I'm Global Command. My Global teams from all walks of life searched the planet for the true cause of Global Warming. Its located on a hostile continent. Its actually an ALIEN organism. The reason we know what it is is because each time we shut it down. The freshwater from the melting Glacier's and the Glacier's stopped melting almost immediately and froze. In 2008 all this went down after I proved that our environment was never harmed by anything then or now. i proved this to 350 million people and the 43,000 scientists that ex-president Bush hired to find the cause and solution. In 2012 I gave my solution to the hostile continent and they implemented it and at the same time/ even though they did'nt know it, they turned off Global Warming in 2012 and now all seasons have returned to normal naturally. Mike/ Civilian Global command / All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature. Later in 2010 Professional people with big degrees were hired by a television in Ohio to find out about nature's upper atmosphere and they all concurred that I was right in 2008. Mike
The historic levels of co2 and temperature came from ice core salples such as those at the Vostok station in anarctica ( not from earth samples).
You have had a huge amount of info some good some bad, I would just like to counter Edd's point they say that CO2 causes warming is basic science, what they always neglect to tell you, That the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentrations (the law of diminishing returns, meaning the more you add the less effect it has) CO2 has a big warming effect at lower levels but at 150ppm as done most of the cooling, adding more CO2 has little effect, a doubling to 800ppm may increase temps by 0.5C or less.
I thought I would comment just to offer a contradiction of the inevitable climate denialists statement that follow a question such as this. Krum I imagine you are fairly young so I want to first give the opposing side of the story. I of course like the vast majority of people with any basis in science would disagree and laugh a little at what Maxx has said .
Firstly, the physical basis that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is almost pure fact, and the fact is we have released a lot of it by burning fossil fuels which contain carbon. To not believe in something so scientifically basic is on par with doubting plate tectonics and evolution (these of course are not fact only the best know theory, similar to man-made climate change).
As a climate scientist myself it is astonishing to see the complete ignorance of a comment such as 'These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control'. Do you think that scientists don't consider natural climate cycles?? This is something you learn in the first year of university. It is factored into every single climate model ever constructed. Natural cycles affect climate on millions to decadal scale, and we are still learning about them constantly and refining what we know. Also what you said about Phil Jones is beyond stupid, read what he said properly, google what 'statistical significance' means, and then you'll understand.
What one must always remember: It is not the amount of carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere, it is the rapidity of change. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere now is nothing compared to the period of the dinosaurs, but what is bad is how quickly it has changed over the past century. As a result: Ecosystems cannot adapt rapidly enough to change and they cease to exist.
Anyway back to the original question.. Krum those consistent changes in carbon dioxide are natural climate variations caused by Milankovitch cycles - resulting from changes in the earths orbit around the sun. This is what caused the ice ages. When the earth is closer to the sun it warms, the oceans release carbon which further warms climate, and ice melts which reduces albedo. Google milankovitch and that is your evidence for earth's regular routine. The end of the graph reflects the industrial revolution, and you should easily be able to find info and papers to back the source of increasing CO2 since then.
Remember to make your own opinion up about this stuff. The media love to publish the denialist stuff as it simply makes 'better TV'. An analogy: If 95 engineers told you not to walk on a bridge but five did, would you walk on the bridge?
First, word of warning, you are heading into a topic of political controversy. You must be careful to choose scientific rather than political sources.
Steer clear of books that are structured like a debate, presenting opposing viewpoints equally. Nothing wrong with such books, but they're more for political science or public speaking classes. Also steer clear of books that advocate or oppose a certain policy or course of action. Again, nothing wrong with such books, as many of their arguments are well supported by science, but you're just interested in the basic physics and chemistry of global warming, so you want a book that focuses on that.
That said, your online source, NASA, is fine. NASA's closely involved in atmospheric science because their missions are very sensitive to weather and climate. I'll be happy to help find two more. You can outline your argument like this:
1) First, you claim that gases such as carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases, that is, they are invisible to incoming light from the sun but block outgoing infrared radiation.
To support this claim, if your science textbook has a basic explanation of greenhouse gases, that's a good source. Otherwise, look for a book in section 551.5 (meteorology), 551.51 (atmospheric chemistry) or perhaps 535.84 (infrared spectroscopy) of your local library on the basic physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases.
My choice, if you can find it:
Frederick, John E. Principles of atmospheric science. 2008. p. 63.
2) Second, you claim that the physical effects of what is known as global warming, such as ocean and atmospheric temperature rise, sea level rise, glacial volume loss and Arctic sea ice loss over the 20th century through today, are attributed to increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
To support this claim, 551.59 (global warming) or 551.6 (climatology) is your best bet. Many things have changed the thermostat on our planet. The rise in greenhouse gases could, as some say, be unrelated to the current warming, or even a response, rather than a cause. So you need evidence that changing greenhouse gas concentrations are the cause and solar variance isn't.
My choice, if you can find it:
Archer, David. Global warming: understanding the forecast. 2nd edition. 2011. p. 140.
Lastly, a quick note on phrasing. While it's true that CO? concentrations are at record highs, be careful not to phrase this as "highest ever." They were almost certainly higher, millions of years ago. Also, since this for science class, specify chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related compounds instead of just aerosols. CFCs and related compounds are believed to be greenhouse gases, but many other aerosols are not.
EDD: "almost pure fact." Ha! Ha! Is that like being almost pregnant? You claim that you are a climate scientist. That is not a statement that would come from a true scientist in any field, unless he or she was trying to smooge someone.
One of your sources is Phil Jones. Didn't he admit to partaking in corrupting data in East Anglia? You are using an admitted liar for a true dyed in the wool authentic source of truth? Having a difference in theoretical opinion is one thing, that is acceptable, but to actively distort and destroy valuable data shows that, that person is political in nature rather than scientific.
Don't try to come on this site and snow a newcomer with drivel. There are those who have tried and found out that the CO2 theory is NOT EVEN CLOSE! If it was, it would have been proven, or at least have a good theoretical background. CO2 theory is not even close.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
This shows that the Earth has been cooling for over a decade, while all this time the CO2 level has increased. You as a Climate Scientist should have known this. And you as a Climate Climate scientist should realize that it blows the CO2 theory out of the water. Personally, I think you are a fraud as a Climate Scientist, as you don't act like one.
As to the question: Yes it is good thinking and has some sound theoretical values. However, earth core samples are not absolute. Gases tend to migrate, unlike ice core samples, where the gases are 'locked' into place. However, no one has proven that CO2 has any great affect on the earth's temperature. CO2 does not track with temperature, unlike Gore's movie, which is a proven fraud. Once someone can prove CO2 is a great factor in the earth's temperature, then there would be substance to your theory.
This is a quote from a real scientist.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Sources are of course where deniers fall flat (See Maxx's answer)
The science on this is covered on many real science sites NASA, NOAA, USGS and similar agencies and research groups in many other countries.
Which is of course why deniers have to use youtube and various blogs they have set up themselves, the same is true if you look in the search engines that cover scientific publications there are now thousands of papers on the various aspects of the subject.
As for your comment
"The earth has been warming and icing over for thousands of years, but, according to the graph, Co2 levels are higher than they ever been."
Not sure where you get that from, the level of Co2 is currently rated as the highest it has been in the last 800,000 years, this is the current limit because that is the oldest ice core we have, although the Australians are currently investigating a site that may push this back to over 1 million years.
The current cycle of glacial and inter-glacial is only ~2.5 million years old.
Scientists have certainly shown that in the distant past Co2 levels where much higher, it depends how far you want to go back in time. Some deniers (like Lord Mockingtone) try to reference half a billion years ago, yes Co2 was higher then but there was no life on land (i.e. no plants), land masses where grouped at the South Pole and the Sun was putting ~5% less energy than it does today, of course Mockingtone leaves all this out and just states Co2 was higher.
In quite a few periods since, Co2 has been higher and we had the expected effects of that, much higher sea levels, no ice at the poles and a warmer planet.
But other effects can also effect the planet, where the continents are, affects both the planets albedo (how much light it reflects or absorbs) and ocean currents.
As an example: When the last of the most recent super continent broke up, Australia, South America and Antarctica where the last pieces to separate, when they did this allowed the circumpolar current to form around Antarctica making it colder than it had been, it was after this that it's massive glaciers started to form, which in turn cooled the entire planet a little. There is also the Central American Peninsula, the two large oceans either side used to interact through a gap between the North and South of America, when this closed off, this water was forced North, this is the North Atlantic current, It's makes the U.K. and coastal Western Europe warmer than they should be.
And this :
"The only time that Co2 levels reached the modern day Co2 levels (not shown on the graph) was when the supposed "meteor" hit the earth to cause the mass extinction of the dinosaurs."
Again sorry that is not true,
Co2 was much higher during the period the Dinosaurs where around. Current levels are almost at 400ppm , through most of the Dinosaurs reign, levels between 1000-2000ppm 3-5 times higher, of course also through most of their reign we had a much warmer planet with an average of not 15c but up into the mid 20's to high 20's with fern and pine forests in Antarctica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phaner...
On the scale of this graph the 100 years in which we have raised Co2 by ~100ppm is a heart beat, current (probably conservative) estimates are that Co2 will be 650-700ppm by the end of the century (that's 200 years) on the scale of millions of years that is Co2 pretty much going straight up.
Deniers rather lame counter to all this is that Co2 lags temperature rise, this (in relation to the glacial cycle of the last 2.5 million years) is partially true. It is in fact a real scientific theory, but again deniers simply leave out the parts they don't like in the full theory the end of glacial cycles is triggered by changes in our tilt to the Sun, this slowly warms the planet as it warms Co2 is released, in the real theory this Co2 also adds to the warming effect, it is in effect only referring to the last 2.5 million years and the real theory certainly states Co2 plays a strong part in the warming, it's slow removal from the atmosphere is the reason it takes several times longer to go back into a glacial than to come out of one.
All this is reflected in the sad theories deniers offer, one minute they ask where did ancient Co2 come from "did cavemen have SUV's" the next they say the current issue is caused by volcanoes, which oddly they seem to understand (in a modern context) add Co2, but they seem unable to grasp that in the past we had far stronger volcanic activity, events that dwarf anything we have seen in our recorded history.
Try asking deniers to supply a link to any science site, then watch the excuses why they can't, often they try to cover this by saying "we don't have to prove anything" or trying to pretend political lobby groups like Heartland are science groups.
Your report is mostly correct, but you did make one mistake. The scientists got the graph from ice core samples in a glacier in Antarctica, not from soil samples.
Pay no attention to the denialist nonsense. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And, contrary to denialist claims, NASA is not part of a government conspiracy to promote global warming. In fact, the government has tried to suppress NASA scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...
Sun spot activity which is why the has been no global warming for 17 years
For science class, we had to write our opinion on Global Warming. I wrote out my opinion, and for the next part of the assignment, we are supposed to find three sources that prove our opinion. He also added that he will be asking questions and trying to test those sources. If he wins the argument I have to redo the whole thing. Can some one help me, I've looked all over the place for these sources, and not one of them was good enough!
My Opinion:
The earth has been warming and icing over for thousands of years, but, according to the graph, Co2 levels are higher than they ever been. Could our car emissions and aerosol sprays be adding on to an already natural warming effect on the earth? Here is my evidence: The graph shown below goes up and down in Co2 levels, always seeming to go down at the same point, and it's climax always seems to stop at the same place to. It looks like Earth got itself into a regular routine. But the green house effect, and the excess amount of emissions pushed the normal warming routine of the Earth to the extremes, and when Earth goes into another ice age, it is very possible that it could be the warmest ice age on record.
How the graph was made:
You may be a little confused as to how scientists got this information. It really is simple though. They just took soil samples and categorized them by year (the farther down in the Earth's crust that the soil was collected, the older the soil is.) They than compared the Co2 in the soil to the Co2 in our atmosphere, and they found that Co2 levels are higher than they ever have been. The only time that Co2 levels reached the modern day Co2 levels (not shown on the graph) was when the supposed "meteor" hit the earth to cause the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.
I found the graph on this website: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You are asking good questions, but have picked a lousy place to ask them. This site is notoriously infested with anti-science nitwit dupes and denier crackpots spouting prefab fossil fuel industry deception, much of which was complete garbage when first concocted 20+ years ago.
1. Stick to the bonafide science endorsed by the world's top scientists:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://realclimate.com/
2. If you have time to actually read a book, an excellent short and scientifically valid reference is:
Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson.
3. The fossil fuel industry sponsored anti-science lies and myths are systematically rebutted here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
4. For more on the anti-science denial industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engi...
I'd rather go with NASA than than MAXX and Zippi, both are known deniers.
if you are going to cite sources, go to a library, preferably a college or university one. If you are going to use the internet, use the advanced google search with domain GOV or EDU, that way you'll get research labs and universities.
remember that in a debate even the one with the wrong facts can win. It's about debate, read up on debates. To help out, review some of the denier points at skepticalscience
EDIT: Kano is not telling you how Venus is so hot with high concentrations of CO2. His claim is wrong.
The association of the greatest scientists in America is called the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). There is no more credible science academy in the world. The very purpose of the NAS is to provide guidance to congress and the nation in matters of complex science They provide a booklet and a series of video that explain what scientists know.
Ignore the whack-jobs on this site and pay attention to reals scientists and the information the NAS provides. Most of the whack-jobs here have less education than you do. You'll get hammered and will certainly have to re-do you project should you try to site the video the Maxx posts here. It is well known to be a total fraud. (There is not one actual climate scientists who believes what Maxx says he believes. Not a single one.)
The NAS booklet can be downloaded as a pdf here: Evidence, Impacts and Choices.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
It is a 38-page pdf broken into sections such as "How do we know that humans are causing greenhouse gases to increase?" which begins on page 6.
Here are some links for you. FYI, CO2 levels are NOT at their highest ever levels. That is propaganda, NOT fact. They are the highest that we have recodred in the modern record, but not the planets history.
I am limited to 10 links heere so I am provid8ing some but not all of what I could. There are MANY MANY more.
1. World is cooling. Sea ice is expanding. Many good sites referenced.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/wi...
2. Weather trend data linked to solar activity. This article references IPCC as well.
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/hoye/h...
3. This link goes to a number of technical documents data etc detailing the correlation and likely causation between solar activity and the earths climate patterns.
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
5. This link is from some researchers at the University of Wisconsin who have made the first mathematical model that can predict with reasonable accuracy, climate trends. Based on their model, they show that Climate change is almost entirely natural. If you read the article you might get as I did, the impression that the scientists were surprised to learn that man has so little effect.
http://www.wisn.com/print/18935841/detai...
8. Web site describing satellite data for looking at weather trends on the earth
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headline...
10. Article linking solar activity and earth’s climate. Article provides this link with a new computer model, but NASA still says greenhouse gases still supersede. Although another NASA article point out that the sun has been the most active in 1,000 years or more for the past 50 years…
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...
15. Solar Minimum is Very Deep. Only 3 minimums are in the same class. Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum and one more un-named minimum. Dated May 27, 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/27/th...
17. CERN CLOUD experiment proving relationship between solar magnetic field strength and possible cloud formation/cover on earth.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/br...
18. New study showing STRONG negative feedback for Clouds.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/ne...
19. Variable Solar Dynamo – solar Flux fields are degrading no more sunspots are possible after 2015 if this does not reverse.
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploa...
green house gas accumulation
You are asking the right questions. Here's some info that might help you. I highly recommend you watch the videos at the end of this post. They give a good overview from the skeptic's point of view.
You seem to correctly understand that the REAL debate is about "man-made" Global Warning --- not global warming, and that's good. Because it's true there has been a little natural warming over the last several decades but it was NOT caused by human activity.
Man-made Global Warming advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:
1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.
2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:
3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.
4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.
5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2013 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.
6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.
7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)
8) Warmists like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.
9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And good science has revealed that no correlation exist to show CO2 drives warming. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.
See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.
Polar Bears are doing fine:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/2...
Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...
Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)
http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenien...
Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...
Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...
Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...
For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
