There have been other scientific articles in the recent past that have offered the same observation.
Sublime suburban chariot
High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.
interesting facts about CO2 and Mars... the similarities with Earth are striking to say the least!
The temperature on Mars's surface is generally very low and ranges between extreme values. While at the planet's equator the temperature can reach about 300 K (70 F) at midday, the same region of the planet can plunge to 250 K (- 20 F) the following night! At most locations on the planet the temperature hardly reaches the freezing point of water (273 K, or 32 F) any time during the year.
An exception is the southern polar region, which is permanently far below the freezing point of water. Its temperature is even below the freezing point of carbon dioxide, and the southern polar cap contains a lot of 'dry ice'. The carbon dioxide from the southern cap is partly released during the summer months, contributing to a 25% periodic oscillation of the atmospheric pressure between 0.006 and 0.008 bars.
The temperature at which CO2 turns from gas to liquid (boils) is around ?57
....that those who wish to try to debunk global warming take such a black/white approach to it, that it has to be either naturally occurring OR induced by humans. Humans contribute to global warming. We are not the sole cause, nor are we completely uninvolved. We can take steps to control our contributions and we should.
I have to agree with Josh... especially when a fatalistic viewpoint of "why bother because it may be out of our hands anyway" is raised.
Right now... it is nothing short of hubris that makes anyone declare there is a definitive cause to current climate changes. Is the changes in our weather naturally cyclical or not? Is the variable cause of the change human or not? The latter question is the only one we have control over and adjusting that variable will be the only way of confirming or denying it. As such it seems to me we only have 3 choices... cut back on airborne pollution, leave it the same, or increase it. Which choice do you favor?
...how do we do it if not by actually adjusting the pollution output of our civilization?
Every scientific study that is made seems to be poo-pooed if it doesn't favor natural causes for global warming... at least by champions of industrial free markets.... Your suggestion would be...?
Actually it's the true believers in Global Warming who are rabidly hostile to any competing theory. Some of them have even likened skeptics to Holocaust deniers and have said that there should be Nuremburg style trials to punish them. No lie!
No one is in favor of pollution, but many are opposed to radical solutions that can break the economy and probably do the environment little or no good. "Trying out" your pet solution is a totally unscientific, not to mention dangerous method of exploring to see what's going on. There are plenty of other ways.
I am asking how do we go about exploring the issue?
Those studies that support man's causality in the problem are constantly being discredited. Why? How are these scientists and their studies to be vetted? Is it the process that is flawed? The research? The basic thesis the study begins with? Will the results be only be valid if the study starts out to prove man's innocence and ends up proving his guilt?
How is the problem to be explored to the skeptics satisfaction?
Let the scientists do their work. Don't politicize it and try to suppress or punish skeptics. Don't make movies or count up the scientists and non-scientists who don't know anything about the subject and claim a "consensus". Don't proceed from the premise that there's a problem and it was caused by humans. Don't try to ram through political "solutions" that solve nothing but damage our economy and benefit other countries for no rational reason....
The most that can be said about this is that there is apparently some warming going on. How much, what the cause is, what the effects will be and so forth are all up in the air. The assumption that there's a "problem" is very suspect.
... would come clean and admit that they come strictly from an economic viewpoint when they raise their very well funded public doubts. After all, the premiss on the part of these folks is "we shall do no harm to business if there is doubt". I live in a place where that philosophy has cost 100s of lives from industrial disasters that occurred in the blink of an eye but were years in developing.
Still, the scientific impartiality the global warming doubters call for has never been the strong suit of the scientific and environmental studies that they, themselves, sponsor and stand behind. IMO the call for not politicizing these studies often comes from industry lobbyists... certainly a case of the kettle calling the pot black. The hundreds of tobacco industry studies saying smoking is safe comes to mind.
You are absolutely right when you state "Let the scientists do their work"... but as I did ask previously, how are these scientists to be vetted? How is any study to be confirmed when it is only a model? Frankly, the grounding of all aircraft in the days after 9/11 had a very telling impact on my opinion of reality versus modeling.
The grounding of commercial flights for three days after 9/11 gave David Travis and his team at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater a chance to discover a difference of about 4
You ask for reasonable consideration of all views by calling one side's view distorted, How in the world is it reasonable to call someone's opinion distorted? How is that intended to persuade? The reality is that you're asking for no debate at all... only acquiescence.
You kill me Ed.
There's lots of money and political power tied up in the orthodox belief that has NOTHING to do with science.
Jeeez!!! Science is not opinion!
The burden of proof is on those who assert a theory. They have not come close to meeting that burden.
THEY are the ones who wish to stifle inquiry and opposition.
The reality is that you're asking for no debate at all... only acquiescence.
Exactly the opposite is true. That is precisely the position of the Global Warming advocates. Yes, orthodox belief. That is what the Global Warming camp is pushing and they won't tolerate otherlines of thought or admit opposing evidence.
Please try thinking. Please.
that those who push the Global Warming point of view can't even agree on the causes, or how extensive it is or what the consequences might be, yet they have no problem trying to force their "solutions" down our throats. They feel they have a moral imperative and have said so.
Yet the mere mention of another possibility causes stiff resistance that has nothing to do with the actual evidence presented.
I'm not insisting that the theory in my original post is true, just saying that WE DON'T KNOW.
Which is what I said to begin with as well...
grim: "Right now... it is nothing short of hubris that makes anyone declare there is a definitive cause to current climate changes."
Jeez Ed, you have such a knee jerk reaction to anything I say that you don't even bother to try to debate or discuss. Instead you just make post after post implying I don't "think" (how is that not calling me "dim" to my face). Your insulting as all get out, and then you wonder why I spend so much energy punching your buttons. Your the one who doesn't bother to think. You are so busy push ideology that you don't really see what other folks are saying. I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
I stand by what I said... all you ever look for is acquiescence. Dogmatic faith in anything will blind you to any and all flaws. In a religion... it's expected. In politics, business and social interaction? It often proves ruinous.
I am not pushing an ideology; I do not have kneejerk reactions. Just because you said something similar to what I said proves nothing.
A loing as you attribute to me attitudes I don't have and accuse me of doing things I don't do, I will object. Please stop it. Gettging sick of it.
And "your" not punching any biuttons.
won't let the scientists do their jobs. If the scientist (or general) disagrees with the President, he gets fired or retired. Al Gore complains about our output of CO2 gases but his carbon footprints are bigger than most.
Like many other ideas, most people are in the middle but the choices they are given in the polical arena are the extremes because of primaries.
Josh may be right that there might be more than one mechanism at work here but how can we tell? We can decrease the CO2 that we produce and see what effect that has. Can't see it happening any time soon.
Of course, we could look at it the other way. The air and water is cleaner now that it has ever been. I remember reading about moths in London at were dark when coal as the primary heat source so they would blend in with the dark trees (caused by the air pollution). Today those same butterflies are light because the tree bark is light.
There is a special on the National Geographic Channel about the wonders of nature. They've been showing some of the program at Sam's. This earth has some beautiful and fantastic views. It will be a shame if much of the wonders disappear because of the warming whether it is natural or artificial or both. If they disappear, it won't matter who caused it.
... but just like everything else in life, there are things you can do something about and things you can't.
Yes... it is generally warmer around here. It also used to rain almost every day here winter, spring, summer, and fall. Now, we are lucky to see a good rain once a week or less except in the spring. But that is just the issue now about global weather change, isn't it. If it was just a warmer summer and less ice at the poles it would be one thing. Instead it is draughts in places that used to get plenty of water, floods in other areas, changes in ocean currents, etc.
I think the worst thing to happen to the discussion about planetary warming though... is Gore getting involved. It just gave too many folks a figurehead to ridicule and lets face it... most public discussion nowadays is about the sound bite and the one line zinger.
Thanks for your input Kevin! Hope you had a good birth day!
global warming seem to be those in Gore's camp. Skeptics do not normally attribute global warming to any specific cause or even deny outright the contributions of man to global warming. Skeptics simply believe that it is too early to come to a conclusion, and that to implement drastic steps (major economical changes) to combat global warming is premature.
There may be those who state that there is no such thing as global warming, but that attitude is as faulty as those who claim it to be certain.
As for pollution levels altering weather patterns, it is not as simple as you make it seem. Weather and climate are dictated by numerous forces that even our top climatologists have trouble understanding, so it would be difficult to draw any conclusions.
As a matter of fact I indicated the skepticism that abounds as to the cause and if it was natural or man made.
I did say that the only definitive control we had over any variable of the puzzle is our own contributions to the environment.
"As such it seems to me we only have 3 choices... cut back on airborne pollution, leave it the same, or increase it. Which choice do you favor?"
The conservative thing to do is to cut back on emissions and see what happens... only because it is easier to not pollute rather than try to clean up after the deed is done. After all, we are not talking about picking up trash along side of the road. We are talking about the atmosphere of a world.
The gamble is to continue or even increase our emissions. If nothing happens, then we win the bet. If things get worse? How do we pay off on a gambling marker such as an altered environment? Drought and famine? Conflict and battles over depleted resources or relocated populations?
I find it ironic that the "conservative" course of action is the one most "conservatives" are dead set against. Look, all I'm in favor of is dropping most of the political and economic considerations. After all, neither will matter if we do screw up the planet in the bigger scheme of things. Let the science speak for itself.
As it is... all talk of avoiding major economic changes by maintaining current pollution standards is whistling past the grave yard IMO. We (the US and the world) are already in an energy resource crisis. The government recognizes this else why double the strategic oil reserve or talk about reducing american oil consumption 20% by 2017? Meanwhile Citgo (Venezuela) runs commercial on NBC during SNL bragging about supplying free heating oil to the North East. Our industrial manufacturing base is eroding more and more as jobs disappear while we talk about guest worker programs to bring in even cheaper labor. A major portion of our population is set to retire while social security is gutted from the inside. The educational levels of our children put the future success of american R & D in doubt. Oh... and if China ever dumps their wealth of over $644.2 billion in US debt? The US dollar would never recover. Of course we will be lucky if we don't end up in another cold war with China or India in the next 50 years anyway. As it is, the only thing those population giants will need from us in the future is food anyway.
In the light of all these economic factors... I think emissions control will not be the one thing to destroy the US economy. In fact, if we were to lead the future in the development of alternative energy and environmentally friendly technologies then we may keep our current standard of living.
This is all speculation but so is gambling on staying the course about pollution as well. The one true guarantee about any of this is sooner or later everything breaks when it comes to man's creations and man's civilizations. I would hate to think we would take it the rest of the way and break the planet as well.
Sublime suburban chariot
High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.