It is an image based on satellite imagery.

Dougler how about to what level the scientist say. BTW they say it is related to human activity.

Your spouting is ridiculous. The cycles you talk about are provided to you by scientist. These same scientist say it human activity related. When did you decided to no listen to scientist?

In the 1970s there were six times as many research papers pointing to AGW as there were pointing to cooling.

44 for warming

7 for cooling

Never anything even close to consensus on cooling, quite the opposite

The number of research papers on climate change must be now approaching 15,000

" can't believe we would be doing this to our sun and planet, you know causing all those never before seen like these solar flares"

I can't believe you are that dumb.

What you are referring to is that we are now on the upswing, of the very well known 11 year solar cycle, so solar activity is picking up.

But the last three years of the last decade, which was the warmest on record, came during a 100 year solar minimum. 2010 was the warmest year on record.

The sun was unusually quiet for the past 40 years or so, while every decade during those years was warmer than the decade before it.

The Sun is NOT the cause of the current warming. There is no doubt about that.

We are not talking about pouring Pepsis into the Mississippi. e are talking about pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Physics is physics, whether you believe it or not.

It was into the mississippi and I responded to you on that.

Voice

You make these statements that are just plain false and not supported by the science.

like - "of course human have some sort of affect on the environment, but it is very minimal"

Just plain Bullsh>t

Bob,

You are illustrating nicely the steps that deniers have gone through since about 1990.

Step One: 1990-1998 or so. "Climate change is totally bogus."

Step Two: 1998-2007 or so. "Climate change is happening, but humans are contributing zero to it."

Step Three: 2007-2010 or so. "Climate change is happening, and humans are probably just a LITTLE bit to blame".

We are now at Step Four: "Climate change is probably real, but we can't do anything about it anyway".

Whether the federal government can do anything about it is not the issue. The problem remains,

Athiest it appears to me he illustrated and you confirmed that nobody has a clue, they are guessing at best, they were guessing then and are guessing again adding yesterdays news. If they actually hit the target they are wildly guessing as to how it happens or how to fix it. It is obvious it has happened many times before, exactly why is that? There weren't any cole or nuclear powered industries then.

@stop,

Do I really have to explain to you the time frames we are talking about? Does it need to be explained to you again that, although cycles have occurred, the one we are in now is occurring far faster than in previous events?

Yes, the earth warms and cools, and has done so for 4.5 billion years. However, this has happened slowly, over thousands of years.

Our current rate of warming far outpaces any previous event.

SFI, they are not guessing; they are doing science. We know a great deal about how the climate system works and are rapidly learning more all the time. And yes we all know it has happened many times before. The question is why it is happening NOW. And it is pretty clear it is because of increased CO2 (which was also the reason for many of the past changes).

Athiest:

Step 5: "And the earth shall melt with a fervent heat"

Step 6: "And there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

*paraphrased*

AGW is not up for debate. It's a fact.

golf,

BTW: I did read the part about beef's greenhouse effects are largely due to deforestation.

It is the combined effects that are the issue and that are important.

Eating beef just once a week (instead of almost every day as most American do) would drastically reduce the beef industry's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

:)

You answered your own question...follow the $. They get money to study issues / problems. The more scared they make you and the bigger deal they make = more money for them. Who do you think pays them? Think they volunteer their time? Also, I agree that it is factual that some climate changes have taken a "long" time but others have not taken so long. As far as 'peer review' having any creditability I believe most well read people know what a sham many pro-man made climate change scientists made out of that. I am always curious why those that proclaim science as their compass (and for facts I claim science as my compass) then go right to 'peer' review and 'consensus'. Credible peer review is a necessary step toward proof but 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't depend on consensus it is a fact. People will die and gravity is real are not based on consensus of peer review. They are based on outcomes that others can reproduce and are proof. Climate is far more impacted by Sun, earth orbit, volcanoes, ocean currents, and other complex contributors like the Himalayan mountains than by anything man is doing. Why do man made climate change scientists get paid by and are in league with politicians that would charge me more for oil and coal? The green politician doesn't want me to stop using fossil fuels...he wants me to pay more for it. Like they don't outlaw smoking...just charge more for it. Once again we probably miss out on a good opportunity for civil cooperation because must of us would probably agree that; climate change has always and always will be part of the planet, having a snowball earth or Venus like earth would suck, either extreme will bring a need for humans to adapt, let's continue to study what causes cooling and heating and how/if we can influence it. Leave the political, scare the world crap, aside but as you stated earlier that will never happen as you must follow the money.

ray, climate scientists do not get paid by politicians. Don't be ridiculous. Grants come from peer-reviewed scientific panels, and most scientists don't get their salaries from grants anyway. Sorry, slander against people you know nothing about will not change the science.

ray: I work with scientists. I know how they get grants. I know how their research gets vetted. The idea that there are a huge global group of scientists who are riding a grant bandwagon to document climate change and its probable reasons while continuing to do bad science is based on nothing but your imagination. If anything, scientists are very competitive with each other and grant funding is highly competitive. If you publish in a topic area such as global warming and your research or reasoning is shoddy, the scientific community will be all over you like white on rice.

"..most of the "Global Warming Expert Scientists" have admitted that large portions of their data was falsified (or in some cases data that proved that it was incorrect were "Redacted" from the reports)in order to create scare tactics and secure funding."

Did you hear that on Rush's show?

No they haven't admitted to it being false to the contrary they have continued to confirm that it's AGW. To suggest its all related to the sun shows your ignorance.

Fellas, fellas!! Don't forget that scientists have noted a weakening of the earth's magnetic field...this is also causing global warming and cannot be stopped. It is a cyclic thing. Live your life, try to conserve and take care of the earth as best as possible, but we must accept that we have no control over this.

but your are wrong Jenny. Magnetic field? Really that's whats the primary cause? Dwit.

Greg, there is no global warming...there is polar shifting however

"most of the "Global Warming Expert Scientists" have admitted that large portions of their data was falsified"

An absolute lie. NO data were falsified, so obviously there was no "admission" of anything.

Sherbud tell that to the science community.

Read below

Sherbud I read your post. Also that is about the time it takes the sun to travel around the galaxy.

I did want to add that I think the Mayan calender is based on this.

I read Sherbud's numbers wrong I thought he had it in millions of years .

@Anyfish...

ok anyfish... here is my counterpoint to your naive comments.

Uncompromising arrogance and blind "fairness" by our liberal government have ruined our economy. Please don't infect our environmental issues with the same egotistical, "all knowing" socialist arrogance that has polarized every other political debate. Please participate, but do so recognizing that fear mongers have preyed and profited on the fear of others since the beginning of time.

Scientist discovered earths cycles so you go and barf up some commonly known facts. Scientist also discovered that AGW is the primary driver. When did you decide to not believe in what the scientist say?

LOL. How about just looking up what scientist are saying.

Wow, thanks. I was starting to worry that it might have something to do with the increase in greenhouse gasses and global warming. They're ya go! Works for you. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

In an actual green house the gas most responsible for the holding and distribution of heat is N2 not CO2. If you believe in green house gas theory, the primary green house gas in the atmosphere is H2O, not CO2. H2O is the big weather maker.

Sherbud, it is conceavable that polar shifts coulf affect climate over the long term but there isn't much evidence for it. Many factors affect climate. One of them is CO2.

Will, you are right that the "greenhouse effect" does not work like an actual greenhouse. Scientists don't like to use the term but it is in the popular culture so we are stuck with it.

Yes, H2O is responsible for more of the natural greenhouse effect than CO2. Both are important, but CO2 is what we change.

The gas in our atmosphere most responsible for heat retention and transport is N2, not CO2 nor H2O. If man is responsible for climate change and if climate change is caused by an atmospheric gas then CO2 is the culprit, but these are big if's.

It's not a big if. IF you would do some simple research this is what the science community is saying.

Greg, thank you for reading my post and commenting. I have done some at least simple research and the science is anything but settled. The debate has been going on for some time.

Ah No. That would be not true. Post a url of one unbiased climate science site that supports your statement.

I do not think that there are any truly unbiased climate science sites on the internet. A simple search will uncover quite a bit of controversy in this area. People think that they are correct on both sides of the question. I do not have a url for you.

I know you don't.

"There is no way that man is going to somehow control the average level of H2O in the Earth's atmosphere."

Exactly. That is why we don't discuss that factor as much. Carbon dioxide is what we DO affect, and it is more dangerous because it is not condensible and thus can accumulate in the atmophere much more than water vapor.

Will, everything you say is true. But CO2 is what is currently affecting climate change the most, and it is the only one we can do anything about.

It is amazing how debatable the "science" has been in this area.

In the science community its not up for debate. AGW is real.

Jock, thank you for reading my post and commenting. It is because mankind can possible do something about CO2 that CO2 has been proclaimed to be this magical gas that causes climate change. There are 4 other gasses that are much more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. Neither of these gases are thermally inert. But since man cannot control them they are being ignored by AGW antagonists. Even though man has added a lot of CO2 it still appears in only trace quantities. The biggest source and sink of CO2 is the ocean that man cannot control. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been on the rise ever since the peak of the last ice age because as the ocean warms its capacity to hold CO2 diminishes so more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Actually the EPA at one time tried to control water vapor emissions as well as CO2. Maybe we should cover the oceans of the world with plastic to control green house gas emissions. If you believe in green house gas theory, the ether of space and heat as a fluid then H2O is the major player. Climate has been changing for billions of years without man being involved and most likely it will continue to change whether man is here or not. Ever since North and South America connected the earth has been experiencing ice age cycles. We are currently warming up since the last ice age. Whether man is actually adding to the warming is debatable.

There are 4 other gasses that are much more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2.

The most abundant in our atmosphere is Nitrogen.

Neither of these gases are thermally inert.

Nitrogen is inert.

Climate has been changing for billions of years without man being involved and most likely it will continue to change whether man is here or not.

Yes and the same science that has taught you that is saying AGW is a primary cause.

Man has to learn to control population

No S%#T.

Will: "We are currently warming up since the last ice age."

No we are not. The temperature peaked over 8000 years ago. The ice age cycle is not a sine curve; it is a toggle switch.

N2 and O2 are relatively inert to both incoming and outgoing radiation, AND they do not change, so they are irrelevant. For the third time, H2O is a major part of the natural greenhouse effect, but we can't change as much as CO2, so it is less significant in the global warming equation.

Will: "Whether man is actually adding to the warming is debatable."

Science is always "debatable." But with increasing evidence we can be increasingly confident that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and we are signficantly affecting the climate. That is where the weight of evidence is, Will, and I don't see that changing.

Greg, thanks for reading my post and commenting. AGW is very debatable. There are scientific arguments that support both sides. It is easy to find both sides on the Internet if you only look. The arguments have become so intense that there is name calling. There are claims of consensus but science is not a democracy so the claim has no meaning. The earth, as a thermal system, is so very complicated that there is no simple answer to the problem. We do not have millions of years of satellite calibrated data nor three dimensional ocean temperature data for that entire time period. There is data to base theories on but not enough data to make definite determinations. Another year or even decade of data is not going to do it. As the oceans warmed since the peak of the last ice age CO2 levels appear to have increased. As water temperature increase water's ability to hold CO2 decreases so more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Did this additional CO2 add to the warming phenomenon? Possibly, but we just do not really know. Over the last hundred years, man's use of fossil fuels has skyrocketed, atmospheric levels of CO2 have dramatically increased and global temperatures have appeared to increase. Does this increase in CO2 cause the earth to warm a little more than without the increased CO2 or is this just a false correlation? Actually during the last hundred years CO2 levels have increased continuously yet global temperatures have been much more variable so the CO2 temperature correlation is somewhat weak. There exist arguments both ways on this issue. Where I live temperatures had been getting a little cooler over the last several years but this summer was a little warmer but not nearly as warm as it was two decades ago. As far as global climate change gos such observations are meaningless.

There are claims of consensus but science is not a democracy so the claim has no meaning.

Well if you understood how science works with testing, observation, presentation, peer review... Science is not like the business world. This stuff is scrutinized heavily. To assume otherwise is naive.

The earth, as a thermal system, is so very complicated that there is no simple answer to the problem.

But you just mention what you state is the answer. Cycles and H20.

There is data to base theories on but not enough data to make definite determinations.

Where in science is "definite determinations" found? Do you know the definition of a scientific theory?

Over the last hundred years, man's use of fossil fuels has skyrocketed, atmospheric levels of CO2 have dramatically increased and global temperatures have appeared to increase. Does this increase in CO2 cause the earth to warm a little more than without the increased CO2 or is this just a false correlation?

Not a false correlation. Congratulations you have identified the primary driver of GW.

There exist arguments both ways on this issue.

Again not in the science community. Are you on Send?

BTW you still haven't responed to post #282.9

Greg, N2 is not an inert gas. N2 is relatively stable but under the right conditions it will oxidize and form other compounds. Nitrates are important to life on earth. N2 is relatively chemically inert but it is not thermally inert. A thermally inert substance would be quite a discovery. There are scientific arguements on both sides of AGW.

Will: "It is easy to find both sides on the Internet if you only look"

Well yes, you can find anything on the internet if you look. But I get my science from scientists in the peer-reviewed literature. Thay are quite confident that AGW is real and significant.

I'm sorry Will, but the consensus is there. You are welcome to be as skeptical as you want to, but in the end skepticism must always succumb to evidence. For most scientists we are there already. You're a smart guy. Eventually you will see that.

Jock, the recovery from the last ice age appeared to peak with the Holocene maximum roughly from 7500 to 400 years ago. One can interpret it that way. One can interpret that the little ice age was really the beginning of the new ice age but human activity has turned things around and is more than compensating for any natural activity. But there are other interpretations of the data. The last interglacial period lasted about 20,000 years and the peak temperatures were even higher than they are today. From the data all of the ice age cycles have been different yet about 120,000 years in duration. One can interpret that we are still in recovery from the little ice age and even more from the last major ice age so that temperatures are rising naturally. No one really knows when the current interglacial period will end or why it will end naturally. It is presumed that as we dip into the next ice age artic glaciers, and snow and ice packs will again begin to accumulate slowly year after year. Maybe man can do something to avert climate disasters but I doubt that it is in our power.

N2 and O2 are not inert but they are relatively transparent, especially to incoming radiation from the sun and to some of the ir radiation from the earth's surface. Remember that heat is transferred by radiation, convection, and conduction. N2 and O2 obey black body laws like all matter. They have heat capacity and they do interact thermally with the other gases and surfaces that they come in contact with. The so called green house gasses are much better ir absorbers than N2 or O2. Ir itself is radiant energy but not heat per se. CO2 and H2O interacts thermally with N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.

Jock, by some definitions CO2 is a green house gas by definition. Of course the dominant green house gas in the atmosphere is H2O. But there are some who doubt the entire green house gas theory. I have read a paper that claimed to disprove green house gas theory because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. For me the paper did not prove nor disprove anything. There was too much hand waving. Green house gas theory seems to be poorly defined and hence difficult to rigorously disprove. I have also read claims that because the amount of CO2 in air has so little effect on its measured conductivity that it cannot possibly have any effect on climate. I believe that the conductivity of air does not explain how a column of the atmosphere effects climate.

You mention "weight of evidence". This is not a civil trial. At one time the majoriety of scientists believed in the Ptolomaic model of the universe but that model has since been rejected. Sure "weight of evidence" gives one a better feeling about something but it does not prove it.

Greg, I know how "science" is suppose to work. Hypothesizing, testing, observation, analysis, modeling, presentation, peer review, and publication. I have done all of that. I assume that you are being the one who is naive. Do not believe all that you read.

You may not know what a false correlation is. Melting ice appears to be the cause of global warming. There is a strong correlation.

Yes there is science on both sides.

Have a good day.

Jock, thre is peer review on both sides. It does not mean all that much. I have been a peer reviewer myself.

On both sides they are quite confident. Maybe they are really con artists. It does not mean that much.

Consensus has nothing to do with science. Truth is not something that you vote on.

They have proved it and you're the only liar.

Propaganda only works with the weak minded. Do the Chinese believe in the climate change hoax? Even the Europeans do not meet any type of standard for CO2 emissions. It's all a farce and you are being used.

Yes, Paul, the Chinese do believe in climate change, and they are spending a lot more on green technology than we are. At the same time they are also pumping out more CO2 emissions, but that is not because they are deniers -- it is because it is cheap.

Typical right wing science ignorant deluded lemming.

Off topic troll.

Only Bilbo saw Trolls. Once we are in charge, we will not care about what you think any more cause it will not matter.

Dreaming of dictatorhsip, Paul?

Only the progressives are forcing this lie upon us. We did not cancel a pipe line; We did not force health reform on America. The federal government even under Bush was a dictatorship. obama is just 10 times worse. Progressives are just people who think they are smarter telling others to do it their way and all is fine. BULL! You want statist government. Freedom and liberty scares you. Grow up.

Still off topic. Just because you don't either want to or can't understand what is causing GW by using a political parties stance on the subject is ridiculous. Time to put on your big girl panties and deal with it or get out of the way.

For Paul there is only one topic. Hatred of liberals is all-consuming. Reality has no chance against it.

And what Paul is saying is all lies without any support. You decide a ding bat called Paul from NM or science community. Shouldn't take must time to decide.

Paul That is ALL disinformation, completely FALSE

Reliable temperature measurements from thermometers go back to about 1880, not 50 years.

For earlier time periods, scientists use various temperature proxies, like tree ring data, ice cores, lake and sea bed sediments, geological evidence and coral fossils. It's called paleoclimatatology.

And guess what? Those proxies all say the same thing.

"forged a set of false data"

ABSOLUTLEY FALSE. That is the real propaganda and has absolutely no truth.

You are obviously confused by the LIES told about the FAKE scandal of climategate.

climategate was a phony scandal, as 8 different investigations found.
Eight different investigations found no wrong doing, no faking the science. NONE

The scientists were reprimanded for not answering Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests in England. That's because they were being intentionally harrassed, with 60 FOIs in just one weekend, for example.
It takes a whole day's work for a scientist to answer 1 of those FOIs

Most of the data was available elsewhere. No one was hiding anything

Some of the data was not theirs to release, but is the property of another institution.

In one of the hacked emails, two scientists discussed a skeptic paper that they didn't think should be included in the IPCC report. Fake skeptics claim that they were suppressing skeptic input.

The truth is that the paper they were talking about was so bad, that 6 editors of the peer review science journal that published it, QUIT in Protest.

And then there is the email that spoke of using a "trick"

Here's what the 'trick' was all about.

-------
nothing.

Watch out for the scary hockey stick

Deniers hate the so called hockey stick chart of historical global temperatures. That's because it is so startling to look at. The 20th century warming looks like the blade of a hockey stick, with previous centuries being the handle.

They hate it because it has become an iconic image of global warming.

even if it were invalidated, that would not invalidate AGW. The science would still stand on it's mountain of evidence.

Michael Mann's hockey stick temperature chart has been reconstructed by dozens of other scientists, using the same data and with the same result.

The National Academy of Science investigated the issue and found Mann's work valid.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research also validated Mann's work

The National Science Foundation validated the hockey stick chart.

All eight investigations of the fake scandal of climategate found the same. Nothing.

The "trick" that Mann spoke of in one of the hacked emails was nothing like what has been alleged by deniers.

Mann is a paleoclimatologist, who used tree ring data going back something like 2000 years for the chart. He also used ice core data, coral records etc. These types of paleo-climate data are called temperature proxies

We have measured temperature records that are pretty reliable back to about the mid 1800s. The tree ring data correlated well with these measured temps, up until the last 30 years of his chart, about 1960. and it correlated well with other proxies up to then.

The tree ring data, for some reason was inaccurate for that 30 year period after 1960.
How do we know? Because we have the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE from both land based and satellite stations.

So Mann patched onto his tree ring chart, the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE for those years.

This was all explained in the IPCC report, where Mann's research paper and this hockey stick chart were published. Nothing was hidden.

And that is the "trick". Not a trick like to fool, but a technique for patching the measured temps onto the chart to represent last 30 years after 1960.

And that non issue, is what all the nonsense is about.
That was the trick.

But the deniers turned it into a worldwide conspiracy by climate scientists, to "hide the decline".

In other words, the skeptics are saying that Mann should have used the tree ring data, that he knew was wrong for those last 30 years, instead of the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE.

Get it?