Strange Weather

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, Bmax's conclusions are not interesting. They are a demonstration of either a sublime ignorance or an inability to comprehend even the simplest of things.

The Antarctic icecap has already lost about the size of your province in mass. The thickening of the ice in parts is the same process that led to the Ice Age. The melt is creating moisture that falls on ice: ice that is warming but still cold enough to freeze the moisture that falls. There will be a tipping point at which the melt exceeds the new formation even in the areas that are thickening.

When that happens, virtually every coastal city in the world will be drowned in short order.

I really have no patience at all with people like that poster. He still drones on about water vapour when the growing problem of increasing water vapour cntent is a consequence of the CO2 concentration. I am not going into an explanation of that. It is available to be read in any of the sites about CO2. There it will be explained far more adequately that I could do.

But those people will not read or will not understand. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

This week glaciologists in the USA have discovered that the Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier, situated to the southeast of Greenland is melting at a faster rate than ever before. This has sparked fears of much faster rising sea levels than previously thought.

The shocking discovery came after recent measurements of the glacier were compared to readings taken by a NASA plane back in 2002. During the 20th century the Kangerdlugssuaq glacier remained in a stable position, however the glaciologists have stated that the glacier could now be moving at an astonishing speed of 38 metres a day towards the sea. The reason why the glacier is tending to move much quicker is down to the fact that as the air continues to warm, so the ice begins to melt and act as a lubricant. Imagine an ice cube on a table, if you were to put it straight on there and try to blow it along, you would most probably not move it very far, but give it a few minutes to start melting and there will be a sufficient amount of water under it now for you to move it with ease. This is what is happening to the glacier as more and more melt water gets under it, the ice mass begins to almost buoy itself on the water.

from that link to bbc weather.

from kimmy's link..

largely through melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a result of global warming. But the panel also expected that climate change would trigger an increase in snowfall over the Antarctic continent, as increased evaporation from the oceans puts more moisture into the air.

But those people will not read or will not understand. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

couple this notion with 'cranial malleability', and it becomes dangerous...It seems B.Max is posting more links that 'prove' global warming than disprove it, but yet he vehemently denies both this and reality.

[B. Max]

Can you provide any credible evidence other than the canadian government and the UN. Who themselves have not provided any proof what so ever and are the least credible of all. Their only proof is to claim over and over again that they are right and claiming the debate is over when in fact there never was a debate, and in fact have done everything they could to make sure there wasn't.

http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For one thing, the petition you present is 7 years old and much has been discussed in the interim. I don't believe, as you do, that global warming has been debunked. Nor do I believe it is junk science. I think my links will show how credible this problem is and will be in our future.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html

http://maui.net/~jstark/nasa.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

What scares me is not that people like you might deny the problem, but that you and your like-minded folk would deny the science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you are looking at is science fraud. There is nothing new there, it's the same old junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

But the science on global warming, and its putative causes, is by no means settled. The earth's atmosphere has both warmed and cooled over the centuries without any human activity being responsible. Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), points out that a study of CO2 and temperatures over the past 11,000 years that was analyzed in both Science and Nature in 1999 found that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tends to follow, not precede, a rise in temperature. Dr. Singer reminds us that "the bulk of the temperature rise in the 20th century took place before 1940, while most of the CO2 emissions took place after 1940 and coincided with a slight climate cooling between 1940 and 1975." The satellite temperature readings from 1979 through June 2002 have risen at the rate of only 0.1 degree Fahrenheit per decade or 1.0 degree per century.

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html

[The] perhaps most controversial presentation was that by Prof Gerlich. He did not find a good word for climate modellers and their models and even went so far to suggest that some of the CO2-global- warming theories contradict fundamental laws of physics. In a highly temperamental presentation he argued that atmospheric CO2 with a fraction of only 0.03% of the atmosphere's total volume was quantitatively much too insignificant in order have any measurable temperature effect. With help of mathematical computations that were far too complex and difficult to understand, Prof Gerlich maintained that climate modellers were worse than astrologers, the latter of whom at least observed real planets and their movements.’

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001065.html

The mainstream scientific consensus on global warming is becoming clearer every day: changes in our climate are real and they are underway. Now. But we can do something about it. The evidence that human-induced global warming is real is increasingly clear and compelling.

Actually, it is not clear nor compelling. It is a tragic fake. The "scientific consensus" does not exists. The "evidence" claimed by the IPCC has been shown false and based solely on "computer simulations". Virtual worlds. Kids video games are far more real.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/UCSscam.html

The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC's latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." 5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC.

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecw...g_is_a_scam.pdf

Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume, and - according to several researchers - about 60% by effect, is the major greenhouse gas. 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

[Guest eureka]

If you should be quarterd, it would not be possible to quartered your brain cavity: it obviously would not be big enough to divide.

I have pointed out before the sad case of Dr. Singer. A once brilliant scientist is now an intellectual prisoner of the Moonies who fund his ravings. Singer has not published one piece of peer reviewed "science" since 1979 - I am not sure of the actual year but it was a long time ago. That is about the level of the tripe you are expecting us to read.

[B. Max]

If you should be quarterd, it would not be possible to quartered your brain cavity: it obviously would not be big enough to divide.

I have pointed out before the sad case of Dr. Singer. A once brilliant scientist is now an intellectual prisoner of the Moonies who fund his ravings. Singer has not published one piece of peer reviewed "science" since 1979 - I am not sure of the actual year but it was a long time ago. That is about the level of the tripe you are expecting us to read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yours is the level of attack the messenger rather than inject sound facts. The last refuge of a scoundrel.

[newbie]

I will now invoke the ignore function.

[crazymf]

ehhhh.....I think this thread proves undoubtedly that there's global warming, or not.

Also, it proves that it may be a part of a previously undocumented normal cycle of weather patterns, or not.

The thread also proves that it may be a random spike in temperature caused by random events that we don't recognise.

The prudent thing to do is to move away from the coast as somebody here may be right.

My personal feeling is that I hope the globe warms up soon because it's frickin' cold here in January.

[ConservativeJoe]

I see a trend here.

All who believe the evidence for global warming are self righteous and smarter than everyone else.

All who believe the evidence against global warming are referred to in derogatory terms, and...

All scientist who refute the claim are crackpots. Hmm. Quite the tolerant bunch, you wise ones are.

How about this. Global cooling. Yep, Science says there is so much evidence, it can't be refuted. ONly 30 years later, we are warming up.

http://federalistpatriot.us/news/EarthDay1975.pdf

Also, there are those who just can't decide which set of stats to use

http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc005.php#headline132

There are those who will silence even credible scientific studies, reports, and facts, to substantiate the claim of global warming for their own cause

http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc006.php#headline144

http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc006.php#headline145

If those of you who are wrapped up in the belief that man is killing the planet are so sick of the rest of us, why do you respond? It is because you want to convince us, and are getting frustrated that we aren't that easily deceived.

Have you ever heard of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? I thought not, read about it. Temperature swings are in effect every 30 years or so. Global warming is nothing more than an attempt at wealth redistribution, and before you label me as just one more ignorant right wind whacko, answer me this question.

If our Co2 production is so harmful, and if it is with such dire urgency that we reduce our production of these gases, why does Kyoto give us the option of buying credits from third world countries? Don't explain how this works, I get it. But buying those credits will do NOTHING to curb the production of man made greenhouse gas, it will only sen more western cash overseas. Period.

If it is such an urgency that we reduce these gases, why does Kyoto even suggest this idea?

If man is killing the planet, why do we prop up third world countries to help them develop. Wouldn't 1 million dirt farmers be better off for the planet than 100 million new consumers? Wouldn't we all be better off letting aids spread? I am simply asking you these questions to see if they make any sense to you. I do NOT suggest we actually do it. But where is the consistency here?

You claim that the icecaps are melting exponentially. That is what icecubes do. Try it on your counter sometime. The ice will melt faster and faster, the thinner it gets. Also, you are so surprised that the ice is even melting. What a shock! Ever go camping?

Lastly, do I believe in global warming? Yup. Happens every summer. Do I believe the planets weather patterns are shifting, perhaps dramatically? Maybe. What I don't believe is that man has the capacity to be causing the changes.

Just because you believe in man made catastrophe, doesn't make you any more intelligent that those of us whom do not. Get off of your high horse.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ConservativeJoe,

What I don't believe is that man has the capacity to be causing the changes.

I believe that is a very dangerous view. Climactic change due to mankind's actions are observable in every major city, some more than others. Even a city such as Calgary heats up the surrounding atmosphere to the point where it affects the weather above it. How can it be claimed that the billions and billions of tonnes of emisions from people and industry can have no effect whatsoever? True, there is no precedent, (we cannot look back at another civilization that was exactly like ours 20 million years ago and compare effects), but we still have logic.

All who believe the evidence for global warming are self righteous and smarter than everyone else.

All who believe the evidence against global warming are referred to in derogatory terms, and...

Not entirely, but B.Max does little credit to the naysayers. You make some good points about Kyoto, and I agree, the setup is crazy. I certainly think that there are other ways to cut emissions, and of pollution, without harming industry. Tax breaks, for example, even at ratios of 1:1 for companies that install scrubbers on industrial exhausts, could motivate positive change without negative repercussions.

Get off of your high horse.

But I can see so much farther from up here than you...lol

[Guest eureka]

Possibly you may recover from falling off your "high horse" sufficiently to absorb real scientific information: possibly not.

What does AMO have to do with the question of climate change? I am assuming that you have read about it and are not just tossing out a fancy name for a mild phenomenon that has been overtaken by reality.

Normal cycles in weather patterns have been submerged by the extreme changes and are not composed of blips in hurricane seasons. The AMO is not relevant since it is just a name for fluctuations in those seasons. Climate change is an overall change that incorporates AMO and far surpasses any effevts of that.

How would buying credits not be beneficial in the reduction of CO2? Credits can be bought from countries that have exceeded their target reuctions while the purchaser has not been able to achieve target in spite of efforts to do so. The effort is still there on the part of all participants in Kyoto.

Melting exponentially is not what icecaps do - not a bit of it. What icecaps do is remain in balance unless there is a fundamental shift in climate that causes them to melt. The icecaps have never in traceable geological history melted as they are doing today. Temperature change has never occurred at the rate it is moving upwards today.

In the past 420 million years, CO2 has never been as highly concentrated as it is now and the temperature has moved in direct correlation with CO2 levels in all that time. For those who say that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase, then I would say with "Barnum that "there is one born every minute." Where coud the increase in CO2 have come from. It is only in the industrial age that CO2 has broken out of trend lines on the charts. Broken upwards and ever higher. Have you heard of the "Hockey Stick." That is now the accepted measure in spite of the nearly successful attempt of the quacks to discredit it.

I repeat the Lemming analogy for the nay-sayers. The analogy only fails to cover the difference in brain size of an animal that is unlikely to know why it commits mass suicide.

On second thoughts, the brain size may not be so different since there are now no sientists who dispute climate change. There are no peer reviewed papers opposing the change: only puffery and dementia.

[ConservativeJoe]

There are no peer reviewed papers opposing the change: only puffery and dementia.

Of course not, anyone who questions the "consensus" (term used loosely), is ridiculed. As well, there is huge financial gain to be had by those who come on board, thus many studies are only using the data that backs the Co2 argument.

What does AMO have to do with the question of climate change? I am assuming that you have read about it and are not just tossing out a fancy name for a mild phenomenon that has been overtaken by reality.

Not a lot. It does, however, explain a lot of the temperature fluctuations, especially the ocean waters. It is not everything, but the way the data is being manipulated is not unbiased. It is never mentioned that fluctuation is normal and occurs on a regular basis.

In the past 420 million years, CO2 has never been as highly concentrated as it is now and the temperature has moved in direct correlation with CO2 levels in all that time.

Come on, you've been keeping track that long?

The icecaps have never in traceable geological history melted as they are doing today. Temperature change has never occurred at the rate it is moving upwards today

Okay, now you are rambling. In the last quote, you claim that science knows the exact temperature for the last 420 million years. I say exact, because right now, scientists are fretting over a half degree difference, so the historic readings must be pretty accurate, in their minds. Since we have been keeping track that long (which I don't buy), then how can you claim that temperature change has NEVER occured at today's rate, and that the icecaps have NEVER melted as they are doing today. when science claims that the "Great Ice Age" was only a million years ago. Where did all the ice go? Or is "geological history" actually "recorded history", and is that now conveniently only the last 100 years or so?

How would buying credits not be beneficial in the reduction of CO2? Credits can be bought from countries that have exceeded their target reuctions while the purchaser has not been able to achieve target in spite of efforts to do so.

As per my argument, the credits simply transfer wealth from our country to somewhere else. Wealth distribution.

It is only in the industrial age that CO2 has broken out of trend lines on the charts

The industrial age has been going on for almost 100 years full throttle. If this is the cause of global warming, then why were scientists screaming about the coming ice age and global cooling just 30 years ago. (See my last thread.)

I notice you didn't bring up the link I posted pointing to the big global warming warning cry from the 1970's. Hmm. Guess that went *poof*, huh?

I repeat the Lemming analogy for the nay-sayers. The analogy only fails to cover the difference in brain size of an animal that is unlikely to know why it commits mass suicide.

There is that self righteous "I'm smarter than you, cause you don't agree with me" attitude I was talking about.

Thanks for proving pretty much my whole point.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ConservativeJoe,

then how can you claim that temperature change has NEVER occured at today's rate, and that the icecaps have NEVER melted as they are doing today. when science claims that the "Great Ice Age" was only a million years ago. Where did all the ice go? Or is "geological history" actually "recorded history", and is that now conveniently only the last 100 years or so?

I found Geology 200 at the UofC the most interesting class I took. (one of the few I took care to pass!) A lot can be gleaned from sedimentary strata. Not exact temperatures, of course, but a host of related information. Certainly, climate is cyclical, as are the positions of the continents. (tectonic plates, etc. and all that other 'junk science' as B.Max puts it) The most important thing I learned in geology class, though, was how to reckon time. Climactic change and glacial advance take millenia. If it is observed in the brief lifespan of a couple of generations of 'homo erectus', I would say that qualifies as unusual. If it occurs within the lifespan of a couple of mayflies, look out.

[ConservativeJoe]

Climactic change and glacial advance take millenia. If it is observed in the brief lifespan of a couple of generations of 'homo erectus', I would say that qualifies as unusual. If it occurs within the lifespan of a couple of mayflies, look out.

Scientists presently claim that as early as 11,000 years ago, most of Canada was under ice. That is hardly millenia.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ConservativeJoe,

Scientists presently claim that as early as 11,000 years ago, most of Canada was under ice. That is hardly millenia.

Um...er...11 'milleniums', actually....and with 'millenia' being the plural for 'millenium', I am thinking that 11,000 yrs qualifies...

[August1991]

I have read through this thread. Some thoughts, for what they are worth.

The sun heats the earth like a microwave oven heats food. The earth radiates heat like a toaster. So, the sun's form of heating can penetrate our atmosphere but the earth's reflected form of heat will not. That is the essence of the greenhouse effect, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it occurs. (Temperatures on Mars, Venus and the Moon are proof.)

The nature of the earth's atmosphere is critical in this. (Water vapour is important, for example, but water vapour is largely determined by the temperature of the earth's atmosphere.) There is no doubt that adding carbon dioxide to the earth's atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Now then, here is where the problems arise. We simply don't know whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are significant enough to upset any natural balance in part because we do not understand how the earth establishes a natural balance.

Our planet seems to be at the end of an ice age that lasted for about 75,000 years and that, at its peak about 20,000 years ago, meant most of North America was covered under ice. Limit of Wisconsin glaciation This last ice age was one of several extending back some 1.8 million years ago.

----

I was raised to leave a room and a campsite the same way I found it. Within reason, I think we should do the same with our planet. When I read arguments that if a government borrows, we are leaving a debt to our children, I shudder. In fact, the only way we can borrow from our descendants and the future is to destroy the earth's natural resources.

I am disheartened that environmental debates have been mixed up in Left/Right jargon. The North American Left truly does suffer from some kind of self-hatred or a wilful desire to see our current capitalistic system collapse. They want to be able to say, "I told you so." The Right responds in kind.

It would not be too difficult to ensure that we do not borrow from our descendants. But as long as the Left blames capitalism and greed for environmental destruction, we'll get absolutely nowhere.

[Guest eureka]

Not a single argument, Joe. Just a series of statements.

And we have not "kept track" of it for so long but there are ways of measuring (as Thelonius points out).

What was being said 30 years ago is also not relevant. The observations were crude and the data limited. It was fairly natural to think that the process was the same one as starts Ice Ages. Only the process is continuing and speeding up so that science now knows that this is something quite different.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

But as long as the Left blames capitalism and greed for environmental destruction, we'll get absolutely nowhere.

Where else does the fault lie? Church picnics? The Boy Scouts helping old ladies cross streets?

Very well, I'll shift the blame to consumerism.

The North American Left truly does suffer from some kind of self-hatred or a wilful desire to see our current capitalistic system collapse.

I have offered, on more than one occasion, what I consider to be viable alternatives to straight 'dumping',

Tax breaks, for example, even at ratios of 1:1 for companies that install scrubbers on industrial exhausts, could motivate positive change without negative repercussions.

so I don't want collapse, just responsibility. I beleive that this can be accomplished without 'damaging the profit system'. Environmental 'responsibility' can be acheived one of two ways; through legislation (ie: Kyoto, which is a negative way) or through incentives (tax breaks, a positive way). I would much prefer the latter, as it could create lessen pollution, create employment, and still not damage profitability.

[Guest eureka]

Not a bad post, August, had you left the Left/Right dichotomy out of it. Every reputable scientist, regardless of political affiliation, in any field related to earth studies and climate supports the evidence for man made change now. The only opposition comes from cerrtain business interests and political powers whose temporary interest is served by opposition.

The Left, as you call it, is not self hating, indeed the opposite might be said since it wishes to save humanity from its excesses. Neither does it wish to destroy Capitalism. It does wish to make any economic system subservient to the good of man in general.

[ConservativeJoe]

There is no such thing as a totally environmentally way to live. It doesn't matter how many people you put on this planet, environmentalists will always find something to point at. Even one man left, excreting in a bush somewhere, would be producing methane. I know that I am digressing, but it is so frustrating hearing the same things over and over.

Scientists see the planet warming, but don't know why. Period. There models have been, for the most part, proven incorrect. Yet they still push that data as factual. It is not.

Environmentalists continue to tell us that we are hurting the planet. Sorry, but there is tons of data which also states that the earth cleanses itself. The ozone hole above the arctic has been seen to grow and shrink. While we are part of a closed system, our solar system, we are part of a smaller closed system, the earth, but only to a certain extent. Heat does escape into spave.

As for the greenhouse effect, of course it fluctuates. Everything does. But we need the greenhouse effect to survive here, it is what prevents us from freezing solid, it is what helps our climate.

The fact is, we do not know what is warming the planet. We do know that it has happened before. We do know that our temperatures on this planet have never stayed permanently stable.

We do know that science keeps changing its data, thus the links I posted earlier.

We do know that the hockey stick which you pointed out, is flawed, thus the whole argument is based on bad science. Besides, I don't give a damn if its a lacrosse stick, it doesn't prove anything.

We do know that science loves the doom and gloom scenario above the reasoned approach. The doom and gloom gets it a hell of a lot more funding.

We do know that this has been a bad year for hurricanes, but we also know that there have been worse. For some in the scientific community to use these tragedies for their own gain, ie the furtherance of their pet issue of the day, does themselves no good, and indeed drives the skeptics by giving them fuel.

August1991, thank you for your thoughts. Well said.

Eureka said,

Every reputable scientist, regardless of political affiliation, in any field related to earth studies and climate supports the evidence for man made change now

Once again, Eureka, that is not truthful. Also, the fact that you use the word reputable suggests that all of those in the scientific community are quacks or less than qualified, which is totally untrue and unfair. There are many, many, brilliant minds who do not see the same things as others. If they were supporting global warming, those in the scientific community would be quick to point out their credentials, but since they won't tow the line, they are ridiculed and ostracized. Hardly an environment for neutral research.

The scientific community is doing itself in.

Maybe they should just come clean and admit that they can't understand and manipulate everything about our planet.

As for you stating that the 'global cooling' argument was flawed because of inferior data, that is fine. I'll buy that. But at the time, we were told that doomsday was coming, and that there was more data than they could possibly interpret. It was a sure thing, no doubt. Sound familiar??

Has science ever come out and admitted they were wrong? Those people may earn some credibility if they even ever once admitted they were mortal like the rest of us.

Do I hate science? God, no. I love it. The world and our surroundings, and all creation, is a marvelous place of discovery. My children have indeed survived childhood because of science and medicine. Science, however, is not my god. It is not flawless, nor is the theory of man made global warming.

[ConservativeJoe]

Sorry, I made a type.

Once again, Eureka, that is not truthful. Also, the fact that you use the word reputable suggests that all of those in the scientific community are quacks or less than qualified, which is totally untrue and unfair. There are many, many, brilliant minds who do not see the same things as others. If they were supporting global warming, those in the scientific community would be quick to point out their credentials, but since they won't tow the line, they are ridiculed and ostracized. Hardly an environment for neutral research.

Should have said

Once again, Eureka, that is not truthful. Also, the fact that you use the word reputable suggests that all of those in the scientific community who do not espouse to your views are quacks or less than qualified, which is totally untrue and unfair. There are many, many, brilliant minds who do not see the same things as others. If they were supporting global warming, those in the scientific community would be quick to point out their credentials, but since they won't tow the line, they are ridiculed and ostracized. Hardly an environment for neutral research.

[cybercoma]

If you should be quarterd, it would not be possible to quartered your brain cavity: it obviously would not be big enough to divide.

I have pointed out before the sad case of Dr. Singer. A once brilliant scientist is now an intellectual prisoner of the Moonies who fund his ravings. Singer has not published one piece of peer reviewed "science" since 1979 - I am not sure of the actual year but it was a long time ago. That is about the level of the tripe you are expecting us to read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, try to put your snide remarks aside for two seconds and point me to a scientific conclusion that human activity causes global warming, specifically through CO2 emissions.

A ) CO2 is slightly more concentrated in the atmosphere, this is true.

B ) The temperatures have risen over the last 100 years by 1-2F, this is true.

What I have never been able to find is anything credible to link the two. B happened after A, but that doesn't PROVE that A caused B.

As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on the topic...it is still heavily debated even amongst scientists. Scientists often times will conduct an experiment and come to a conclusion, which is published and later disproven by another scientist. Sometimes as a matter of pride the first scientist will fall into the trap of doing whatever he/she can to prove their idea of what the conclusions should be.

Anyhow, please, show me where there is credible scientific evidence that the earth is warming because CO2 emissions have risen due to human activity.

[Melanie_]

Now then, I see that it snowed in Winnipeg this past week but as Kimmy has said before, Winnipeg isn't quite a normal place in the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who wants to be normal, anyway??

[newbie]

cyber, there is plenty of evidence. Do a google yourself and you should be presented with a ton of studies. I provided some sites a couple of pages back. Human activity does indeed create the vast majority of CO2 emissions. Logic alone will tell you that.

[cybercoma]

cyber, there is plenty of evidence. Do a google yourself and you should be presented with a ton of studies. I provided some sites a couple of pages back. Human activity does indeed create the vast majority of CO2 emissions. Logic alone will tell you that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm dumb, I can't find the stuff...point me to an article that answers my question. I'm looking for something from a scientific journal (preferably) that says increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere causes the earth's temperature to rise.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

I'm looking for something from a scientific journal (preferably) that says increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere causes the earth's temperature to rise.

This is the textbook definition of 'the greenhouse effect'.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/greenhouse.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect