Isn't it obvious? It's the Delta Flyer. Compare.

MissJean
Yes, you have to drink W up. You don't need to know why.
About global warming, I'm getting tired of debating the issue here, especially since as usual no one seems likely to change their minds. I still hold that Dr. Lindzen has been sounding extremely unprofessional and unscientific and am surprised that he has given the opposite impression to Br. Cadfael or anyone, but oh well.
None of us here are qualified to analyze the evidence ourselves, so this is really a matter of who you would rather listen to, who seems more credible etc. I choose to put my money on the majority of environmental scientists being right, the rest of you choose the oil-connected mavericks and a popular science writer or two. It may well turn out that humans are significantly contributing to global warming, but it is not as big a deal as many are making it out to be.
It is a nice thought that what ever is happening and will happen is part of God's plan, and he will draw a greater good out of every evil (perhaps the very efforts of those trying to fix the problems?). Even that silly bag in space is part of God's plan!

Oh, dear. I'd rather toast Night Train Lane. :)

Yes. The Gipper, too.

I have tried to follow this thread as best I could, and I think I have it figured out now. I just want to say:
I, too, want to hurry up the Apocolypse by warming the globe! And if I can do that by launching plastic bags into space from the top of the Rennaissance Center in downtown Detroit, then I will do my part! (But I still don't understand why I have to drink W-Up... am I supposed to toast the Four Horsemen?)

Tim J: I heard it was your lawn-mower that caused the continental drift so you've got more to answer for than your part of derailing this thread. I'd offer to help you out but, given that it was my Ralph's bags that caused the solar flares, I should probably lay low 'til the heat is off ... er 'til the pressure dies down.

"The point is it is a real, measurable phenomenon."
Sure it is. And this phenomenon may be thousands of years old, or more.
I know that I have helped to totally derail this thread. We are not really going to accomplish much by playing combox ping-pong with our little sound bites.
I did find the idea of a Wal-Mart bag in space pretty amusing, if also repugnant.

All right, yes, it is an area where the ozone has become thinner, not an actual hole in the sense of a region with no ozone. The point is it is a real, measurable phenomenon.
I'll be back.

"The fact that we caused this ozone hole (which I don't think anyone will dispute)..."
Ummm, yeah , I would dispute that.

J.R.,
Permit me one further point.
If we can not trust the majority of scientists when they look at the data and come to the same conclusions why do we have science at all? You seem to suggest that minority scientific positions are more likely to be correct, which is completely illogical. Since I am not an atmospheric scientist myself I will trust that the experts are doing their job and that the occasional oddball most likely is really just an oddball.
I agree with you that it is illogical to assume that minority positions are more likely to be correct. Heck, I bet Lindzen would agree with you on that point. His point, as I understand it (major qualifier there), is not that there is an absence of evidence for human impact on global warming.
Keep in mind that pretty much all of what he has written publicly (as opposed to what he might have written for the scientific community) has been directed to Al Gore's misrepresentation of the evidence. Like it or not, Al Gore has become the face of the global warming hysteria, and like it or not, he appears to be misrepresenting the evidence, and misstating the conclusions that must be drawn from them. That is what, and who, Lindzen has been opposing.
I don't read him as being anti-consensus, at least in the sense that any true consensus must be wrong. I read him as saying, wait a minute, let's be clear about what there's agreement on and what there's not agreement on. And let's be honest about where there's disagreement, or where the evidence is inconclusive. And that's just good science.

I used to be incredibly convinced of the reality of human impact on global warming, ozone thinning (there was never a hole), etc. Then I came to realize that the scientists on the side of guiding national and international policy were incredibly biased by personal self-interest when it came to looking at the data with a Chicken Little mentality.
Or, to quote Dr. Spencer in the article I linked: "Our government heavily funds a marching army of climate scientists -- government, university, and private -- whose funding depends upon manmade global warming remaining a threat. The government agencies, like NASA, that the money flows through also depend upon these issues remaining alive for continued funding.
"This is not to suggest that there is a conspiracy going on. It's merely to point out that climate scientists aren't always unbiased keepers of truth. The arena of global warming overflows with more strongly held opinions than it does unbiased or scientific truths."
Is it possible that those on the other side are biased? Possibly. But, I believe it to be less likely to be the case. No one gets any funding to continue to study a problem that's been proven to be nonexistent.

From his MIT bio:
"Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)"
I'm not exactly sure what qualifications to talk about global warming should look like, but if I were making some up, I think this would be a pretty good start.

JR -
There are other examples of consensus science that are more recent than 18th and 19th century science - other citations in the speech I didn't reference are SETI, nuclear winter and second hand smoke. What's changed from the 18th century to now more than anything is how consensus science has become a political tool, regardless of party. That's where the danger comes in.
For instance - the most recent current example is embryonic stem cell research - a "consensus" of scientists and researchers say (and are publicized by the MSM) we can get cures from embryonic stem cells, only if the government gives the researchers taxpayer money to fund additional research. We all agree on the immoralituy of that situation, and I'm not equating ESCR with global warming on a moral level. But the parallel I'm drawing is that just because something might be true, or might be a problem, don't use my tax dollars to fund it. That's when science becomes the domain of the political structure, and ceases to be science.
There are plenty of environmentalist wackos out there - and in no way am I lumping you in that category - your statements are well thought out, balanced and deliberate. I remember you stating the Kyoto Protocols were stupid and the USA was right not to sign on. However, the wackiest of the wackos seem to be demanding that everyone's way of life be changed because the data shows inconclusively that human activity is the SOLE reason for global warming. I don't buy that theory. And to enact public policy based on one particular theory for the cause of global warming - human activity - then it is no longer science but politics. And when it becomes politics, its no longer subjective, but purely objective.
I'm not saying that minority positions are more likely to be correct - but historically, there have been cases when they were. I'm not a climatologist or atmospheric expert either. But I'm not as hopeful as you regarding scientists swinging around the other way, unless there's a lot of money in it for them. Sorry if this sounds cynical, but unless there's cash flow (ie: other people's money), I don't see this push for "humans cause global warming" going away any time soon.
Read Michael Crichton's speeches for a different perspective. They may be persuasive, they may not. His book "State of Fear" opened my eyes - especially when he admits in his afterword that the original intent for the novel was to support the theory that humans are the major culprits in global warming. But after several years of intense research, he no longer holds that view.
To what extent we are responsible, perhaps no one will ever know. Should scientists continue to research it? Absolutely! Just keep the politicians out of it.
Sorry this is long. I hope I haven't transgressed any of Da Rulz.

Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign
If you are an scientist studying the matter at hand yes. The thing is none of us here are experts on global climate change. Is it wiser to go with the large majority or the small minority in an issue like this where time is important?

Jared Weber,
Of course ozone thinning and global warming are different phenomina. There may be some connection since it is the same atmosphere but I am not aware of it. My point was that Tim J. was saying he doubted humans could have any significant effect on the climate, as if the atmosphere was too small for us humans to do much of anything to it. The fact that we caused this ozone hole (which I don't think anyone will dispute) shows that we can in fact change the atmosphere dramatically.
And yes, data for the temperatures of ancient times are derrived indirectly. That doesn't mean we can't see general trends. And again, the little ice age is no secret.
It is true that the scientific community is not entirely of one mind on this. It is good to have these debates and use a democratic system to decide what to do. And it is good that we are not letting undemocratic international bodies make the decision for the US. Still, the scientific evidence is strong, and sometimes you can't waight for every last scientist to be in agreement. What if that doesn't happen for 25 years? The policy changes need to start happening now, just to slow the growth of emissions for a start.

LarryD,
You point out that 18th and 19th century science was often wrong (like this isn't well known?), as well of the pattern that when something revolutionary in the understanding of our world is proposed, you generally have to wait for the next generation of scientists or even longer for it to be accepted, for instance germ theory or Einsteinian physics.
I don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand. The majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening, is poised to continue, and is being caused in part by human influence. While it is true that science based solely on consensus (this is what everyone thinks so this guy saying something new must be wrong) is not science, this is not what we have here. This is not some revolution in physics or medicine, this is how do you interpret the data we have about the atmosphere. If we can not trust the majority of scientists when they look at the data and come to the same conclusions why do we have science at all? You seem to suggest that minority scientific positions are more likely to be correct, which is completely illogical. Since I am not an atmospheric scientist myself I will trust that the experts are doing their job and that the occasional oddball most likely is really just an oddball. Presumably if reputable science comes out demonstrating that human influence on global warming is negligible the vast majority of scientists will swing the other way, as happened when the scientists who thought global cooling was going to happen saw the evidence for global warming.

All right, here we go again.
He's a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. His job is studying the atmosphere.
That is like saying any biologist is an expert at genetics. He ought to have more competency about genetics than the average Joe but I would want to know what precisely a biologist studies if he is refuting what the majority of geneticists think. Again, I have not been able to discover what Dr. Lindzen studies. For all I know it could be climate change, I just havn't found that. The closest hint I came across is that he is a professor of meteorology, which suggests to me his own research has more to do with weather than climate, but I could be wrong.
About the textbook, you do not seem to grasp the format, perhaps because you can only see tiny excerpts from it. We have a well known assertion that the global climate is warming and that it is caused by humans. The first thing to do is to see whether there is an actual trend here, as opposed to just random variation in climate. Looking at the statistics, it is highly unlikely that the variation is due to chance. Therefore we may with reasonable safety say there is a trend here. Neither the textbook nor I suggested anyone denied this, so that point of yours does not work.
Confident that there is a real trend, we can now examine what the cause may be. While a few scientists maintain that natural causes alone account for the warming, the much more common view, supported both by climate models and statistics, is that human and natural factors play a role.
Studies indicate that climate change is the rule rather than the exception....
I don't see why you single this one out. It is what your side love to say, and it is quite true. The climate is always changing. Do you want a textbook to go extensively into the plethora of research backing each uncontroversial statement?
Is the simultaneous increase a coincidence? No.
I admit that was a bad choice of words, but the text went on to explain why it was quite unlikely that it is a coincidence that nearly all greenhouse gasses should be at or near their peak level in thousands of years in our time.
Instead, food production will increase in some regions and decrease in other regions, which will create "winners" and "losers."
What is your problem with this pretty objective statement. Would you have prefered the authors spinned it into something more political, like "the patterns of agricultural firtility across the globe will shift, leading to famine in some areas and war in others"? Or do you just object the the simple language?
But rather than deal with his evidence, you just launch into some attack of him as a hack run amok on the take of the oil companies (pretty thin evidence, by the way).
What evidence? He presented none as far as I can remember in this artical. I read one place where he talked about how the sun's radiation has increased over the last century or so, but as I said this is well known and accounted for. Something else is happening too.
Also I never said the evidence was strong that he is being paid by oil companies to say this, although I did find other information on the internet saying the same thing. Some reporter said it. If it is true I think it quite unwise for him to take money from oil and coal companies while trying to pass himself off as an objective scientist. He may be an objective scientist, but he is doing a bad job of looking like one.
Anyway, I do not claim that he does not believe in what he is saying, I just find it hard to believe that anyone could think his load of bologne represents good science while the majority of climatologists who are confident about this (which not even he has the balls to outright deny exist) are somehow bad scientists just jumping on some bandwagon.

JRS: Gotta make this short, but I wanted to say a coupla things.
Firstly, global warming (AKA greenhouse warming) is a different phenomenon than ozone thinning.
Also, here's an article from a former NASA scientist: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=013106I
One more thing: we need to keep in mind that we only have definite records of temperature from the past 150 years or so. Other than that we have to use less accurate "measurements" gotten from tree rings and stuff. Nevertheless, we do know, as I mentioned earlier, that the Renaissance Era saw the advent of a "Mini Ice Age," from which we are possibly still emerging. The scientific community is NOT of one mind on this and making policy decisions based on such tentative data is dangerous.

Wow, 70+ posts. Apparently it was a bag of hot air. Apologies. Dunce leaving. Continue the discussion.

He's a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. His job is studying the atmosphere.
He is a meteorologist from all I can make out. There is a big difference between weather and climate (though of course they are connected). Just studying the atmosphere doesn't mean you have particular competency in global climate change, if that has not been the focus of your own original research. That is all I have time for right now, I'm out the door.

JR - you wrote: There is essentially a scientific consensus on this matter, with conservative politicians always trying to cast doubt on the situation to the great annoyance of environmental scientists.
The following is from a speech given by Michael Crichton titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming", and no, his theory is not facetious. Just the title is meant to be eye-grabbing.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women."
Read the entire text of his speech, along with the one on complexity and environmentalism in the 21st Century. He makes a compelling argument that 'consensus science' should never drive public policy. It's bad for both.
Personally, as I've stated before, we know less than what we don't know. And if you don't like the evidence that's presented by Dr Jones today, be patient because Dr Smith will present opposing evidence tomorrow. Unfortunately, if Dr Smith isn't part of the 'consensus', his evidence is rarely publicized and largely ignored.

J.R.,
I'm sure that whatever this guy does study he does it responsibly or he could not keep his job
Nice. He's a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. His job is studying the atmosphere.
As for who sounds like the "Creationist," I'll leave that to others. But rather than deal with his evidence, you just launch into some attack of him as a hack run amok on the take of the oil companies (pretty thin evidence, by the way).
I'll give you my take, as a non-scientist. His arguments are coherent, well-presented, and he does not appear to stretch the evidence into places that it clearly cannot go. He points out in a reasonable fashion weaknesses in the alarmists' position, and he admits when evidence points to a contrary conclusion.
Let's compare your textbook:
This string of warm years probably is not the result of random chance.
or this:
Scientists calculate the odds are between 30:1 and 100:1 that the recent warming is a statistical 'fluke.'
or this:
Studies indicate that climate change is the rule rather than the exception....
Or this:
Is the simultaneous increase a coincidence? No.
Now I'm not completely up to speed on the global warming debate (despite Al Gore's assurances to the contrary, it does appear to me there is one), but I'm pretty sure the best arguments against the hysteria in the global warming debate are not "random chance," "statistical fluke" and "coincidence." And I'm pretty sure Lindzen and company are not arguing that the climate is not changing.
By so characterizing the "opposition" arguments, it is quite easy to build a "consensus" against them. Which is kind of Lindzen's point.
Makes sense to me.
P.S. Although it is completely beside the point, my favorite quote from your textbook has to be this:
Instead, food production will increase in some regions and decrease in other regions, which will create "winners" and "losers."

I found this on the blog of some guy named Kevin Grandia. I have no idea who he is but it is interesting if it is true.
I guess it may be technically correct that Lindzen has never conducted "research" for oil and coal interests, but that of course would depend on how you define "research."
Here is what we do know about Lindzen's connections to the fossil fuel industry over the years:
Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
Three skeptics—Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling—were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
Of course to be fair I would want to know if he was vocal about his ideas before his association with oil and coal companies.

Brother Cadfael,
I don't know if Professor Lindzen has personally studied this subject extensivly. From what I can find on him it seems he has not. If he has I am not qualified to analyze his methods.
However, I have only seen him present the well known non-human factors that affect climate change in his attacks on the idea of human-caused global warming. He does not define what he means by "consensus" but gives the impression that he means that there is not a large majority of the scientists studying global warming who believe in it or that it is caused by humans. Where are all these dissenting scientists? Oh yeah, they can't say anything because they want funding. Well, if they are all towing the party line then how is it there is no (outward) consensus?
This guy's arguments, as much as I can find on him, just sound like a rehashed version of the Creationist arguments "it's only a theory" and "scientists are lying that they believe in it because they want funding." I don't buy it.
I'm sure that whatever this guy does study he does it responsibly or he could not keep his job. He does not seem to be remotely right though in his criticisms of the concern over global warming.

J.R.,
In all seriousness, I would be interested to know what scientific conclusions of Mr. Lindzen you think are false. (I'm not much interested in his analysis of others' motivations, for example.)
I agree that we as Christians ought to be good stewards, and we certainly ought to pay attention to good science.

I don't have access to it now but I will try to get you a chart showing the portion of scientists who agree with various aspects of the global warming idea. If I remember correctly the lowest numbers were 90%, but I'd have to check.
This problem is not going to go a way by wishing it away or ascribing hidden agendas to those who promote acknowledge it. I don't care two hoots what Al Gore says, I care about what the science says, and how we as Christians ought to be concerned about this.

J.R.,
One of the quotations above acknowleges that a very small minority of scientists do think natural causes alone account for global warming.
Correct. Many more think we don't have enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. Others conclude that both occur, but the marginal effect of human causes is relatively small. Many conclude that much of the alarmist rhetoric (see Al Gore, who already lost his patent on the internet) is agenda driven (your textbook?).
So yeah, technically, that portion of the quote is correct.
Having said that, I certainly agree that we should be good stewards of the environment.

That last post is directed to Brother Cadfael. Sorry.

I know about this guy. You can find doubters on all sorts of subjects in science. One of the quotations above acknowleges that a very small minority of scientists do think natural causes alone account for global warming. Most scientists however have come to the opposite conclusion. Again, all these things are well known, yet still the general consensus is that this is a serious problem.

There are obviously a lot of typing mistake up there inevitably. One important correction is that it is agricultural land that stores about 0.2 million tons of carbon, as opposed to the 12.3 million tons in rainforested land.

J.R.,
Not all of the skeptics are amateurs.

"The 1.5-4.5 degrees C rise in average temperature that is associated with a doubling of the atmosphere's radiative forcing seems trivial.... But the significance of [it] can be appreciated by the following factoid: the Earth's average temperature was only 3-5 degrees cooler than today during the last ice age"
"There is a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of climate change on agriculture. Some of the changes in that are forecast by climete models could increase food supply, while other changes could reduce food supply. Based on current understanding, it is not possible to compare the positive and negative effects. Nonetheless, it is hightly unlikely that the positive effects will be balanced exactly by the negative effects. Instead, food production will increase in some regions and decrease in other regions, which will create "winners" and "losers."
"An increase in the air temperature also will raise sea level. Most AOGCM's forcasr that sea level to rise 0.09-0.88 meters between 1990 and 2100. This estimate is uncertain because scientists are not sure how a warmer climate will affect the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets."
"Economists estimate that a 0.5 meter rise in sea level could destroy about $20 to $150 billion worth of human infrastructure in the USA. To avoid such damages, several scientists have suggested building dikes around heavily populated areas. Such an effort would require an enormous amount of time and money.
A rist in sea level also would affect society indirectly by reducing the area and producitvity of estuaries and coastal wetlands. Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems. Estruaries process organic and toxic wastes, they are nurseries for many commercial species of fish, and they reduce the strength of damage done by coastal storms. THese life support services could be reduced if estuaries and wetlands are drowned by rising seas. As with forests and farmlands [the book had earlier described how the population shifts accompanying previous climate shifts may not always be possible in today's altered landscape] estruaries may not be able to migrate in-land as sea level rises."
All this is just a short, quick selection. The point is that scientists know all about the objections of amature skeptics and the supposedly ignored facts like increased solar radiation, volcanos, the little ice age, etc. These things have been acknowledged, studied, incorporated into models, and accounted for in their conclusions. Still the vast majority studying this think global warming is a pressing concern and that human activity is largely responsible for it. We would do well to listen.

"The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from about 316 parts per million in 1958 to about 370 parts per milion in 2001."
"The atmospheric concentration of nearly all radiatively active gasses [greenhouse gasses] is at or nrear the maximum value observed over the last 460 thousand years. Is the simultaneous increase a coincidence? No. The increase in the atmospheric concentration of radiatively active gasses is due largely to human activities that disrupt the carbon and sulfur geochemical cycles."
"Humans have also changed the amount of carbon stored by the terrestrial biota.... Deforestation is the removal of natural ecosystems and their replacement with ecosystems that meet human needs and wants. This replacement increases atmospheric concentrations of carbon because natural ecosystems generally store more carbon than managed ecosystems. The vegetation on one square kilometer of tropical rainforest may store 12.3 million tons of carbon while the vegetation on one square kilometer of tropical rainforest may store only 0.2 million tons of carbon.... Where does the carbon in the natural vegetation go? Most of it goes directly into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
"The rate at which society uses fossil fuels will have the greatest effect on the atmospheric concentratin of carbon dioxide because this storage holds the greatest amount of carbon. There are about 10,000 gigatons of carbon stored in fossil fuels, which is about 15 times greater than the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere. On the other hand, there are only about 1,800 gigatons of carbon in biota and soils, which is only about twice the amount of of carbon currently in the atmosphere."
Following a discription of how computer models attibute recent warming mainly to human influence rather than other influences:
"These results are supported by statistical analysis of the historical data for temperature and radiative forcing. These analyses find a strong statistical link between radiative forcing and temperature over the last century. During this period, temperature in the northern and southern hemispheres is strongly correlated with the concentration of greenhouse gasses, human sulfur emissions, and solar activity. THe correlation is weakened (in a statistical sense) if any of these three variables are dropped from the statistical model. This indicates that temperature is associated with both human activity (greenhouse gasses and sulfur emissions) and natural variability (solar activity). Of these factors, human activity accounts for most of the increase in temperature over the last century."

Now, how about some quotes out of my old Global Environment textbook to clarify some things. It is from 2003, so one significant update is that we had another record-breaking year last year-2005 was the warmest year on record.
"Announcements of the warmest year on reacord have been repeated several times in the 1980's and 1990's. The warmest yar on record is 1998. Nine of the warmest years since 1851 occur after 1990. Starting with the warmest, the years are 1998, 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 and 1999 (tie) and 1991 and 2000 (tie).
This string of warm years probably is not the result of random chance. Scientists calculate the odds are between 30:1 and 100:1 that the recent warming is a statistical 'fluke.' Most scientists agree that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. They extimate that the average temperature of the planet has increased by about 0.6 degrees C over the last century."
"A small minority of scientists argue that the temperature increase is caused by natural forces. The Earth's climate has changed in the past, is changing now, and will change in the future. Conversely, a large majority of scientists argue that the temperature increase is caused by human activity. The gasses released by burning fossil fuel and changing land use trap heat and raise temperature- the so-called "greenhouse effect""
"Studies indicate that climate change is the rule rather than the exception....During the previous 1,000 years, climate has warmed and cooled several times. The average temperature was relatively warm between 950 and 1250 AD....Conversely, the average temperature was relatively cold between 1450 and 1880. During this period, which is know as the "little ice age," the Vikings abandoned their settlements in Iceland [sic] because it was too cold to grow grain."
"Over the lifetime of the planet, the solar constant has varied. These variations continue through the last 150 years (Figure 13.2a [which shows the unsteady decrease then increase from 1855 to 1995, with an overall increase]). Changes in solar constant are one cause for the change in the Earth's climate. The little ice age was caused in part by a slow-down in solar activity."
To be continued...

"Care to deny that by our emmissions we have caused the ozone hole."
Care to prove that? The fact that the ozone hole expands and shrinks may or may not have anything to do with somebody having a theory about emissions of one kind or another.
The scientific consensus seems to me to be a political agreement not to promote, publish or give serious consideration to anyone who disagrees with The Theory, which is currently a cash cow for science departments. It makes for great fundraising brochures and easy grant writing.
I know industry can be harmful, and I believe in holding industry to high standards. I'm against mountain top mining, overfishing, factory farms and a lot of other stuff.
I BELIEVE in environmental responsibility, I just do not buy human-caused global warming.

It seems to me that Agent Maxwell Smart defeated the evil agents of KAOS when they tried to make a weather controlling machine...
Grin.

Tim J.
I'm not saying we do stuff to prevent natural climate shifts (we may have already inadvertantly done this preventing the next ice age) I'm saying that by being a little more responsible we can reduce the coming global warming trend which seems at least partially connected to the burning of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
The "I doubt very much that we can do anything at all to alter the global climate" attitude sounds to me a lot like "we couldn't possibly significantly reduce the fish population of the whole ocean" "the natural resources of the American West are for all practical puroses inexaustible" "we could never kill all the passenger pigeons, there are just so many of them" "anythink we dump into the sea won't make a difference because it is so big" etc. etc.
It doesn't work. Care to deny that by our emmissions we have caused the ozone hole. That is a very significant change in the atmosphere right there, and you can get sunburnt in Australia easier because of it.
Yes, the ending of the little ice age is significant, as is the slight rise in solar radiation, as is the ending of the influence of that huge Indonesian volcano that erupted in the 19th century. But at the same time we humans are dumping tons of Carbon Dioxide into the air along with other greenhouse gasses like methane (largely from cattle).
We know that these gasses can cause global warming, and we know global warming is happening, and we know it is having negative affects on the arctic, where for some reason I don't understand it has a much more dramatic effect than over the rest of the world.
The Kyoto Treaty was crap. I'm glad we didn't sign onto it. But we do need to look hard at this situation and make some tough decisions. There is essentially a scientific consensus on this matter, with conservative politicians always trying to cast doubt on the situation to the great annoyance of environmental scientists. Just because you want so much for industry to be harmless doesn't mean it is. We need to listen to the experts on this matter and consider it rationally not the sound bites from either side.

Dr. Eric: Thanks. And yeah, pretty much ALL of the sequels have been bad. I laughed out loud at Highlander 4 and the whole "You must kill me and take my power because YOU have a TV show to do and I must make a crummy film."
Tim J: Exactly. What're we, COBRA? With a Weather Dominator that can make it snow in SoCal? Waitaminute. That's a great idea.
In all seriousness, even if we could alter the climate (a HUGE "if," I know), who's to say what the "ideal" climate is? We make it too warm and Japan and California disappear. We make it too cold and suddenly England and Canada become unlivable. And we've already got illegal alien problems from our southern border.

"And yes, the climate has always been changing. Humans also often suffered as a result of those changes. This time we can do something about it."
Oooohhh... J.R., do you realize what you are saying?
For one thing, I doubt very much that we can do anything at all to alter the global climate.
Even if we could, it would take a project of mammoth proportions, and I would lay odds that we would likely screw up whatever we were trying to tinker with.
Trying to stop global climate change is like trying to stop continental drift... it's lunacy, and a true commitment to such a fantasy can only result in some gigantic, Orwellian Uber-state trying to micromanage the activities of every individual on the planet.
What we will do is monitor and adjust, like we always have, only with modern technology and communications, we will be able to do a much better job of it.
Humans adapt... it's what we do.

Popcorn in space

Jared,
Your reply to my post was funny!
Your reply about the shields in 1999 was spot on. That Highlander sequel was TERRIBLE! It totally ruined the mystique of the first. The immortals are aliens...sheesh!

bill912 - ROTFL!!! Did that climatologist serve in Viet Nam as well?

Guys, this the first shot in an inter-stellar over-the-fence trash dumping.
And we are sorely unprepared.

Lily: Fer real? That's what it does???
...
Well, isn't this awkward?
Um, sorry 'bout that. That was me. My bad.
...
Note to self: no more double bags at Ralph's.

I guess I was wrong, then; I thought we had filled those probes with SUVs.

bill912,
Maybe someone is throwing plastic bags on the Sun. If you have ever thrown one in a campfire, you know what a flare-up it makes. And you also know that we have landed probes on Mars - filled with flamable plastic bags, no doubt.

I know we've been through this on another thread, but here goes:
The earth has been getting warmer.
During the same period, Mars has been getting warmer.
During the same period, the energy output of the sun has increased.
I'm sure there must be some connction between these three events, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

Any ice age that was coming has been prevented through global warming.
Interestingly, Europe and even the Northeastern US could cool down rather than heat up with global warming, as a result of a shift in the Gulf Stream.
And yes, the climate has always been changing. Humans also often suffered as a result of those changes. This time we can do something about it.

Gene, I just read that some climatologist from Massachusetts said: "I predicted an ice age was coming before I predicted any ice age wasn't coming."

What about all the poor baby martian space seals that will get caught in those plastic bags and suffocate?
Oh, wait. If they live in space, they probably wouldn't need to breathe anyway. Nevermind.