Global warming

I'm confused, how do they have data on Solar Irradiance from that far back? Most graphs date only 20 years, and do NOT show any signnificant upward trend (usually up AND down) that would explain the heating. The greatest increase has been in the last half century, where the change in amount of solar irradiance cannot come close to explaining the increase in temperature.

I don't see your picture as more viable proof than the correlation between Co2 emissions and temperature. What do you mean by second most important green-house gas? Are you talking about methane? If so, where are you pulling your data? Co2 is a poor insulator, but powerful in quantity. Methane is a good insulator, but poor in quantity.

It's all about slope, see previous post.

 

I'm not entirely sure how. But, I have concluded that digging further into the earth may have provided them with that answer. As we all know the further you go the more of time you discover.

Notice, in the first challenge explanation I presented. The long-term solar cycle also is playing factor to the increase in global warming. I will provide the best chart I can for the solar cycles.





Notice how both charts show significant rise in both solar irradiance and solar cycle activity. They are almost identical as far as the 1900-2008. Along with that the green-house gases do play their part. But, like I said before I do not think there is enough emission to increase temperature significantly or at-least not as much as the above evidence. And by second most important greenhouse gas I do mean co2-methane.

 

Well, at least you got as far as clicking the link I posted. If you scroll down the page (just slightly) you get to see the links to the 10 peer reviewed studies from which the graph plot data was gathered. Also, the graph itself isn't even obviously pro-global warming. It leaves room for doubt, whereas the one Sythe posted earlier was a smooth curve which basically denied human involvement in GW.

I think if you're questioning the validity of the graph, then the onus is on you to cast doubt upon it with good reasons. Telling me to go make my own graph doesn't prove anything.

Well, you have to be a bit of an ideological moron to believe that the scientific community are in cahoots with the governments of the world in trying to instate some sort of new world order through inventing global warming as a scare to force people to submit to them.

 

Yes, but there are also natural causes of it too. But we have done a lot to intensify it.

 

thats not a "fairer" graph. stop trying to act like an "intellectual" when you really sound like a dumbass. =|

 

That graph is a graph that:

* displays the data from 10 unbiased peer-reviewed studies
* doesn't have arrows on it pointing and explaining why anthropogenic global warming is right
* isn't a smooth curve
* allows the viewer to make their own conclusion

Pretty fair, by any standard. Quite unlike the graph Sythe posted which is more of less the opposite of that.

If you think this is me trying to act like an intellectual, you should try talking to me in real life. :noworry:

 

I don't see what kind of question that is, either it's our fault or the suns.
I mean, it's not hard to guess.
It's not like it's Saturn's fault..
I mean think about it.

 

Global warming is happening any way, if we stopped doing everything to stop gases going into the atmosphere, it would still happen.

Cows farting actually contributes to these gases.

 

Jay, you are wrong. If we stopped doing everything that released these gases, it wouldn't still happen. The reason for this is humans. If we are creating our own suicide, then stopping it, is it our fate? I don't think so. If you are sick, you take 1 advil a day, then you go to the doctor, he tells you to take 1 advil a day, would it have been your fate to get better, or would you had to have gone to the doctor to get better? Think.

 

Everyday we are driven to go harder, faster and stronger, we will terminate anything in our way, change our life style dramatically and even ruin the earth we know and love.
A human is earths greatest foe.

 

The problem is that instead of putting your cards on the table and showing actual evidence, you claim the IPCC is biased based on the nature of the organization. I doubt you've read any of the IPCC reports.

And it's pretty bizarre that you're only talking about the IPCC, after all, they aren't the ones out there getting the raw data and writing the studies.

 

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...18/dioxide.htm

The graph above is an unfair way to display the relationship. It shows the average of THOUSANDS of years of temperatures along the plot, thus making it less variable. For example, the last ice age doesn't even make a dip in the graph. However, it does display the possibility of a buffer system (water) which keeps temperatures stable over long periods of time.

If the temperatures were to revert back to that state (in a short period of time), a massive extinction would still take place.

 

Last graph all the way to the right. Looks like a penis.

On Subject: It's not entirely human's fault. We aren't making it any better but it's a natural part of Earth.

 

Yeah humans are responsible.. Greenhouse Gases cause the thickness of our Ozone and the more thick the more ultraviolet rays can get into the earth.. it's bad..

 

Don't take this personally... but even an environmentalist would say that statement fails...