Climategate

[denuseri]

True, but these emissions are will known and factored into the calculations made by climatologists.

You mean they are "ignored" ussually becuase they don't match with what most climatoligists want to see.

Again, these natural causes are pretty well understood and accounted for.

The levels of volcanic activity, for example are constantly measured, along with the amount of ash and dust being put out by volcanoes, and it has been found that, in general, these events are relatively constant, averaging out over the years. There have been some blips, of course. The eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, combined with unusually low solar activity, caused tremendous problems around the world, during what has been called 'The Year Without a Summer'. But still, these events are understood and factored into calculations.

There is nothing constant about the stellar event that took place over north america a few thousand years ago that brought the mass extinction of countless species (including clovis man) from not only the initial impact but from the subsequent rapid world wide climate change (which also killed more than its fair share of mammoths found in siberia whose stomachs still contained warm weather food yet they died in cold weather conditions). It has happened countless times and didnt take thousands or even hundreds of years to occur. The Deccan-taps eruptions are another prime example from an earlier period.

As for their being factored into calculations I just looked at a whole series of calculations where it wasnt just the other day at school and listened to a 3 hour lecture on how the climatoligists are ignoreing the data that doesnt support their claims.


This is just plain wrong. CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels. While there can be some variations depending on where measurements are taken, the overall average of CO2 concentration has been steadily climbing. And laboratory testing has shown that increasing CO2 levels will cause increased atmospheric temperatures due to the absorption of infrared radiation. What it amounts to is that, by combining the natural sources of CO2 emission with the burning of fossil fuels by civilization and the deforestation of large tracts of land, there is more CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year than the natural processes can remove.

Actually co2 was higher by allmost a factor of 2 or more than todays levels on several different occassions according to the geologic record long before humans ran around and figured out how to make fire rubbing sticks together.

Labrotory testing has also shown that when you raise the temperature, that co2 levels will increase along with it on their own. Go riddle me that one Sir.

And the problem with this is that humanity may not be able to survive such a shift. Yes, it's possible the globe could be plunged into a deep freeze, or things beyond our control could raise the temperature to unbearable levels in a relatively short time. Those dangers will always be there, and there's damned little we can do about them. But that's not the problem we're facing now, is it?

Why yes it most certiantly is one of the dangers we need to prepare for and could face at any moment.

Additonally...just in case...though mainly for other reasons perveiously stated numerous times other than the "its our fault thinking"...I believe we should be reducing carbon emissions anyway and treating the enviroment a heck of a lot better. I also believe our #1 way to do this is via further space exploration and technological achievement in combination with a reduction of industries designed around the explotation of "limited" "perishable" rescources.

Even if we could prove that the current warming cycle was not started by mankind, there's more than enough evidence to show that our own contributions are making things worse. The best way to minimize our impact is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels significantly. This would, however, have a very strong negative impact on those industries which depend upon our consumption of those fuels, as well as those politicians who depend upon those same industries for their political existence. And this is the primary reason that there is so much resistance to the very idea of global warming.

I agree on that preception good Sir in its entirety.

PS: The sunspot cycle, which has been unusually silent for the past two years, has recently restarted. In March of this year the first major sunspot activity in more than two years were detected. If this means a startup of the solar cycle, it will mean gradually rising temperatures here on Earth. It will be interesting to see the effects this will have on denialists.

I am also worried in addition to what you have mentioned and a very likely possibility of stellar impact; about the possibility of slight obital shift or a change again in the earths angle of declination as it rotates (it went from 14 degrees once to what it is now a while back which cuased massive changes)which hopefully wont happen due to the upcomming switch in polarities expected to happen between our magnetic poles in the near future which may have allready started btw.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]You mean they are "ignored" ussually becuase they don't match with what most climatoligists want to see.

How can they be ignored? Ignoring natural sources of CO2 would require climatologists to claim that ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. they're not. From what I've found, they are claiming that only 3% of the annual addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is caused by mankind (not including respiration.) The problem is that not all of this man-made CO2 can be handled by the natural cycles, so the CO2 levels are gradually increasing.

There is nothing constant about the stellar event that took place over north america a few thousand years ago that brought the mass extinction of countless species (including clovis man) from not only the initial impact but from the subsequent rapid world wide climate change (which also killed more than its fair share of mammoths found in siberia whose stomachs still contained warm weather food yet they died in cold weather conditions). It has happened countless times and didnt take thousands or even hundreds of years to occur. The Deccan-taps eruptions are another prime example from an earlier period.

The astronomical event you're referring to is a relatively recent hypothesis, which is still being studied. There are a couple of different hypotheses regarding the cause of the climate change at that time. But they all reference cataclysmic events, not gradual climate change. There is certainly little argument about the possibility of relatively rapid climate change caused by such events. When they calculate the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, naturally these events are not included, as they are aberrations which do not figure into the kinds of data they are concerned about. For example, if you want to determine the amount of smoke dispersed into the air by naturally occurring forest fires, you don't include the data from those fires started by people. They are not, by definition, natural. They are aberrations, at least as far as your study is concerned.

Actually co2 was higher by allmost a factor of 2 or more than todays levels on several different occassions according to the geologic record long before humans ran around and figured out how to make fire rubbing sticks together.

Yes it has, but that has nothing to do with what's occurring now. The controversy now is not how much CO2 is present, but where it's coming from, and how much it's affecting our climate. The CO2 concentrations 100 million years ago are not relevant to today's climate. The effects of those concentrations, on the other hand, may be. But the entire atmosphere was different back then, and moderating influences from oceanic currents which we have today were much different.

Labrotory testing has also shown that when you raise the temperature, that co2 levels will increase along with it on their own. Go riddle me that one Sir.

Exactly, but that's not the testing I was talking about. I was referring to testing which shows that CO2, methane and even water vapor are strong greenhouse gases which can affect the temperature of the atmosphere. As far as I know, though, CO2 is NOT created in the atmosphere as the temperatures increase. But higher temperatures do cause CO2, methane and water vapor to be freed from ground sources, such as the tundra and methane hydrate deposits. This is one of the things that worries many scientists. Man-made CO2 causes a slight rise in average global temperatures; higher temperatures cause thawing of permafrost in the CO2-rich tundras of Canada and Siberia (primarily), causing release of this CO2 into the atmosphere, causing further warming. Warming also causes a rise in sea temperatures, which causes thawing of methane-hydrate deposits on the ocean floor, causing release of methane into the atmosphere, causing even more temperature rises. It's a vicious cycle. The biggest controversy, however, is not over whether it will happen, but in how large an effect it will have. It's already known to be happening, a fact confirmed by direct observation and measurement.

I am also worried in addition to what you have mentioned and a very likely possibility of stellar impact;

I assume you mean an asteroid or comet impact. (Stellar refers to stars: just a minor nit-pick) Yes, these are possible, but not worth worrying about unless you're in the government or the space program. If we are going to be impacted by something about the size of the object which wiped out the dinosaurs, or even the one which may have wiped out the mammoths, there's nothing we can do to prevent it. About all we can do is, "Watch the skies! Keep watching the skies!" ('The Thing from Another World', 1951)

about the possibility of slight obital shift

To my knowledge, this could only be caused by the intrusion of something quite large into our immediate neighborhood, or by a very large impact. In either case, there's not a damned thing we can do about it, so no sense worrying about it. The possibilities are even more remote than for an asteroid impact.

or a change again in the earths angle of declination as it rotates (it went from 14 degrees once to what it is now a while back which cuased massive changes)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I assume you mean the axial tilt, which is what causes our seasons. I've seen nothing about it being 14º at any time, though. It averages from about 22º to about 24º. It's currently getting smaller and should reach minimum in about 9000 years or so. Not something we need to worry about.

which hopefully wont happen due to the upcomming switch in polarities expected to happen between our magnetic poles in the near future which may have allready started btw.

The Earth's magnetic field is in a constant state of flux. The north magnetic pole has been migrating northward since 1931 (when measurements began), and the speed of this migration has recently increased. But the possibility of a magnetic reversal, which has occurred in the past, is certainly there. From what I've read, the last reversal was over 700,000 years ago, and they've averaged out at about once every 300,000 years, so we may be overdue for one. But no one really knows. There's certainly no indication that it will happen in the near future, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen tomorrow. But there doesn't seem to be any indication that such a shift would be catastrophic as far as climate or life is concerned. There will be problems in navigation for anyone still using magnetic compasses, and probably some other localized effects. The only real problem would be if, for some reason, the magnetic field simply switched off, leaving the planet exposed to the solar wind. But there's no evidence for that happening. And there's certainly no evidence for it happening in the near future. And again, it's something over which we have absolutely no control, so worrying about it is a waste of time.