Evidence AGAINST Global Warming? (1 Viewer)

[DeeJayH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5065&en=e3ee5ed70c936bca&ex=1149739200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.

The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests.

now i know the the greeneys will say this justifies that man is causing the current warming trends, as evidenced in the highlighted portion
but i would like to point out the extreme changes in climate this world has gone through throughout its history
and how the human factor has been minimal and coincides with solar activity

 

[jfuh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5065&en=e3ee5ed70c936bca&ex=1149739200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print



now i know the the greeneys will say this justifies that man is causing the current warming trends, as evidenced in the highlighted portion
but i would like to point out the extreme changes in climate this world has gone through throughout its history
and how the human factor has been minimal and coincides with solar activity

Solar activity coincidence? I don't see anywhere in that article that states anything of such. Also you have an arctic 55million years ago that was tropical, so what?
Finally you even highlighted the key portions.
There is no scientific debate about global warming or it's anthropogenic origins. The only scientific debate going on now is about whether or not we've reached the tipping points of green house gases for run away global warming.
In fact to further contrast you solar concept, from your own source:

Experts not connected with the studies say they support the idea that heat-trapping gases — not slight variations in Earth's orbit — largely determine warming and cooling. "The new research provides additional important evidence that greenhouse-gas changes controlled much of climate history, which strengthens the argument that greenhouse-gas changes are likely to control much of the climate future," said one such expert, Richard B. Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University.

 

[Iriemon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5065&en=e3ee5ed70c936bca&ex=1149739200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print



now i know the the greeneys will say this justifies that man is causing the current warming trends, as evidenced in the highlighted portion
but i would like to point out the extreme changes in climate this world has gone through throughout its history
and how the human factor has been minimal and coincides with solar activity

... Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. ...

Dino farts might be an argument for global warming happening now, except there arn't any dinos.

 

[paulmarkj]

If solar activity and/or natural cycles start global warming, that is no excuse for contributing to it further. Even if the global warming is 'natural', then it is still not a good thing, I don't think we want an upheaval to our planet's weather.

Anyone who thinks the spewing out of pollution is anything but harmful to the environment is wrong. It can only be bad, it is a matter of how bad it is. IF you don't think it is a bad as some of the doomsayers say, then fine, but that does not make it good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5065&en=e3ee5ed70c936bca&ex=1149739200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

now i know the the greeneys will say this justifies that man is causing the current warming trends, as evidenced in the highlighted portion
but i would like to point out the extreme changes in climate this world has gone through throughout its history
and how the human factor has been minimal and coincides with solar activity

 

[Stinger]

If solar activity and/or natural cycles start global warming, that is no excuse for contributing to it further. Even if the global warming is 'natural', then it is still not a good thing, I don't think we want an upheaval to our planet's weather.

Anyone who thinks the spewing out of pollution is anything but harmful to the environment is wrong. It can only be bad, it is a matter of how bad it is. IF you don't think it is a bad as some of the doomsayers say, then fine, but that does not make it good.

Seems to have stopped the ice age we were in 25 years ago, that's seems like a pretty good thing.

 

[jfuh]

Seems to have stopped the ice age we were in 25 years ago, that's seems like a pretty good thing.

Ice age 25 years ago? Got a source for this myth??

I do: Source

 

[Stinger]

Ice age 25 years ago? Got a source for this myth??

Newsweek and their story 25 years ago that the scientist said we were entering an Ice Age and the earth was cooling and we wouldn't be able to grow enough food or keep warm and we would all die unles we took their advice on how to warm up the earth.:thinking But in the end our human CO2 output must have done the trick and reversed this cooling and now you want to undo it.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Just an FYI

Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Global+Warming

 

[jfuh]

Newsweek and their story 25 years ago that the scientist said we were entering an Ice Age and the earth was cooling and we wouldn't be able to grow enough food or keep warm and we would all die unles we took their advice on how to warm up the earth.:thinking But in the end our human CO2 output must have done the trick and reversed this cooling and now you want to undo it.

You really have trouble with this issue of peer reviewed science it seems. Did you even bother to read the source in my post. Go back and re-read. You're argument with the newsweek article has already been addressed, next?

 

[Stinger]

You really have trouble with this issue of peer reviewed science it seems. Did you even bother to read the source in my post. Go back and re-read. You're argument with the newsweek article has already been addressed, next?

And never debunked or explained why the evidence suddenly changed. But the fact remains the same "consensus" said we were entering an ice age and an age of global cooling and the temps were dropping and that same consensus laid out the apocalypses that was upon us but I guess the man made greenhouse gasses saved us and turned it around.

 

[DeeJayH]

You really have trouble with this issue of peer reviewed science it seems. Did you even bother to read the source in my post. Go back and re-read. You're argument with the newsweek article has already been addressed, next?

it was addressed
but it was just another 'mistake' by researchers to get more funding
picked up on by politicians to score points
and to scare the sheep of the world

just like Global Warming

so whats next for you polyannas
the sky is falling?

 

[jfuh]

And never debunked or explained why the evidence suddenly changed. But the fact remains the same "consensus" said we were entering an ice age and an age of global cooling and the temps were dropping and that same consensus laid out the apocalypses that was upon us but I guess the man made greenhouse gasses saved us and turned it around.

What concensus?It's interesting how you hold so stead fast to myths and deny facts.

 

[jfuh]

it was addressed
but it was just another 'mistake' by researchers to get more funding
picked up on by politicians to score points
and to scare the sheep of the world

just like Global Warming

so whats next for you polyannas
the sky is falling?

What mistake? Please cite the science if you're going to talk about science.

 

[Stinger]

What concensus?It's interesting how you hold so stead fast to myths and deny facts.

So you agree there is no concensus as far as global warming?

 

[jfuh]

So you agree there is no concensus as far as global warming?

Tactic of red herrings and putting words in my mouth.
The only consensus of the 70's was that of the mass media hype. The scientific community did not have a concensus. Newsweek blew the study out of proportion and was heavily criticised for doing so by the scientific community.
Today it is the scientific community culminating 25 years worth of data and research that has concended on global warming and it's anthropogenic causes. THe only opponents of such concensus are the oil industry.
It seems the only argument you have is because there was a mistake made before, so there's a mistake made now rather then actual scientific proofs or citations that global warming is mythical.