Earth's Magnetic Field Weakening

[Jake]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The earth has been much warmer in the past with oceans covering large portions of North America. Global warming and cooling is cyclical. And there are just as many reputable scientists that disagree with humans causing global warming.

You sound very confident about that. Maybe you should enlighten the scientific community of your discovery of the cause global warming. They would be very interested.

The point is we just don't know and it would be ignorant not to study all possibilities, especially when there may not be just one reason.

Heres an example... our magnetic field is currently weakening and the suns energy output recently hit its max in its life time... hmmmmmm.... now consider the expansion of industry, deforestation, increases in livestock, depletion of ozone and even the cyclical thing JofM mentioned...

I suggest to stop arguing over this. Its just too complicated for people with no formal education on the matter to waste their lives on. Leave it to the professionals.

[tussery]

If you want to fix the green house gas problem figure out how to stop volcanoes and techtonic activity because that is where the majority of green house gases come from, our own planet. Like was stated warming trends and cooling trends are cyclical, and if you look at all climate information that we have collected you will find that the planet is still technically in a cooling trend.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You know, "give your head a shake" isn't really an argument. Let's try to have a civilized discussion.

Aside from that, you make what is quite possibly a good point. I may well have overstated my case, in saying that every reputable scientist believes this. So let me retract and slightly modify my statement, and say instead that the CONSENSUS among scientists is that global warming is happening, and that it is likely due to human factors rather than naturally occurring phenomena. Of course, there will be some scientists who disagree. There are also scientists who attempt to discredit evolution, in spite of all the evidence. This is, in fact, healthy, even though it sometimes gets manipulated to create the illusion of uncertainty on issues where there really isn't much uncertainty at all.

But instead of exchanging epithets, why don't we exchange links. I eagerly await a nondiscredited, recent publication from a reputable journal which disputes global warming or its causes.

In the meantime, from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, this summary of the prevailing science on this topic.



There's lots of information at their site. Check it out, if you're interested.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...basic_science/

Fair enough,

Let's try these:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...l_warming.html

"Right now I do not have confidence that changes in sea ice and clouds are done correctly in climate models. The annual cycle is not correct in many models, so why should it be correct in climate change [projections]?"

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ( in an interview for the Washington Post, May 1998 ).

Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway.

Carbon Dioxidefrom all coal burning worldwide comprises only 0.013% of the greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

[White Doors]

More...

Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.

Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record

Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.
Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.



"...the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800's so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery."

Dr. John R. Christy
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)

Interestingly enough, the warming from @ 1860 kind of lines up with earth's magnetic field weakening...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

More...

Interestingly enough, the warming from @ 1860 kind of lines up with earth's magnetic field weakening...

Let me first say, sincerely, that I appreciate your elevating the level of debate. Disagreement is healthy, and although I sense that you and I disagree about a great many things, I don't see that as a reason that we can't otherwise enjoy a good discussion. (I'm not saying I'm innocent either. Sometimes the anonymity of a message board leads to a little less circumspection. I'll try to mind my p's and q's a bit more in the future.)

I'm looking at the site you linked, and I'm having a little trouble tracking down who the author/site owner is. If you've been there longer, can you help me out? It looks like it was last updated in 1998, so the information may be old--though I'll be the first to admit that this doesn't make it wrong, and I lack the expertise to judge that.

But I do think that the source is important information to have. I may just be looking in the wrong places, but I can't figure it out.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Let me first say, sincerely, that I appreciate your elevating the level of debate. Disagreement is healthy, and although I sense that you and I disagree about a great many things, I don't see that as a reason that we can't otherwise enjoy a good discussion. (I'm not saying I'm innocent either. Sometimes the anonymity of a message board leads to a little less circumspection. I'll try to mind my p's and q's a bit more in the future.)

I'm looking at the site you linked, and I'm having a little trouble tracking down who the author/site owner is. If you've been there longer, can you help me out? It looks like it was last updated in 1998, so the information may be old--though I'll be the first to admit that this doesn't make it wrong, and I lack the expertise to judge that.

But I do think that the source is important information to have. I may just be looking in the wrong places, but I can't figure it out.

Hey, one of my very best friends is an NDP supporter.

I have no idea what the person who created the site, credentials are, but his references surprised even me.
Going through the site and one thing hit me most was how politics is influencing science. That's not good for anyone. What I will say is that if they continue with decreasing CO2 emissions it will also decrease toxic emissions as well and will help protect forests, so even if it is wrong, it will help the things that I am concerned about. I would prefer if we were more focused on those things then worrying about CO2 all the time though.

cheers

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Hey, one of my very best friends is an NDP supporter.

You know, part of that, I believe, (if I can be chauvinistic for a second) is a Canadian thing.

When I tell my American friends about civil political discussions between close friends from other parts of the political spectrum, some of them are a little amazed. Politics has become so confrontational down here that it's degenerated into name-calling and "gotcha" games. Maybe we Canadians recognize that there's only one thing worth getting so worked up over that it can jeopardize friendships: hockey.

I did figure out that the site is authored by one Monte Hieb. It also looks like different parts of the site have been updated at different times, as recently as 2003--so I somewhat retract my "old" statement.

Here's a site that talks about the "clearlight" source in some detail:
http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

In the interests of full disclosure: The author of "info-pollution.com" is someone named Jim Norton. There are a lot of Jim Nortons--it's a name that is perhaps too common for Google. I THINK he's the Jim Norton who's the director of the Environmental Protection Division. Otherwise, I have no idea who he is or if he's at all credible--he crunches a lot of numbers, but I'll admit that his site's pretty biased, so take it with as much salt as you like--I just thought it was interesting because it engages directly with the Hieb site you quoted from earlier. It looks like a pretty lively debate--lots of heated rhetoric.

[White Doors]

Thanks. His rebuttal was less than impressive though in my opinion.

I also think that more and more scientists are going to be coming out against man-made climate change in the near-future.

Time will tell I guessl.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Thanks. His rebuttal was less than impressive though in my opinion.

I also think that more and more scientists are going to be coming out against man-made climate change in the near-future.

Time will tell I guess.

Yeah--which is why I said it looked somewhat biased. I'm generally skeptical of information on the internet, just because I know firsthand how easy it is to establish a substantial presence there. I edit an online journal, and although it's taken on a sort of "institutional" quality, you'd be shocked at how many people email us assuming we have a large staff of reviewers, copious resources for dealing with interviews and assignments of that sort. Really, the journal consists of three guys, living in different cities, compiling submissions and posting them as quickly as our busy schedules permit. Yet when you add a nice logo and some cool art, people assume you know what you're doing.

When my students do research papers, I usually make them use print sources, for the same reason.

As for scientists coming out against global warming: you're right that time will tell. For now, it's probably enough to say that we disagree on what it will tell us in the end.

Personally, I think that among other things it will reveal that the Bush administration was wrong to suppress the testimony of James Hansen, the NASA scientist who was censored by the government when he began writing in his reports about global warming. This is perhaps one extreme example of the "politics influencing science" that you were talking about. Here's the link.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33032

The unprecedented efforts of the administration of President George W. Bush to gag and suppress research findings it doesn't like are putting science in the United States at risk, say experts.

The case of James Hansen, the leading scientist on global warming at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), who revealed in January that he had been censored by the government, is evidence of the White House's discomfort with scientists whose findings contradict the Bush administration's environmental policies.

Already in 2004 a prominent group of scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 winners of the U.S. National Medal of Science, signed an open letter accusing the Bush administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact "for partisan political ends."

Personally, I wonder why the Bushies don't want an open debate on this question. Not trying to start a fight--just wondering.

Edited to add this note on the source of that quote: IPS is a newswire service, like Reuters, with a specific mission. This, in the interests of full disclosure, from their mission statement:

As part of what is known as "development journalism", our news service aims to help correct the imbalance of news provided by the mainstream media in North America by providing contextualised stories that focus less on specific news events than on the processes, institutions and trends in order to make those events understandable to readers.

[Azure]

I heard that cow farts provide more CO2 to the atmosphere then cars.

That true?

[evman150]

CH4.

Methane, a greenhouse gas.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by evman150

CH4.

Methane, a greenhouse gas.

7 billion farters letting loose after eating cows. Are they reducing or increasing emissions?

70's all the talk was about the upcoming iceage. Todays globalwarmatheologists are looking as hysterical and illogical as those baffoons.

Recently the leader of the Global Warming Theologists has stated that we have pasted the tipping point. So if you beleive him...we're doomed no matter what now.

The problem is that the data stated has been exaggerated(like the 70's) by the media, whether it be news media or Hollywood, into something beyond what is truely is.

Look at NASA's data. We haven't deviated 1C up or down per year over the last 20 years. Over the last 3 decades we have jumped 7C or so. We WERE in a warming trend. WE ARE NOW in a cooling trend....

Back to the ice age?

Due to our pole distablisation were are now being bombarded by more of the Sun's radiation. Soon Australia will be North of us.

Yet the Ozone layer has reconfigured itself.

Too much out there to be so certain of our superiority over mother nature yet.....

[JBR]

This reversal thing is OK with me, as long as it doesn't happen Tuesday. That just doesn't work for me.