ENVIRONMENT

Which of These Is Not Causing Global Warming Today?

A. Sport utility vehicles; B. Rice fields; C. Increased solar output.

By Sharon Begley and Andrew Murr | NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 24, 2007
July 2-9, 2007 issue

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Descent @ 07/03/2008 1:29:24 PM

    Water vapor, while being a much more powerful greenhouse gas, cannot drive climate change, due to its limited duration in the atmosphere (a few days) and its massive regional variability. However, it can act as a strong feedback mechanism to reinforce warming driven by CO2 which is atmospherically well mixed and remains in the atmosphere for upwards of a hundred years.

    Also, if you plot surface temperature data from any of the respected sources (UAH, RSS, NASA GISS, HadCRUT) from 1999-2008, you will see that the temperatures have indeed continued to rise. The common misconception that it stopped in 1998 is propagated by those who include the anomaly year of 1998 where temperatures were driven to record levels on top of anthropogenic influences by the "El Nino of the Century". Even noting the leveled temperature graph including 1998, it's worth considering that we are reaching temperatures on par with 1998, except now they are being reached during a solar minimum and a La Nina set of conditions, both of which tend to drive temperatures down. Global temperatures are still warming.

    • Posted By: artesian @ 07/04/2008 9:48:56 PM

      My information says that CO2 has 5-10 years residence time in the atmosphere. Many studies. Lawrence Solomon , "The Deniers".

    • Posted By: artesian @ 07/04/2008 9:47:12 PM

      CO2 stays in the atmosphere 5-10 years. Dozens of studies.

  • Posted By: danteMF @ 07/02/2008 10:49:07 PM

    Carbon dioxide is much less the cause of global warming. This is a natural cycle of the earth that maintains and support life. If the greenhouse effect is the warming suspect, it should be water vapor as the contributing factor as it is the major component of greenhouse gases. It is an elementary fact that the sun is the source of warm climate. Ice is prevalent in the north or south poles because these are not the direct hit of the solar rays of the sun. These geographic poles receive minimal sunlight compared to east and west. South pole is located in the middle of a continental land mass and colder than the north pole which is in the middle of the ocean -the depository of heat where ice melt.

  • Posted By: rhjames @ 07/02/2008 6:56:22 PM

    The date on this could be correct - it certainly sounds well out of date. It doesn't mention that there's been no global warming since 1998, despite increases in CO2. It also fails to mention that the IPCC statements aren't written by the scientists. They are "reviewed" by the scientists. They don't tell us that many of the scientists disagree with the statements. The comparison with a roulette wheel is false. The wheel is random. Climate change follows cycles of both long and short term. Look at the history and you don't see random up and down - it's always been cyclic for whatever reason, and there's absolutely nothing unusual about the one we're in now.

  • Posted By: artesian @ 07/02/2008 7:13:56 AM

    Absence of solar activity is allowing cloud foramtion and the climate may be turning colder. According to experts, there has been no net warming in 10 years except for the el Nino phenomenon. In any case it would appear that when el Nino rolls off the ten year rolling temperature average, we'll see cooling despite CO2 production. Trouble is CO2 cannot talk. I may be increaeing because of degassing due to warming of the ocean. In that event, CO2 (and water vapour) could be the planet's temperature control system and Professor Al is dead wrong. We better be preparing for cooler climate change not warmer.

  • Posted By: artesian @ 07/02/2008 7:05:48 AM

    Politicians treat voters like children on the AGW issue by offering the only two options they want us to have: Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax. What about the third way - listen to the science? There is no experimental evidence to support CO2 and AGW, or we would have seen it. Alarmists built the house of cards decades ago and the entire derivative 'research' since then has no scientific foundation. Demand debate and see what the environmental lobby groups say. As I understand it, the theory of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows: Active sun ??? enhanced magnetic field = solar wind ??? geomagnetic shield response ??? less low-level clouds ??? less heat reflected ??? warmer climate. Inactive sun ??? reduced magnetic field = reduced solar wind ??? geomagnetic shield drops ??? galactic cosmic ray flux ??? more low-level clouds and more snow ??? more heat reflected ??? colder climate. That is how the bulk of climate change might work, modulated by sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.

  • Posted By: artesian @ 07/02/2008 7:05:30 AM

    Politicians treat voters like children on the AGW issue by offering the only two options they want us to have: Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax. What about the third way - listen to the science? There is no experimental evidence to support CO2 and AGW, or we would have seen it. Alarmists built the house of cards decades ago and the entire derivative 'research' since then has no scientific foundation. Demand debate and see what the environmental lobby groups say. As I understand it, the theory of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows: Active sun ??? enhanced magnetic field = solar wind ??? geomagnetic shield response ??? less low-level clouds ??? less heat reflected ??? warmer climate. Inactive sun ??? reduced magnetic field = reduced solar wind ??? geomagnetic shield drops ??? galactic cosmic ray flux ??? more low-level clouds and more snow ??? more heat reflected ??? colder climate. That is how the bulk of climate change might work, modulated by sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.

  • Posted By: kenzrw @ 07/01/2008 10:55:31 PM

    The date of the story is wrong. It says July 2-7, 2007, not 2008. It this story a year old? Good story either way.

  • Posted By: kenzrw @ 07/01/2008 10:54:25 PM

    Is the date wrong on this article? It says July 2-7, 2007, not 2008?

  • Posted By: kenzrw @ 07/01/2008 10:54:23 PM

    Is the date wrong on this article? It says July 2-7, 2007, not 2008?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse