Right, firstly, mentioning no names - some of you guys need to stay on topic Red...

Secondly, I'm going to stick my £0.0122092668 in:
Plotter, Noone is denying that a certain amount of climate variation is natural. This is an[1] undeniable fact.

The, as you have coined it, "man made climate change" theory is a theory regarding to a modification of this natural change - either a acceleration of this change or a slowing down of this change - Currently this change, as theorized, is an acceleration. The evidence currently[2] point to an acceleration of this. If you compare the two graphs, you'll find that from 1940-2000, the temperature anomaly has increased by .5 [Degrees celcius] - in 60 years. A change that, by looking at the previous data, would usually take around 10,000 years.

As you probably know, due to the nature of scientific theories, it is impossible to prove, beyond doubt, that it is a cause X effecting outcome Y - Correlation does not equal causation, of course.

I'd be interested to see your interpretation of the data

St.Even


Appendix of Sources:
[1]

[2]

Hey Steven, that so called "hockey stick" graph of temperatures rising has been discredited by McIntyre and McKitrick. They go into great details in many articles to show more accurate data... Here is their website...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

Another independent study disproving the data...

http://www.realclimate.org

Their data miss two very important events that changed temperatures over 0.5 Celsius in a short period of time. The Medieval Warm Period 1000-1400, when termps were hotter then they are today. As well as the Little Ice Age 1500-1900, that occurred right before the "hockey stick"

Plotter, if you read my post, you would understand that I did, infact, say:



Additionally,



Was the intent of this to be satirical? Because im not seeing any logical process going into this, if you could please clarify what you were trying to prove, if in fact it was not satirical.




I'm... not touching this. I wouldn't know where to start, I hope this is satirical also. If it isn't... then, Well. Firstly: I'd like to see clarification linking Global Warming with a, supposed, "push for abortion".
Secondly, your second point is even more pushing correlation as causation than global warming apparently is.


I'm not in NASA on E3.






Creel:
Interesting! Could I have links to specific articles? Like i've said before, it is an undeniable fact that there are natural variations in temperatures. The issue at hand is whether human actions are in some how influencing this.

i might as well balance this out so its 2 v 2.

currently im doing a chem project which is a pain in the face to do. mainly cause it asks for atmospheric percentages of elements ordered by layers in the atmosphere... which NO WHERE HAS.

some ground info. there are greenhouse gases, but these are not horrible things. these gases are necessary for life on earth or it becomes too cold to support life and becomes just like mars. too many will increase the greenhouse effect and result in a planet more like venus. these 2 are the extremes and earth will never come to such a point. however, greenhouse gases are being produced in large amounts by human activity. we are discussing whether or not this affects the earth and its climate

and it is warming. be it by sun or CO2 from man. that is the debate

http://www.science.org.au/future/etheridge.htm
go here, scroll down, CSIRO ice core sampling.

methane and CO2 levels have risen steadily in parts per million

methane would come from large grazing domesticated animals such as cattle who expel large amounts of methane due to bacteria in their rumen.

CO2 had began increasing when humans industrialized. factories ran on coal. increased farmland resulted in land clearing.

do not fall for the B.S. climate stuff. they show a factory pipe spewing out clouds of gas. this is water vapour.
do not fall for the B.S. nothing is happening. they point at a dip between 1950 and 1970 and ignore the rest.

im presenting GG and global dimming. i will GG you. Greenhouse Gases.
of the atmosphere.
78.08% is nitrogen.
20.95% is oxygen.
0.93% is argon. noble gas. inert.
and only
0.035% is Carbon dioxide, a green house gas.
0.005% are all other gases.
it is known CO2 has a greenhouse effect. do not doubt this. i dare you.
CH4 (methane) is also a greenhouse gas, 10x better at warming then CO2. although this is not backed by evidence, all i can say is that it is an effective greenhouse gas more so then CO2 but it exists in smaller quantities.

the fact that less then 0.4% of gases in the atmosphere control our temperature says a lot.

the fact that humans CLEAR FORESTS, plants that would convert CO2 into oxygen says a lot.

the fact that humans have created an ideal condition for large amounts of cattle to live and excrete CH4 says alot.

the fact that humans expel large amounts of CO2 says a lot. china has overtaken USA in terms of CO2 emissions. however their per capita use is miniscule and the fact they manufacture many things for other countries makes the individual CO2 emissions tiny compared to USA.

less then 0.4% of the atmosphere acts like the greenhouse effect
without such greenhouse gases, earth would be, on average 30 degrees centigrade cooler. Too cold for most forms of life.

As for plotter mentioning the spikes. Notice at the bottom of the picture it says THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Notice that even the sharpest of spikes result in warming over 10 000 years.

Also there is a comboing effect.
Warming warms tundra which releases pent up methane.
Warming warms ice which reduce the earth reflective value as water absorbs warmth more readily.

That there concludes duckys points on greenhouse gas

Now begins global dimming. Global dimming is molecules or particles in the atmosphere that prevent sunlight from reaching earth. It reduces evaporation and cools the earths surface. This could combat global warming? No. not unless you never want to see the sun again. Not unless you never want it to rain again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming


Mt Pinatubo erupted and showed just what would happen. Sulphur and ash went into the atmosphere, they created highly reflective clouds, cutting evaporation and masking any warming.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... bution.png
sulfate creates clouds, but these clouds have abnormally small raindrops which reflect sunlight better.
Volcanoes create sulfur and ash which also result in cooling.
Increased solar output results in obviously, increased warming.
And greenhouse gases increase would increase warming.

Global dimming is lessening as aerosols would deplete the ozone and we all get skin cancer. So since the clean air act that reduced soot and an overall ban on aerosols that deplete ozone, global dimming is reducing. Only now is global warming revealing itself. Ice shelfs in Antarctica. Larsen a or Larsen b. I forget. They were meant to stand for another 100 years. They broke up. And in the water medium melt faster.

-ducky has finally had a say after so much spamming

mr ducky +1 but
if it is natural or man made is currently irrelevant no matter what we do the earth will get much warmer until the ice on our pole melts then we enter the next ice age which according to the time cycle of our earth should be happening soon any way

but we can postpone and lessen the effects by allowing more time to build infrastructure or changes to help stop famine and floods and natural calamites that would present themselves with higher temperatures.

no, humans cannot stop climate change. yes, humans can take active moves to help limit the damage.

btw ducky, if you really did your chem project properly, you would have found out that water vapour is actually a greenhouse gas, and concentration is variable and is usually between 1-5% or something

I will quote wikipedia, because i don't feel like searching for anything else, but our textbook which you used for your chem project actually says that water vapour is a major greenhouse gas.



therefore wrong?

firstly, i used the wiki version, they didnt include water vapor as it fluctuates more then any of the others. average around 1% of the atmosphere

alright... lets test scenarios.

remove water vapor from atmosphere.
= no clouds
= no rain
= meh, only extreme famine and starvation.

lessen human contributions of Carbon Dioxide
= more stable weather for the time being
= more time to put up preventative and protective measures
= not so much extreme famine and starvation.

in short.
water vapor cycle fluctuates wildyly up to 500%

CO2 cycle slowly increases while carbon sinks absorb a majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere. these carbon sinks cannot hold CO2 indefinately.

carbonic acid in oceans build up and kill off aquatic life. and the ocean can only hold carbon depending on the temperature, at higher temperature it will begin to release the carbonic acid.
tundra will warm and melt revealing the organic material beneath freeze releasing CH4
simliar with forests. these natural checks and balances can be strained.

water vapor cannot collect too much as it will simply become rain. that cycles through to the ocean that gets evporated etc.

Not in the slightest. If you have 0.4% of the air you breath as poison, you're going to die, aren't you? The fact the amount of the gas is increasing beyond it's normal levels, which will affect Normal NATURAL Global Climate Change is the problem.