If Global Warming is real, Where is the Scientific Proof this isn't a warming cycle and cool down in 40 years? - cycling in 40 f weather
Do you not show any concerns, I believe, a 100 Jahreschart Most temp tables and graphs to analyze the variation of temperature, that global temperatures over land and sea from 0.75 C (1.35 ° F) from have the decade from 1860 to 2007 increased
Just Global Warming.
While scientists disagree about imagine what happened in the past, how much harder it is to imagine the future.
I am a naturalist / environmentalist. I followed the climate change since the 80s. (Climate change is the more appropriate term)
I do not deny that the Earth 's climate change, calling these cycles. I found that to be taken to support the heating and cooling.
There is simply no scientific evidence that we are just hot and never cooled.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Cycling In 40 F Weather If Global Warming Is Real, Where Is The Scientific Proof This Isn't A Warming Cycle And Cool Down In 40 Years?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are two types of natural heating / cooling.
ReplyDeleteThe first is the orbital forcing, or Milankovitch cycles. These are small changes in the Earth's orbit cause ice ages and other Ice Age through the mechanism of ice-albedo feedback. Since the orbit of the Earth can be calculated in the past and the future for thousands of years, we know that the orbital variation 6000 years ago reached the maximum in the Holocene and has been slow global cooling since. Here's the science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab ...
The second type of natural climate change is caused by changes in solar radiation. Therefore, the current heat of the sun, or the greenhouse effect? It is easy to notice the difference:
1. When the sun is the cause of the current heat, so we warmed up more energy, and the whole atmosphere. If greenhouse gas emissions, then we get the same amount of energy, but is distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat escapes the StratosDido. So if the sun would warm the stratosphere, but if greenhouse gas emissions should calm down the stratosphere.
In fact, the stratosphere has been a long-term cooling trend since we've been keeping records for balloon radiosonde in the 1950s. Here are the details:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images ...
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2 ...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin ...
2. When the sun, we get more energy during the day and daytime temperatures should increase faster. But if it is a greenhouse, we will lose less heat in the night, and night temperatures should increase faster. So if the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures would rise, but if the difference of days in the greenhouse at night should be downward.
In fact, the daily temperature range during the 20th Century back. Here's the science:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ ...
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reQu ...
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff ...
3. The total solar radiation measured by satellites since 1978, and during this time showed normal cycle of 11 years, but there are no long-term trend. Here are the details:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar ...
4. Scientists have closely observed in the case of solar energy and strongly refuted. Here is the peer-reviewed science:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro ...
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi ...
There are still debating whether global warming is a short term trend, but a process somewhat, but no evidence of a change in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun, so the blame for the current crisis can polar ice not a cyclical effect of the sun.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great question.
ReplyDelete"Where is the proof?" Do not worry, I mean scientific proof, because I think I am. "
"The world has warmed. Only the global warming."
LOL!
The proof that it is not an "up cycle" easily by examining the orbit of the earth, of course) cycles (listed.
"A 1980-study often cited by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that" to ignore anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle of 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term trend that began about 6000 years cooling will be to continue over the next 23,000 years. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab ...
We are) in a warm stable (and slow cooling part of natural cycles. There is absolutely no natural reason to warm up quickly planet. And it is fast. In the past 30 years have been warming at a rate20 times faster than when the planet naturally from the last Ice Age. Of course, make it clear to show that I have a chart displaying the temperature, and I am sure that he has rejected, regardless of my tests, but true.
I only answer, because I was thinking the wording of the question, absolutely hysterical. At least they are trying to do so that you are open minded. I appreciate it. Of course, if you are not willing to be open, no sense in this matter. Not convince his total and absolute absence of scientific proof that you're right, and no convincing scientific evidence, you are mistaken.
Is "global warming by the perception that the public" must prove that! Testing must be unquestionable and contradictions can not exist.
ReplyDeleteScience can not intervene to show the warming (whatever the reason) is probably the sun and changes in the cosmic radiation can the salt water in the oceans wide heat, too. We know that salt water has a high concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide, CO2. Its results, when the temperature increases means that the CO2 concentration has increased not only the cause of global warming!
To bring a little levity into the debate, open and pour a bottle of soda on a hot day and watch the results!
Yes, it goes in cycles, and even act human, it is very very small and the people are not the main cause.
ReplyDeletehttp://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossil ...
It is not only reasonable, but supported by thousands of scientists and thousands of pairs of scientific studies.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci ...
The UN's IPCC report are not formally reviewed journals and have been passed, and known too many errors:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/stor ...
http://junkscience.com/
The goal is to advance research on all aspects of the problem, not a non-side (often erroneously the current view of Al Gore, the UN and the people) answered on this page, as Bob (who works for an environmental organization and sub-)
http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/10-qu ...
Let time and the time of God, not the scholar or man of the moment ............... Wake up call .. duhh
ReplyDeleteLet time and the time of God, not the scholar or man of the moment ............... Wake up call .. duhh
ReplyDeleteThere is tons of evidence:
ReplyDelete"I was not from a person or group of interest was convinced that the information I got. I was totally the relationship between the use of fossil fuels and convinced of climate change. And I was convinced that if we do something would the real problems. "
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut
Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer-reviewed data that convinced Admiral and the vast majority of scientists in the short and long term.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima ...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report. ...
be summarized as follows:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report ...
We were in a very stable until the last day. Here are 2000 years data:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima ...
"We humans have a remarkable economic and social development for maybe the only time that could be built when the climate was sufficiently stable constructionallows us to have the agricultural infrastructure necessary for a progressive society can be obtained. "
There is a lot less of this controversy is the real world that is in Yahoo Answers:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a ...
And much less controversial in the scientific community, as you might have thought from the few skeptics talked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_ ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu ...
Good websites for more information:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci ...
http://www.realclimate.org
"Climate research by climate scientists"
... http://environment.newscientist.com/chan
As a scientist, "or protective agent, you must determine that the change could significantly change the climate a few degrees. Please understand, I suggest you do some research.
ReplyDeleteBob the top is a big mistake, because no one really knows how science works.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are many scientific reports that the man made global warming is the cause not the same as evidence.
For it is clear that there are too many scientific opinions that say that global warming is largely natural and not caused by humans.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Scientific advice should be discussed and peer reviewed continuously and then the view is adjusted and improved.
But for some reason the alarming global warming is another matter.
hmm .....
http://demanddebate.com/
From Newsweek:
ReplyDeleteCooling World
By Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975
There are worrying signs that the Earth's climate has begun to change dramatically and that these changes may indicate a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for the nation, almost everyone on earth. The decline in food production could begin soon, perhaps only 10 years. The regions destined to feel the effects are the major wheat producing countries of Canada and the Soviet Union in the north, with a marginal number of self-sufficiency in tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season depends on the rains is brought by the monsoon.
Collect the evidence of those predictions started so massively that meteorologists hit hard with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks from the year 1950, estimated with a resultant overall loss in grain production to 100,000 tonnes per year.
From Newsweek:
ReplyDeleteCooling World
By Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975
There are worrying signs that the Earth's climate has begun to change dramatically and that these changes may indicate a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for the nation, almost everyone on earth. The decline in food production could begin soon, perhaps only 10 years. The regions destined to feel the effects are the major wheat producing countries of Canada and the Soviet Union in the north, with a marginal number of self-sufficiency in tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season depends on the rains is brought by the monsoon.
Collect the evidence of those predictions started so massively that meteorologists hit hard with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks from the year 1950, estimated with a resultant overall loss in grain production to 100,000 tonnes per year.
The Arctic ice back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeletePolar bears dying.
thats what i think
I am so tired to read it again and again. Where are your facts? I suggest that you are ashamed of their origins and realize that everyone read it directly from the information that you can see.
ReplyDeleteI read this sentence about 8 times posted in different positions: "I am a naturalist / environmentalist. I followed the climatic changes since the 80s." So prove it. Enter to show me a link or a bit of data that only arisen.
The rest of the post is just opinion and as such is completely useless.
What kind of question is: "If global warming is real, where the scientific evidence for this cycle is not warming and cooling in 40 years?" It means nothing. That is to say: "Where is the scientific evidence for this cycle is not warming and cooling in 40 years?" Mean? This means that all links that have been published.
What you say is at the end of the "I do not think so." Prove to me to believe, and still not me.
People who do not believe in climate change, man seems the same idea that people who do not believe that they have established in evolution, no matter what the evidence nor rejected simply because they want to believe.
ReplyDeleteExactly! If the earth is not heated, would New York City is still less than a mile thick sheet of ice.
ReplyDeleteThe climate is always changing. This change is as natural as a summer rain.