[eaeolian]

Well said, Jeff.

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jongpil Yun

Basically, 7SH is saying that the mean temperature of the earth naturally oscillates in a fairly regular matter over large periods of time. This is true. That's not the issue, and somewhat of a strawman. Global warming means that the entire curve of average temperatures is increasing. The next ice age will be warmer. The next tropic cycle will be warmer. That's the basic premise.

Also worth pointing out is that global warming has a destabilizing effect on the climate, so that you get a combination of hotter summers and in some cases, colder winters due to the interactions of the ocean currents with mean sea temperature. So basically what you get is this:

a) Higher average temperatures all around -- the entire periodic curve of temperature moves up.
b) An increase in the variance around the average temperature -- not only will you have hotter summers, but colder winters, and abnormally spaced seasons.
c) Other, unknown complicated effects.

That's the theory in a nutshell, but, as always, IANAC, I have no opinion on global warming, merely tacit acceptance of scientific consensus, and the same should go to you. After all, having an opinion on something is not a right, it's something you earn by actually knowing what you're talking about. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

1) Correct, but wait! There's more.

2) Global Warming also shows that the rate of change is increased over previous cycles, due largely, if not completely, to human action. Leon's article has an interesting quote that illustrates this point to some degree -

and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier

There's very, very, very little (any?) scientific disagreement about this point. Any search of the peer reviewed literature turns up virtually nothing that disagrees with this premise. But in the popular media? Shit, it's littered with statements about "scientific disagreement."


The tie that binds Yen's statement and mine together is the added premise of the role of carbon in atmospheric heat retention, and mankind's influence in the carbon/temperature cycle, as we're a pretty prominent carbon producer. More so than almost any other natural event in history, this side of perhaps mega-volcanoes or global catastrophes like the Siberian Traps event.

Here's a helpful graph, showing the link between atmospheric C02 levels and ice-core temperature samples (notice the RECENT C02 levels... almost off the chart) -


Here's something illustrating Yen's

[bigheadood]

I don't know what I'm talking about on this subject. So, I don't have an opinion.
I just thought this was an interesting read.Swindle

[Carrion]

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a pretty interesting documentary that showcases the either side of the argument. A lot of the stuff is considered out dated now though, and its pretty criticised now a days.

[msherman]

The "Fearless Planet" series on The Discovery Channel has a show on the Sahara Desert, which depicts that the Sahra has the largest impact on Global Warming than the Carbon Footprint does.

It is expanding at a rate of 5000 square miles every year, and it acts as a giant refector of sunlight, heating up the atmospere. The Sahara also is responsible for the weather patterns around the globe.

Interesting show indeed

[Drew]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

Here's something illustrating Yen's

You know, playing Devil's advocate for a moment, there are two conclusions to draw from that - that CO2 levels influence global temperatures, or that global temperatures influence C)2 levels.

For the sake of discussion, from the perspective of someone who drank the global warming cool-aid ages ago, has anyone ecver concretely proven the obcerse is NOT true, that it's not CO2 that tracks temperature?

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by Drew

For the sake of discussion, from the perspective of someone who drank the global warming cool-aid ages ago, has anyone ecver concretely proven the obcerse is NOT true, that it's not CO2 that tracks temperature?

If that were the case, you would expect to see a temperature rise before a CO2 rise, whereas it is the other way around. Also, we have a very clear theoretical basis for why an increase in greenhouse gases would increase temperature, whereas the basis for the reverse case is, if not non-existent, much weaker.

Anyways, you're also forgetting a third case in such a strong correlation -- a third factor is causing both. In general given that A correlates with B, you can say either, A causes B, B causes A, C causes both B and A, or it is random statistical noise, but given the complex and long-term correlation you see there I think it's safe to rule out option number four.

Senor Sherman: I haven't heard about the Sahara thing before, but another thing that contributes more strongly to global warming than CO2 emissions is deforestation, especially of tropical hardwoods.

[The Dark Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jongpil Yun

Senor Sherman: I haven't heard about the Sahara thing before, but another thing that contributes more strongly to global warming than CO2 emissions is deforestation, especially of tropical hardwoods.

Great point. Yen. The rain forests have been described as the planet's "lungs", and if everyone remembers their plant biology 101, those trees serve as the largest single clearinghouse for carbon-to-oxygen exchanges on the planet.

[msherman]

By the year 2050, there will only be Basswood Guitars

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by msherman

By the year 2050, there will only be Basswood Guitars

By year 2100, there will be only carbon fiber guitars.