Global Warming

[mntoes 270]

No problem, I think people should know all the facts.

[mntoes 270]

Another article with some TV clips here:-

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

and a link to Channel 4 about the programme Here:-

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/programme.html

Should be enough to read....lol

[mntoes 270]

I think this is where the problem lies. They take samples of air trapped in ice cores and measure the amount of carbon dyoxide in it. The assumption I think is high carbon dyoxide = high temperatures so they are matching temperatures to the volume of Carbon Dyoxide. This link is disproved in the programme.

[el_grande02 0]

Here is one fact the video probably omitted. CO2 levels today are the highest they have ever been in earth's recorded history, and are increasing at a geometric rate. Reasons for increased CO2:

1. Heavy reliance on the automobile and other modes of transportation using fossil fuels.

2. Factory pollution

3. Decrease of Tropical forests, which is responsible for a majority of O2 replenishment and decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere

The increase in CO2 is causing the suns solar rays to trap more heat into the earth, ie. the greenhouse effect. This is causing global temperatures to rise. The rise in temperatures is causing glaciers to melt throughout the world at a geometric rate, which also helps contribute to rising sea levels.

The bottom line is that the Earth has the most CO2 present in the atmosphere today than has ever existed and it is mainly due to human manipulation (in other words, destruction) of the environment.

Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png for a graph showing the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

[lucky7 73]

Hi, first of all I want to focus on Voar Tok's question: *I have a question that someone I know had for advocates of global warming. How is it possible to have temperatures for thousands of years in the past, if the thermometer is only a few hundred years old.*

As far as I know, samples from both the Artic- and Antartic icecaps were taken to prove the co2 concentration found in the samples, thus tracing back and calculating the former average temperature on earth. So according to the co2 emmisions our world's climate has been significantly changing over the last thousands of years, as jammy pointed out in the beginning of the topic.

Nevertheless, it seems to be clear that mankind, beginning from the age of industrialization in the late 19th century, has been contributing to global warming very much. Even the Roman Empire, masters of globalizing their (known) world, had high pollution- levels in their cities, first of all Rome. Not only, despite their excellent sewage- systems, did they have polluted rivers, but also they were causing athmospheric warming due their higly populated cities. Nowadays it's proven that densly populated areas cause higher temperatures than their rural surroundings (Kyoto, Mexico City, L.A., New Dehli,...).

As jammy said, there is a high portion of solar eruptions contributing to the terrestrian climate, too, no doubt. The interesting fact is, looking back to human history, that the Eastern Roman Empire fell around 565 AD (Iustinianus I). Then Europe had to face the Middleages, a throwback to civilisation: the plagues, the loss of philosophic understandment, the loss of vital technologies, e.g. water support (aquaeducts), therefore hyiegenic decline, a high mortality, etc. . I am asking myself if this mini ice- age from around 1500 (although we find ourselves in the mid bloomig- Renaisance, should be traced back to former times? Just a thought.

Now back to our present status of our so- called civilisation: oil and coal are contributing to co2 emmisions, and our Western World has been exploiting these resources for decades. How come that other technologies have been available since the 1970'ies but did not go into mass production since then? How come that there was a nice attempt to reduce co2 emissions of the Western countries in the late 90'ies (The Kyoto Protocoll)?

In my opinion (and I am truly speaking as an European) it's all about oil. It's really a shame that the U.S. is only focusing on present and future oil- fields, denying every connex to enviromental harm. But money is money... What about the newly upcoming mega- countries like China, India and Bangladesh? I am sure that they want to have Western standards, e.g. cars, leisure, etc. . They are also a global warming player.

I am sincere, but do you think that the last 2- 3 years wheaterwise were normal? I hear about winter- tornados in GB, we all could see the damage caused by the famous Kathrina, we have floodings going on in Sumatra, etc. . I'd like to point out that my very next vicinity is somehow affected, too; I am Austrian, and Austria is very well known for the Alps and snow. In the last couple of years there was a significant diminuition of snow; all our glaciers have been gone or are reduced to a ridicolous amount of ice, winter sport resorts had not any income of tourists because there was no snow. Only in February there was an Adriatic depression causing snow in the mountanious areas. All February long we kept suffering from temperatures about 18 degrees Celsius plus- we are not L.A. .

Well, I'm really interested in beeing to this topic. I'd like to hear your opinions and thoughts, your discoveries,

and everything.

Take care,

lucky7

[roqratt 0]

I'd like to know the credentials of the 'scientists' that appeared on this program, and where they get their money from. Many of the most outspoken 'experts' that argue against global warming have been shown to be on the payroll of the large oil and power companies before the papertrails were covered up. Many of them also were on the tobacco companys' payrolls back in the 70's and spoke out against the links of smoking causing cancer. Look how laughable that concept is today, and yet for years the tobacco companies ran exactly the same confusion campaign that the petroleum companies run today - using many of the same 'experts' and PR companies that the tobacco companies used.

Don't believe the hype. There is just far too much evidence for global warming, from independent research, and belief from virtually all the real experts in the field, to ignore it. Besides, why are we still using technology (internal combustion, coal power stations) that's a hundred years old? We should have flying cars by now!

[slyd 0]

yep, I'm with rogratt and david1314,

once upon a time people believed the earth was flat too... cause, well... it looked flat... how absurd to think it was a sphere!

maybe those who doubt the science of climate change are taking SimCity4 too literally?

As sad as it is... there really are no dragons that eat garbage pushed over the edge of the flat maps using PEG's chute ; )

no radical pollution modd for the planet either... save maybe curbing the amount of GHG's we spew into the atmosphere.

only lobbyists (certainly no scientist worthy of that title) - claim that humans are not having a profound impact on the atmosphere leading to climate change.

[david1314 44]

^ I covered three of them in my post....

Energy lobby seems to be the standard thus far.

[david1314 44]

Voar Tok: They do so because when the earth cycles (the seasons), the temps rise and fall. Certain areas of the world (i.e. arctic, and antarctic) will retain a larger percentage of the years percipitation, whie the more milder norther climates will melt a much larger portion of this. Based on the differentiation in mean percipitation of one versus the other, the can find mean temperatures.

Basically ice freezes in cycles creating rings much like a tree growing in cycles. So dating the ring is very easy, comparing them with existing data on existing models creates these estimates of mean temperature.

And items retain properties when certain threshold termperatures are reached. Tempered steel is an example of this. Obviously you're dealing with much smaller temperatures, but the principle is the same.

mntoes: Not quite, the Sterns Report (which this documentary is in reference too), is the first wide-scale attempt to show a material linkage between CO2 and temperature. That is the finding of the report, not what the data is based on.

The kinds of correlations they tend to base that kind of stuff on would be known concentrations of a given substance (i.e. sodium cloride [salt] in seawater). Because the sodium content of the oceans have not change in the last x million years at all, if we have a sample that was at one point salt water with a very high concentration of salt, we can infer that it evaporated and based on the concentration just how much evaporated. From this, you can calculate what temperature for how long was required to evaporate it. You can then use this figure to compare on level ground to similar figures of this year or any other.

I'm not saying that's the specific method used, but it is along those lines.

Anyway, I'd be pretty dismissive of this documentary. None of the professors cited were particularly well known. And because this is at the fore-front of science and is the 'outspoken' position, any academic who has taken this position is just burning to state their opinion. And, I would assume that the two Scientists cited (as proponents of the documentary) were on some company payroll.

For example, from "Natural Resource Stewardship Project" Which is an arm of a Canadian Energy company lobby (http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists) states:

[ian Clark] is a consultant to industry and currently works on projects involving radioactive waste disposal.quote>

http://www.nrsp.com/people-ian-clark.html

He's an Energy Lobbiest.

Professor Paul Ritter, in his own words:

I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice.quote>

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=210

Their remaining "exper" Gary Calder, when googled returns the same Daily mail article.

Long story short, this is a load of Energy loby BS.

[Mikeaut1 261]

I disagree with all this nonsense on how its not humans causing global temps to increase and ocean water levels to rise. It's us!

Temperatures and weather patterns have changed so drastically and continue to change drastically as we move from decade to decade. We are now experiencing erratic weather patterns in many places worldwide. In 2005, we used the Greek Alphabet for the first time in history to keep count of all the hurricanes.

It's been proven, as said above already, that humans directly affect the global warming of the earth. Scientists have studied carbon dioxide emissions and rising ocean levels for past decades. Fact is this has been an ongoing problem but is now starting to get public attention. Scientists have been studying global warming for a long time, but nothing was leaked from them towards the public.

I find it idiotic when some people say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, and when times worsen, let the later generations decide their fate. Although global warming isn't the central issue concerning society in the world these days, there is a level of priority on it. And it may sound exaggerated that the world may end if we don't do something about it, but its the truth.

[roqratt 0]

Goldfish4029, isn't it obvious. Carbon has been locked up for millenia in the form of coal, oil and forests. We are now diging up the coal and oil for fuel, and clearing the forests for housing and farmland (and to a lesser extent fuel in 3rd world countries) so all this carbon that has been locked up since the time of the dinosaurs is now being released back into the atmosphere, and causing the rise in CO2 levels.

[Goldfish4209 9]

Hold it. If warming causes elevated co2 levels, then where's the co2 coming from?

[hawkpride147 1]

if global warming is real, can someone please explain to me why the united states had more areas receiving record setting snowfall amounts this winter? and why texas had its coldest winter in the last 25 years? and also would someone explain why the oceans havent overflowed since rivers have been constantly flowing into them for years? and finally if global warming is so real and pressing then why does al gore use more energy in a month than most americans use in a year (and americans use more energy than anyone else.)?

@storms991 there is no need to triple post

[storms991 0]

LIES, STOP THE LIES NOW!, Global warming is very, very, very real. watch the movie by Al Gore ****AN INCONVINIENT TRUTH****

The things there are facts, not theories. If the UN governing body has also released an official report stating that Global warming is

real, if this does not convince you, I don't know what will. You can't trust the USA government BTW, they are Pro pollution, becuase

they are afraid that China is going to steal their economy.

[slyd 0]

Read all about the denial industry in the article below. Vested interested in a fossil fuelled economy are very affraid of the facts they know to be true - but which hurt their bottom line.

I doubt science has ever been so badly misused since the rise of nazism... except maybe for the tobacco industry's feeble attempts to make smoking seem harmless.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875760,00.html

[hawkpride147 1]

ok grudy thx for the reply but you only answered one of the questions and as a former meterology major, i can tell you that your answer although plausible is not entirely correct. the record snowfalls have been from steady waves of storms, not just mega storms (although those have happened). i asked about winter as a whole, al gore's energy usage, and compared to rivers. i'll be ready to consider if someone can accurately answer any of these questions without quoting an inconvienent truth. may i remind everyone that people take the da vinci code as fact when the author himself has stated that it is a work of fiction.

[grudy 0]

Please, if any of you haven't, watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." It should clear up any misconceptions about the global warming "debate." For Hawkpride147, I am no scientist, but from what I understand about global warming, it basically screws up weather in both the cold and warm extremes. While you will get fewer cold days overall, and fewer regular snowstorms, those few storms that do occur are stronger. You will get more and more damaging freak storms, as opposed to a harmless snowfall. For example: recent ice storms on the East Coast of the US that left as many as four inches of solid ice in places. Normal weather on the East Coast is fluffy snowfall or a mixture of snow and small amounts of sleet/freezing rain.

[spa 968]

So one TV program said global warming is a farce. Lets believe that over the results from the unprecedented climate consensus that came out of Paris from the world's top minds. Makes lots of sense.

The reality is global warming is happening and we're to blame. We will experience negative effects in the years ahead, the only question is how much damage are we going to do ourselves. Meanwhile there are a whole ton of deniers who simply don't want to believe because of money or because of what accepting global warming would mean for everday life. Time will prove them wrong but unfortunately it doesn't appear like we're going to be leaving our children much of a world.

[PhantomOwl 3]

CO2 Emmisions have nothing to do with the temperatures,  it'sacctualy colder on the earth now than has been for 1000's of years! We only went through a very short cold era known as the mini iceage from 1500-1800quote>

This is not true. Current temperatures are higher than they have been for hundreds of years. In the temperature records that have been kept since the mid-nineteenth century, every one of the last 13 years (1994-2006) is one of the warmest 17 on record. The miniature ice age was not due to any man-made circumstances, but it is worthwhile noting that it occurred before humans began emitting carbon dioxide that had been locked up in fossil fuels in any large volume.

In world war 2 when millions of tonnes of co2 was emitted into the atmosphere the temperatures acctualy fell for 45 yearsquote>

If you're saying that the decade after World War II exhibited lower temperatures than during the war itself, you are correct. The decrease was roughly a tenth of a degree Celsius. Since the 60’s, however, global temperatures have surged upwards at an increase of about 6/10 degrees Celsius. It may not seem like a lot, but it is an extremely rapid increase for the timescales that the climate naturally works on. I urge you to actually go into the temperature records for yourself to see the upward trend.

Indeed, World War II by no means represented a peak in carbon dioxide emissions. Yes, wartime mobilization of forces did lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions, but the increase is still within the trend of an overall rise in carbon dioxide emissions throughout the 20th century. In fact, due to the rapid explosion of economic growth among the industrial nations after the war, carbon dioxide emissions increased dramatically in the following decades and continue to increase today.

The amount of sun spots on the sun are directly linked with the temperatures on the earth when the amount f co2 hardly matches at all,quote>

>>

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and global temperatures have been shown to be directly proportional to each other in countless peer-reviewed scientific studies and surveys over the past thirty years. Not one study that attempts to disprove the link has made it past a board of qualified climatologists without extreme criticism; these “scientific” papers are generally paid for by lobbies with interests in fossil fuels. >>

As for your claim that sunspots are the cause of the rise in global temperatures, I’d encourage you to think critically about that argument. Ice cores have given us hundreds of thousands of years of both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels and global temperatures. These records are supplemented by measurements that have been conducted during the recent two centuries. With so much data available, it is clear that there is a correlation between the carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. >>

Sunspot data only truly became accurate when we began pointing telescopes at the sun. The number of sunspots in previous years was extrapolated from the cyclical trend present. Despite an increased amount of sunspots, net solar output has not increased over the past 30 years, while global temperatures have.>>

A full explanation of why this is the case is here:>>

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf>>

How is it possible to have temperatures for thousands of years in the past, if the thermometer is only a few hundred years old.quote>

>>

This is actually pretty neat. Because evaporation rates of water molecules with slightly heavier isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly different during warmer and colder periods, changes in the average temperature of the ocean surface are reflected in slightly different ratios between those isotopes. It sounds fishy, but it can be replicated in a lab environment, which means it’s rather accurate, and that its use is entirely based in the scientific method.

in fact its been also prooved that co2 is a by product of warming temperatures, rising temperatures are not a by product of co2quote>

>>

Simply saying something is true doesn’t mean it is. Carbon dioxide is great at trapping heat, simply because of the way it’s built. If you ever have the opportunity to take chemistry at an advanced level (i.e. a degree), you’ll learn more about exactly what the bonds do that helps to trap heat energy. Needless to say, you’ve probably all heard the greenhouse metaphor about how heat gets trapped in the atmosphere.>>

If you truly don’t believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is due to human industrial activity, consider this: last year, humanity burned one cubic mile of petroleum. All of the carbon dioxide from those combustion reactions had to go somewhere, right? And that’s just one single year. Think of how many years we’ve been using coal and oil, and remember that the majority of what we’ve burned is in the atmosphere now. >>

if global warming is real, can someone please explain to me why the lace w:st="on">united stateslace> had more areas receiving record setting snowfall amounts this winter? and why texas had its coldest winter in the last 25 years? and also would someone explain why the oceans havent overflowed since rivers have been constantly flowing into them for years? and finally if global warming is so real and pressing then why does al gore use more energy in a month than most americans use in a year (and americans use more energy than anyone else.)?quote>

>>

A. The short answer is that global warming disrupts regular patterns of movement of moisture through the atmosphere. In the case of the recent snowfalls, temperatures weren't abnormally affected, but there was more precipitation. Global warming increases the amount of water vapor that can be present in a storm system because of the way if affects evaporation rates in the oceans and other large bodies of water.>>

B. Though we talk of the average global temperature increasing when we discuss global warming, regional temperature increases vary according to this trend: the increase is less close to the equator and more closer to the poles. So, for example a average 2.5 degree increase in global temperatures could see a 1 degree increase in temperatures at the equator and a 5 degree increase in temperatures near the poles. This is why the coldest winter in lace w:st="on">Texaslace> for 25 years had us New Yorkers basking in 60 degree weather during January and February.>>

C. The oceans haven't "overflowed" due to water flowing into them through rivers because the rivers, lakes, oceans and clouds are part of something known as the hydrosphere. In the hydrosphere, water cycles through its various phases: it evaporates from the ocean to form clouds, precipitates into rivers and lakes, and is reevaporated to restart the cycle. As water flows into the oceans via rivers, it is also being evaporated to continue the cycle.>>

The reason we haven't yet had a significant problem with sea level rising is because most of the ice that has melted thus far was already floating in the water; its weight was already displaced. The problem emerges when landlocked ice sheets begin to melt and add water that had been previously "locked up" to the hydrosphere.>>

D. You'll have to ask him yourself. There are plenty of us knuckle draggers out here, however, who believe preserving our planet for our children is a worthy cause, and who do everything in our power to curb greenhouse gas emissions to work toward that goal.

[doodlea21 31]

I'd love to believe global warming isn't happening, but I don't think we should take the risk. What if it is happening, and we don't realize we're ruining the planet? Also as you might have seen on An Inconvenient Truth the graphs for CO2 concentrations and global temperature are almost identical.

[TheCrybKeeper 287]

Originally posted by: grudy Yes, every person has their own opinion. The only people who have **studied** global warming are scientists, because that is their job. It is their job to explore the unknown and allow all of humanity to benefit from their work. While not everyone is a scientist, every single one of us have the ability to interpret the facts. The FACTS of the matter are that 99.999% of the scientific community aggrees that global warming is an issue. This is a topic that has been studied for 40 years, with data tracing back 650,000 years with the help of polar ice cores. It would have to be an overwhelmingly huge coincidence if this modern day global warming were a "natural" occurence. Humans have only become technologically advanced over the past 10,000 years, and the industrial revolution only in the past 250 years. Considering the billions of years that earth has been around, the chances of CO2 levels suddenly jumping to those of the dinosaur-era because of natural earth-cycles is extremely if not impossibly improbable.quote>

 

No not true at all. I study it for fun and I am a newspaper guy.

Did you know:

Cows alone,  produce 18 times more feces than humans do? This also causes nearly 60 percent of all cumulative green house gases. Methane gas is highly toxic.

Did you know:

 

If the entire world became vegaterians over-night,  the reduction of animals would reverse global warmings climb rate, to a decentiating rate. Even if we kept driving autos at our current pace.

Did you know: 

The methane eminating from a dairy farm in California, was linked to a 200% increase in pregnancy mis-carriages, down wind of the farm.

So, what is the truth about swindles here?

A 20% increase in corn crop usage for ethanol manufacturing last year, has caused the costs of grain to soar to record highs. This in turn, means the cost of animal feed is much higher and this also raises the cost of all meat products at your grocery store.

Corn for ethenol usage and it's prices, are expected to climb another 25% this year alone.

Drive a gas guzzling SUV and hit a few deer while your at it. It's the only way to get a value meal now.

EDIT: We still need to explain the rather obvious loss of Ice packs at the north and south poles.

The ice clearly and evidentially is melting at a rapid pace and this melting trend is a new phenomena. Newer than the world wars we have had. Would not the ice burgs have formed much bigger during this mini-ice age? Yet they have been there for centuries longer than that. We have core samples that prove the age of the ice, while also measuring global temps for 1000's of years back.

[jammy 0]

The reason we have temperatures from 100,000's years from the past because of ice core data which scientists can work out the exact climate at the time was,

doodlea21, yes in the movie they do show you temperature nearly matching co2 but temperatures acctualy drive co2 because as the sea gets warmer less co2 can get in,

Besides sun spots have an even perfect match to rising temperatures

[grudy 0]

Yes, every person has their own opinion. The only people who have **studied** global warming are scientists, because that is their job. It is their job to explore the unknown and allow all of humanity to benefit from their work. While not everyone is a scientist, every single one of us have the ability to interpret the facts. The FACTS of the matter are that 99.999% of the scientific community aggrees that global warming is an issue. This is a topic that has been studied for 40 years, with data tracing back 650,000 years with the help of polar ice cores. It would have to be an overwhelmingly huge coincidence if this modern day global warming were a "natural" occurence. Humans have only become technologically advanced over the past 10,000 years, and the industrial revolution only in the past 250 years. Considering the billions of years that earth has been around, the chances of CO2 levels suddenly jumping to those of the dinosaur-era because of natural earth-cycles is extremely if not impossibly improbable.

[kibblewitbit 0]

we will never know the truth about global warming, polluting energy companies and industrialists will obviously have a different point of view, than money hungry green foundations (ie. sierra club), money hungry scientists, and mindless celebrities.

exuse spelling/ grammar mistakes

[jammy 0]

acctually you're wrong, in the Bronze age, a period of 1000 years the temperatures substained an average temperature 2 degrees warmer than now

also leaves decaying cause more co2 emmisions, 5.5% of all co2emmisions on the planet are caused by human activity

as I said before we are sufferibg the effects of a solar storm at the momenet which messes up the climate of the earth making it warmer on average but making some parts cool

The reason we had devastating hurricanes in 2005 is because it happened in the year of El nino which causes the global sea surface temperature to rise, causing worse hurricanes.

2006 was acctually one of the most quiet years on record because it happened in the period of El nina which has the reverse affect on sea temperatures

Does that answer any of your questions?

The reason the governments of the Super power has not said anything about the possibility of global warming been caused by the sun is maybe because they are worried they lose the Multi- Billion pound companies and taxes that they have introduced

[jammy 0]

The thing is we can not control the sun, there has recently been an increase in sumspots which are intense heat, sometimes they kind of burst and let out something called a 'solar storm', These are not like a regular storm, they bring out heat and sometimes head towards the earth, they can last for 100's of years.

[xiziz 11]

Originally posted by: jammy

as I said before we are sufferibg the effects of a solar storm at the momenet which messes up the climate of the earth making it warmer on average but making some parts cool

quote>

Actually the Solar storms vary in a 20 year cycle, and were in one of increased solar activity right now, though these effects have been seeing as a overall increase over the last 30 years, actually about 150 years, since the industrial revolution really kicked off.

Increased solar activity is not the cause of global warming, its the gasses that trap the heat in our atmosphere, and we have been putting an increasing ammout of gasses in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by: jammy

The reason the governments of the Super power has not said anything about the possibility of global warming been caused by the sun is maybe because they are worried they lose the Multi- Billion pound companies and taxes that they have introducedquote>

Even if this super power government dosnt want to tell, im sure it would be said by some other country, like Sweden who, as a whole, are quite enviromentally aware, and our government is currently selling out there companies so there obviosly not afraid of loosing companies.

---

The real danger with global warming isnt the Increase in tempratures, nor the increase in waterlevels, its the melting of the polar ice caps, which would disturb the ocean currents making the north and soulth hemispheres extremly frigid and the areas around the equator a living hell.

Though those are the possible long term effects, in the short term i wouldnt complain about a 2 degree increase in warmth, even if the seas rose 1m in the baltic. But my grandkids maby wanna have summers warmer than -20c.

[GMT 389]

what a bull.....

sry

c02 emission is on of the major reasons for global warming.

I know the drill bout always having a warm and a cold period over the last couple of thousand years.

BUT, the warm periods never been that warm as they are now.

of course the sun's the reason for the warming, and not the humans. we don't produce that much temperature to actually heat a planet ;-) but the sun does

take a look at what happened with the weather, temperatures and air in the last maybe 150 years by looking at the facts researches of all the scientists all over the world, and compare it with long term studies that reach as far back as to when humans have been jumping from tree to tree (yes, it's evolution, not intelligent design).

Guess what? they are ALL the same:

in the last 150 years, things are different from what they've used to be all the time. The temperatures during warm periods have changed. dramatically. and it is for what we humans are blowing out into the atmosphere: CO2 and all the other good bad things.

In fact, scientists are sure that we are part of what causes it, it's just that we think they are not sure about it, cuz media makes us believe.

the only lie about global warming is that cars and planes are the reason. but, as recent studies show, cars are only at about 12% and planes at about 5% of the worldwide co2-emmission, all the other 82% are from industry, households, powerplants.

of course, the human is not the only reason, but one of the major reasons because with all the emmissions we do all day long, we make our atmosphere thicker and this makes the heat stay, just as the greenhouse effect prooves it.

the heat itself, of course, comes from the sun, and that mother earth is approaching another warm-age (as the opposite of an ice-age) is a fact aswell, but we actually make it faster and more intensive than ever before.

and if you ask now why we had the most snow in the last couple of decades this year in the us (where I live in europe, we actually never had that little snow and such high temps during winter as this year), the answer is simple:

it's all about climate, not about weather (what is, in science, as different as day and night). all the snow that fell this winter is a weather-phenomenon caused by the climate change. weather is only a temporary thing while climate is the long term thing (at least 30 years). so, the weather in this winter was cold, much snow, even in areas where it is unusual.

but to take this as a reason for the earth isn't heating up, is wrong, cuz if you look at what the climate change looks like, the direction of temps is actually upwards. worldwide.

happenings as hurricans come from high water temperatures, and the higher the temperature, the more devastating they get (see katrina as the most recent and maybe most devastating example).

to keep it short: all in all, global warming is a fact, not a swindle, believe it or not, but the facts to proove it's true actually exsist.

everyone telling the opposite don't want to believe it, or is payed/told not to believe it by the petrochemical industry that's actually afraid to lose money.

EDIT: btw, I'm studying geography and climate-changes are a part of what I have to do, including studies of scientific researches and their results concerning the matter hat hand, and the facts and figures are all the same, and they proove what I was talking about, and they are they are identical to what An Inconvinient Truth shows

[Dargor 17]

Global warming IS happening, whether humans are responsible or not. If we can do something to keep our planet liveable for future generations, why shouldn't we do it?

[GMT 389]

acctually you're wrong, in the Bronze age, a period of 1000 years the temperatures substained an average temperature 2 degrees warmer than nowquote>

No, I'm not. While working my way through the facts and figures I had access to (what was in fact quite a lot) I stumbled over the same figures about bronze-age temperatures, but the time it took to reach these temperatures, compared to the temperature development in recent times, was incomparable longer, or in other words: it will take only about 8% of the time it took "back then" to reach the same temperature.

also leaves decaying cause more co2 emmisions, 5.5% of all co2emmisions on the planet are caused by human activityquote>

Leaves decaying is a result of the human emmisions of toxic gases, which, in long term, of course increases the CO2 amount, so, in fact, it's again human made.

as I said before we are sufferibg the effects of a solar storm at the momenet which messes up the climate of the earth making it warmer on average but making some parts coolquote>

it's not the solar storms, at least not on their own. With the atmosphere getting less permeable for reflected heat (solar radiation comes through the atmosphere and get's reflected as heat) we have the greenhouse effect, and only more gases make the atmosphere thicker and less permeable, and the one gas with the highest growth rate is, believe it or not, CO2.

Or in other words: theories on how much the sun is involved in global warming as we have it right now vary between 16% lowest and 36% highest part of the sun in global warming.

The reason we had devastating hurricanes in 2005 is because it happened in the year of El nino which causes the global sea surface temperature to rise, causing worse hurricanes.quote>

any idea why el nino, a million year old weather phenomenon, grew such an importance as it has right now? here's one: climate change (I'm to lazy to write down again what needs to be factored in to tell what causes the current climate change, read my above post)

2006 was acctually one of the most quiet years on record because it happened in the period of El nina which has the reverse affect on sea temperaturesquote>

climate change again. If bad things get worse, good things get better (at least looking at weather phenomenons)

Does that answer any of your questions?quote>

not at all, to be honest.

The reason the governments of the Super power has not said anything about the possibility of global warming been caused by the sun is maybe because they are worried they lose the Multi- Billion pound companies and taxes that they have introducedquote>

actually, the only super power left is the US (although russia still claims to be one, but that's off topic here).

Every other nation, even the nation with 2nd highest CO2 emmission, china, already realized that global warming is not a theory but a fact.

This week, the European Union as a whole was officially sworn in to pull the emergency break on CO2 emmissions.

The kyoto-protocol was signed by every major industrial nation, apart from the US, because the white house fears to tear the us industry apart... and a major financier of bush's election campaign is the petrochemical industry.

They don't tell about solar whatever to cause global warming is because they know noone's gonna believe it is that it's simly not the major reason causing it.

The major reason is and will ever be the size of the atmosphere.

Our atmosphere, to bring it on an easy-to-understand-level, is a gas-mixture. The permeability of a gas for radiation (or solar radiation in this case) depends on the size and the composition of the gas. More gas, less permeable.  And the only way to grow a gas is to put more gas into it, and the one gas with the biggest growth rate is, as said before, CO2. Today, we have the highest concentration of CO2 in the last 650.000 years.

Let's pretent this solar-storm theory is true.

this would mean that even more solar radiation comes to our little planet earth.

It goes comes to the atmosphere and between 30% and 40% percent are refelcted right away, luckily cuz this is what would kill us. now, the remaining 60%-70% make their way to the ground and are reflected again, but not as radiance, but as heatwaves. These heatwaves get to the atmopshere again, and again some of it get's reflected back and heat's us up again.

At a certain point you can say  "no, CO2 doesn't cause global warming, but global cooling". This is when we all die from freezing because there's that much CO2 in the atmosphere that no solar radiation ever reaches the ground, or at least not enough to make live possible.

But until this point is reached, what would take a couple of thousand years with the current CO2 emmissions, CO2 (and of course all the other gases) are creating the same effect it has to put a cap onto a pot with food sitting on the cooker: the food get's cooked faster cuz the heat stays inside the pot.

Consider the food inside the pot as our earth and the atmosphere growing with the amount of CO2 as the cap.