manmade activity is probably a significant cause of global warming

detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes. essential facts. one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred. the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources... and sources that can be found show that they produce only a small amout of heating. i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth: -------------- 'The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are. The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).' '--------- i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt? ---------- scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming ------------- QUOTE With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999 QUOTE It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century. ^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005. ---------------------- Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link: ----------------- * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov...... * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...... * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no...... * National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu...... * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca...... * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov...... * The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk...... * American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org...... * American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org...... * American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org...... * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu...... * American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org...... * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca...... ------------------------- -our north pole just melted completely a few years ago. this is a historic event that doesn't occur very often at all. -if we look at ice levels in polar regions... we can see carbon and darker ice during the industrial revolution... and it's noticably lighter at the point the clean air act was introducted... this is simply evidence, but tangible evidence that this stuff is in not only the sky but everywehre. -if we look at temperature increases... yes, it shows we are getting hotter. we are setting records at a more frequent basis. -if we look at natural temperature increases... we see we've been increasing for thousands of years. but, we see that it's been accelerating in recent history, particularly the industrial revolution where polluion occurs. this is in reference to the infamous "hockey stick" graph. no, we can't deduce from that alone that we're the cause, but we can give it as supporting the fact that there's an accelerated increase, especially at our time. -studies have been done that show CO2 being a cause of warming. we might squabble about how much warming, but we know it causes some. so, if we cut out the biggest theorest that are alterantives to MMGW, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW makes sense.