Do you hear an echo in here? Like we're in some kinda chamber....





Conservativism hath spoken.

Then you don't understand much about the subject at all. We're talking relative temperatures here. Temperatures on planets with or without an atmosphere are directly related to solar radiation. We know that the sun's radiation levels go through cycles. The temperature changes on other planets near us have gone up at about the same rate over time as here on Earth. The only explanation for this is solar activity unless there are cities and SUVs on those planets.

Well then, where is the actual data that most of our planets' temperatures has been increased since 20th century? I'd like to see it. What I found was the table of data that solar energy has been increased, but not actual temperatures of other planets.

And before that, you should not say they are 'directly related' Because it is not true in some cases. For example, in Jupiter, Temperature changes are due to innate characteristics such as radioactivity.

Plus : And here is another thing for you. Yes. It is definitely true the Earth's temperature can be risen by stronger solar activities, but the problem is that at some point the rise of temperature should be stopped since the increase of solar energy is limited. But the temperature is still rising after all. You can find the conclusion that the effect of solar energy may explain the first century of temperature rising, but not the last half century's. Which means, if the solar energy is the one changing the temperature, it should be stopped and unchanged around 1950~1980, but it is not true as we see the numbers today.

Well, Republican nominee John Mccain has some fancy section in his website, carefully covering global warming issues.

http://www.johnmccain.com/climatechange/

Shhhhh. Dontcha know John McCain's a "rino" not an elephant? And "only those left of Nancy Pelosi consider John McCain a Conservative." It's common knowledge, really.

Wooo, OK. Since I am not really interested in Politics....

Sorry for my ignorance, but why he is Republican In Name Only? Well, was he elected by all of those election things going on since last year? You know, he is 'elected' by Republicans according to my knowledge. What's the problem with him?

Wikipedia - where everything and anything can be true.

Regardless, you are still looking at a few years. You are bitching about 1 degree Celsius, which CANNOT be measured by fossil records or glaciation. They point to large temperature swings. Period. And over hundreds and thousands of years, not 10. Or even 100. Your data, like all of those who now believe in the new creed of Global warming is flawed. There is some scientific truth in it, but not enough to make the "leap of faith" that the GW zealots have made, be they laymen or faux scientists.

We MAY be heading to a warming age. We MAY be causing some of it. But the only thing we do know, and for the honest what they will truly admit, is that we DON'T know. Yet you preach like it is a foregone conclusion, when in fact it is not even an hypothesis yet. Just a straw dog used to convert the weak minded and further the coffers of the priesthood.

For Conservative Republicans, if you are not conservative, then you are not a republican. Just like "Blue Dog Democrats". They are conservative democrats, so liberal democrats do not consider them real democrats.

That is one of the reasons I will never be a republican. I am conservative, and I dont care if you are republican or democrat as long as you espouse and legislate conservatively.

I won't do your research for you, but I will throw you a bone. Do some research regarding the NASA Viking mission and the more recent Mars survey missions and compare the data. You'll find that there has been a point five degree Celsius increase in the temps on Mars since 1970. Approximately equal to the rise during the same time period here.



Look up the definition of the word "near". I clearly referred to planets near us.



Nonsense. Again you don't really seem to understand the topic. Solar volcanoes and other sources of radiation increases from the sun last for hundreds of years. Do some real research and stop relying on talking points you've read from someone else. All of the data is available, you just need to seek it out, from many different sources, and compare it all for yourself.

So now the phrase is "more intense".  Last year I believe we heard from the Global Warming™ zealots that hurricanes would be the worst.  The hurricane season ended up being nothing.  

 

wnmnkh, will this change your opinion?

@ Dr Guy : Yes, I always reminds myself "Wikipedia is a opinion, not a fact." But this is not a case and you can find the actual trustable source of those pictures.

@ MasonM : After wrote that post, I actually searched more. And there are what I found:

1) The temperature of mars has been increased according to the data you mentioned.

2) But our sun has not changed since 1978, no change of any really. (source : http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant ) So how Mars' temperature can rise without the help of sun?

3) Finally, I found this article while searching for "global warming on mars" ( source : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 ) I recommend you to read it.


Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

I see most of them signed have B.S degree (not really scientists.) Out of all signers, there are only 3,697 people who are actually related to the subject. I wonder how many people here are M.S or Ph.D degree? The numbers shows that they are really tiny minority.

It seems you don't understand the data you are reading because it certainly does demonstrate the fluctuations of solar activity that account for warming and cooling. We are talking about an increase of .5 degree C or less during this time period you know.





Ah, so you define a scientist by their level of degree and not the studies and work that they do? That's hardly intelligent. The vast majority of working scientists around the world hold less than a Ph.D. They're the ones who do the work and actually know what they're talking about.



How do you come to this conclusion? This topic happens to span pretty much all fields of science and stupid conclusions usually come about due to not examining data from a broad range of schools.

Frankly, the more you comment the worse you come out looking here. You can't possibly do a few hours of research on the net and come to any sort of intelligent conclusion on such a complex issue. You need to examine, consider, compare, and contrast a vast amount of data from many fields of study to see the big picture and really understand what is going on. That's why we have such absurd fear-mongering tabloid science these days. Far too many people look at a smal set of data from a narrow field of study and jump to some pretty damn stupid conclusions.

Ah, are we looking at same graph?

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_61_0804.png

I just cannot find this table showing that solar irradiance increasing since 1978. Only thing I see is that this changes year and year, while the temperature is constantly only increasing, not following the graph above.

Granted. But if so, there are tons of people with B.S degree which dwarf the number of people ever signed on this petition.

I seriously do not think those people ever even represent the scientific community regarding this issues. There are already tons of communities with authority accept that the global warming is indeed man-made.

Here the list of 'some' of communities accepting global warming as man-made.

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

Wrong. The average global temperature is not constantly doing anything and certainly not constantly rising. Some years it's a tad higher, some years a tad lower. Over a 100 year period (which in global terms is a very, very small data set) the overall average global temperature appears to have risen about one degree.

Remember, it's one degree over 100 years. That's not any sort of constant rise in anything, it's a mathematical average over a relatively short period of time. hardly the end of the world here, is it?

Check out the graphs provided in the pdf document Dr. Guy provided as it's a more clear summary of the relative data.

As for the list of scientific "communities" claiming to accept that global warming is man-made, you must apply some critical thinking to why some do and some do not. What could be their motivations for such things? Political? Money?

As there is not enough evidence for any true scientific conclusion there, they are either really bad scientists or they have some other reason for saying this. This is a topic that is far from conclusive either way, but there is strong evidence that it is not man-made and is perfectly natural. Especially in light of the fact that in geologic terms the planet is still recovering from the last ice age.

Some people like to think that our planetary climate is somehow static and should remain constant over time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Planetary history proves that our climate goes through radical swings from much warmer than it is now to much colder than it is now. Why do people feel such concern for something that we know to be perfectly normal?

Easy answer? Research dollars. Scientists have to eat too.