man made causes of warming are probably significant, refering to 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. if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me. 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. the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases. 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... ------------------------- so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense. if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources. now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over. qualifiers ----------------- now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases. what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment. to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise. to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic. the question is what to do based on the uncertainty. one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know. --------- even though i make those qualifications, i still maintain my opening premise. prove me wrong.