my other posts on Global Warming. I don't deny it; I frequently mock Gore's religious fervor and call for a more restrained approach to the science and the subsequent calls for legislation. I had thought, due to your previous comment about the need for perspective and some patience with the science process, that we might be on the same page. But your multi-post ranting and petulant tone seem to indicate otherwise (and your gravity non sequitur was as ugly as it was unnecessary). So believe what you wish. Just don't ask me to join you in jumping off the carbon credits cliff.
Dear Vampy,
Cedric posted an excellent YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2...h? v=2T4UF_Rmlio)
concerning the ploy that you and others from the right have either been suckered into using or are willfully applying to deceive others about the science & policies of climate change.
The concept of your ploy is to downplay the accuracy & effects of climate change by no-longer “denying” climate change (because you cannot deny any longer) but rather by questioning the “consensus” of the science, mocking the messenger (Al Gore) and using words like "hoax, faulty science, hardly the man-made crisis, don't know for sure what's causing our climate variations, look at those who are profiting from the panic" etc. etc.
You are absolutely correct to state that “it IS easy to find a wealth of information which supports my information” - because that is what is occurring! I, nor Cedric, nor Al Gore, nor the majority of respectable scientists dismiss the role of natural variation –the fact of the matter is that all data points to the fact that anthropogenically-induced factors are the MAIN force behind the current changes in the climate. It is you who doubts man’s role in the process.
You are the one who throws out berating terms (“Kool-Aid”) in attempts to diminish the dialogue – I am merely stooping to play your game. I do exhibit a “startling degree of hostility” because folks such as you are seriously confusing the general public & hindering policies which need to be implemented to deal with climate change. The science, which has been diligently going about its business for 40-50 years – if not longer (long before Al Gore was even a Senator), IS restrained. Unfortunately, Al Gore has to take the stance that he does in order to break-through the muck and confusion that folks such as you sling.
Below I have posted additional scientific information concerning climate change from the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre – Please point out the “hysteria”.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corp...yths/
index.html
Climate change - the big picture
Climate change is a complex subject, with genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. As one of the world's leading centres on climate change we believe it is important to address all the issues. On this page you will find the known facts about climate change.
*** *** ***
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corp...ce/myths/
1.html
Climate change - Fact 1
Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it
Temperatures provide the clearest evidence that the climate is changing and globally the average temperature has risen by more than 0.7 °C over the last 100 years.
The natural greenhouse gas effect keeps Earth much warmer than it would otherwise be, without it Earth would be extremely cold. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour behave like a blanket around Earth. These gases allow the Sun's rays to reach Earth's surface but impede the heat they create from escaping back into space.
Any increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that more heat is trapped and global temperatures increase - an effect known as 'global warming'.
There is indisputable evidence from observations that the Earth is warming. Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corp...ce/myths/
3.html
Climate change - Fact 3
The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.
Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.
The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.
*** *** ***
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corp...ce/myths/
4.html
Climate change - Fact 4
Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.
Over the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.
In the 20th century the situation becomes more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century, CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century.
As well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen.
Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun'
Finally, please find me some "anti-evidence"as to the effect of added CO2 to the pH levels of the world's oceans.
I have asked other ostriches (climate change skeptics) to do so but their ditto-heading spin-machine has not yet started spitting out contrarian "evidence" to confuse the general public on that issue.
In case you have forgotten, the "hysterical" science is stating the following:
(http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/ 80_percent_of_coral_caribbean_reefs_destroyed.htm) :
"
Acid seas kill off coral reefs
JONATHAN LEAKE, ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
THE world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new studies into man’s impact on the oceans.
Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea. The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral, crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out, say the researchers.
“Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared,” said Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s global ecology department.
Dude, "cannot deny any longer"? I've NEVER denied climate change, and I've continued to repeat my position. Are you so obsessed that you can't comprehend what I've said? I have no "ploy", simply an opinion and an interest in not being railroaded into eco-panic. As to "folks like me" slinging muck and confusion, that's absolutely ludicrous. Asking questions is muck and confusion? It looks more like you consider it heresy to dare question Gore's hysterical calls for draconian governmental control.
We could both post back and forth ad infinitum with articles to support our positions, and that holds no interest for me. Yet you keep trolling. Now you're posting articles I never referenced and asking me to point out the hysteria in them? I think your zeal has gotten the better of you. It's not the science that's hysterical, it's the approach of many of its proponents; as evidenced by your spate of comments.
Many men & women much more learned than both of us continue to disagree about the causes of recent climate change, and for many factual reasons. As I've said. But for some odd reason, you can't seem to leave it at that.
I've said my peace, I'm done with this.
Mr. Vampyr: Sir, you have the patience of a saint. I commend you.
Commenting by HaloScan
