I couldn't have said it better myself
posted by Bic at 1:05 p.m.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Please Visit These sites to Donate to the Katrina Relief effort
Contact ECW
Create a Post
Previous Posts
The Ever Expanding Blogroll
11 Comments:
Actually, The majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is a man made phenomena. That being said, there is no link as of yet to higher hurricane intensity or frequency.
While many scientist 'agree' that global warming is man made, there are also many that disagree. That might be because there is absolutely no scientific evidence showing a connection between man and global warming, only theories. Of course 30 years ago, most scientists 'agreed' that a new ice age was coming and using the same analysis techniques.
Truth is, it is impossible to prove the connection between man and Global at present because the time frames used are just too small. From geological studies we already know the Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is today, and this was millenia before SUVs and Oil Refineries.
You discount the evidence from glaciers and tree rings. Both show a noticible trend of warming starting from around the time of the industrial revolution. Coincidence?
I also disagree with your statement that there is a vast majority of scientists who disagree with the assertation that global warming. I think that due to the media wanting to "present both sides" that the no side is unfairly represented as being larger. I'm not going to cry bias, it's just a side effect of the media trying to be "fair" In reality I would assert that only a small minority and those who are paid to say so are disagreeing with the ruling hypothesis.
That being said, I can still be proven wrong, it's just that the majority of evidence (ice cores and tree rings as I mentioned earlier, the ice cores also have air bubbles of trapped atmosphere which can be analyzed) points to a man made occurence. That and the fact that we're in a lull of volcanic activity right now (aeon wise) and the only really consistent source of CO2 and other warming gasses is from human activity.
One, I never used the term 'vast majority of scientists who disagree', I said 'many' so please do not create strawmen. And second, your argument does nothing to disprove my statement that there is little scientific evidence to connect man to the rising temperature. Just because A and B occur does not mean A caused B.
For instance, over the same period of time as man has been burning fossil fuels there has been a constant increase in solar radiation, the highest it has been for 8,000 years. And satellite telemetry over the past 20 years show a signifigant increase in solar radiation, over that period, which just happens to coincide with the latest warming trend. Nothing man can do on Earth could have in any way affected the Sun's output, but yet it has increased.
Several scientist believe that this increase in activity may have more of an effect on the gobal average temperature than any greenhouse gasses. But even this is just a theory, and while also backed up by fossil records, may actually be coincidence or just one part of what has caused the temperatue to raise by 1/2 a degree in the last 100 years (and yes 1/2 a degree is about the extent of the current 'global warming' phenomina).
I'm not discounting mans effect on the environment, just saying even the most brilliant minds in geological research have yet to actually make a true scientific connection between anything we have done and the rising temperature.
It may well turn out to be true that solar radiation may indeed be causing this warming, but I have yet to hear about this in mainstream scientific papers. I will do some reasearch on the topic.
By the way, the evidence that I cited earlier is hardly minute, it has been a world wide study. I will also state that the 1/2 a degree is worldwide average temperature, although that may not seem as much, climatologists have stated what could happen with even as small as a 1/2 degree difference.
I will offer one more piece of evidence for human caused global warming. We can sample the current atmosphere and deduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. We can also delve into geological strata and find air bubbles from ancient atmospheric conditions. Scientists have compared some of the warm periods of earth with the carbon dioxide levels (these warm periods with signifigant changes to ocean and land ratios) from that era, they then compare the level to present day and apparently we're getting close in CO2 concentration to those warm periods.
That is also not insignifigant.
Hmm this doesn't corroberate your assertation about solar radiation at all. Hmmm...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/
From your link:
"Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle."
and
"Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years. Since pre-industrial times, it’s thought that the Sun has given rise to a global heating similar to that caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the past is any indication of things to come, solar cycles may play a role in future global warming."
So while your link does state that greenhouse gases are predicted to contribute to global warming, it also states that many believe that increases in sunspot activity have in the past caused similar warming trends to that which we see today and that sunspot activity has steadily increased since at least the 1700's. They even have a nice graph to show this.
I fail to see how this contradicts my earlier assertions.
I didn't say it contradicts, I said it failed to corroborate your assertation which I took to be "solar radiation INSTEAD of greenhouse gasses". I never denied that solar radiation had a part to play in global warming.
Just to be clear, I am not saying, nor do I believe I have ever said, that the greenhouse effect is not a contributing factor to 'global warming'. What I am saying is that the science behind the entire concept of 'global warming', as the term is commonly used (manmade affects), is suspect at best. Well not so much the science, just the assertions being based on that science. In fact much of the debate involves more PR than any actual hard evidence.
Global warming, is merely one 'best guess' theory based on the use of very limited data. As of right now, no one can confirm, or deny, the actual affects of the increase of greenhouse gases on the earths atmosphere just as no one can confirm or deny whether this increase in temperatue is mostly or entirely part of a naturally occuring cycle.
That's all I'm saying.
But nonetheless, it's always fun to have a civilized debate with someone. It's such a rarity in blogs these days.
Essentially I think we are kind of arguing the same point just starting at slightly different points. You're siding with those who believe that man is the dominate cause to the current warming trend, while keeping an open mind to other possibilities, while I'm starting from a more skeptical point, but not dismissing that it could all be our fault.
Either way, I don't think either of us have a problem with the development of cleaner sources of energy and less reliance on fossil fuels.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to mostly agree.
=)
LOL sounds like a plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home