Originally posted by alex_J:
I don't have long, but to clarify: I'm loooking for studies that have passed peer review/have been independently replicated, successfully supporting the claim that most of the increase in temperature is due to natural causes. I have yet to see them, including in the last few pages of this thread.
It depends on which peers you are talking about. the global warming peers will definately not be jumping on the bandwagon, but those who are not already convienced have passed it. The problem with people demanding it be passed by peers is that they often only accept the review by those who agree with them and not others.
The argument that temperature rise has preceeded CO2 increase is another oldie. This may be true of glacial terminations, when another forcing is involved and CO2 is purely a feedback, but in this case (an imbalance unprecented since prehistory), the CO2 is a forcing. I previously noted that the current accumulation can be traced back to fossil fuel combustion (via mass balance and isotopic analysis). The warming-induced rise argument may be convenient but it doesn't work. As for your last point, the CO2/temperature flux graphs I've seen aren't detailed enough to spot the effect of thermal inertia. Perhaps you have a piece of evidence that shows nearly instanteous warming? Or better yet, a graph of natural causes followed by a lagging temperature response.
ok, this really makes sense. First you use it as evidence of what the co2 is going to cause, then you say, its not the cause of all the other times, merely there product of it. which is it, the cause or the effect. If its the cause and the feedback kept making it worse, why did the temperature drop while the co2 levels stayed high. The higher levels should have prevented a drop in temperature.
John: The real question is whether volcanic cooling had a significant influence on that time period. NASA factored Pinatubo into their studies, predicting a masking of the overall warming trend for several years. They don't seem to be basing the GW case on the recovery from that event, and there are changes in play that go beyond pre-Pinatubo climate.
they may add in it, but why is it that they use the year that the effect on ice is at its most extream for the benchmark on how far the ice has melted?
Most sunscreens don't protect from a hotter sun - they absorb UV, and maybe reduce windburn. The only reference I found with a quick search was regarding more frequent and intense sunburn. In other words, from ultraviolet (and perhaps even a change in their sensitivity to it, who knows?). They're apparently not feeling an increase in the sun's output. Regardless, you can't support the case for a significantly higher insolation with regional anecdotal reports.
your missing the point. the uv is greater during solar flares than otherwise. think of what happens if you drop a ice cube on a hot pan. it first melts then splater all over the place. that is how it is when the solar flares are higher. they send out more materials which react with the atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth. This causes heat. exactly how it affects the earth is unknown, but its been proven to do so. The uv also is absorbed by the ice easier than visible light or even infrared (which is largely reflected by the ice). this leads to faster melting and hotter temperature at the poles. I suspect that the solar wind material that is stricking the atmostphere there is also having effect on the ice, but thats just MHO.
Peer review is part of the testing process. The keyword used at Globalwarmingtruth.org is "required". Consensus (general agreement) is in no way required in science. Anyone can try to undermine a set of conclusions, as long as they properly apply the scientific method.
so why is thet peer review of those who are not already convience that man is the main cause of global warming not acceptable.
Your links make me think I'm wasting my time here. Research doesn't appear to support the listed natural causes as being primary in the trend, and the second link trots out the stale argument about water vapor being the primary greenhouse gas. Trouble is, it's not the primary persistent greenhouse gas, and doesn't act as a forcing. It's included in research as a feedback since temperature regulates it's concentration. Without CO2, temperatures would cool and more water vapor would precipitate out. Just look at the Milankovitch cycles: An initial orbital forcing, followed by cooling, and a reduction of CO2 and water vapor leading to more cooling. Apparently you missed this little note . perhaps you can explain why they dont take into account the fact that the higher levels of water vapor leads to more co2 being flushed out of the air by rain? According to all of those links the only way co2 gets out of the air is by plants. Ever heard of carbonic acid rain? Its kind of a natural fertilizer. the higher the water vapor, the more storms there are, and the more lightning you have. If there is more co2 in the air, that creates more carbonic acid. yet no one ever mentions that.
Lastly, I find the question you raised about the "past 10,000 years being inexplicably warm and consistant." interesting. First, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Earth has been (and will likely continue to be for the next 10,000+ years) in an interglacial period, so of course it's going to be relatively mild & stable. The warming trend is taking us beyond that. Secondly, you say the (relative) warmth over the past 10 millennia is "inexplicable", yet you seem awfully convinced that natural mechanisms are mostly responsible for global warming.
better look at that graph of yours again. the last interglacial period was not so stable.
