The culprit behind the record-shattering level of ice melting in Greenland in 2012 may have been low, thin clouds, new research suggests.
These novel findings, detailed in the April 4 issue of the journal Nature, may help answer climate mysteries elsewhere in the Arctic, the researchers said.
Carbon admissions?? I think you mean carbon emissions!
And, well it is! I won't explain the whole greenhouse effect to you, as I am sure you know what it is, and I would be wasting my time, but as I said previously, yes the climate changes naturally, but we are forcing it to change at an unnatural rate.
The green house effect is still not proven its not an excepted scientific fact because it cannot be tested. There are plenty of other scientists that say its a natural event and have plenty of data to support their claim. That being said I support developing alternate forms of energy especially renewable energy as it would create jobs lower energy costs and for those who can afford sun panels energy self sufficiency. And it creates new industry which is exactly what my country needs right now.
so the fact that just the spread of agriculture and the delayed ice age that would have covered most of the countries that border to the polar circle by 7000 years is just a big coincidence?
Junieor year in high school I did a report about how global warming was actually natural and its caused by a climate sycle thet the earth moves through and supported my theory by highlighting several times through out history when the earth hit these so called "record highs" and then cooled back down again. So if what your saying is true then both history and science refute global warming.
earth has been gradualing warming and freezing for millions of years it just so happens that it is happening when an species can actually think for its self
In a way I think this is very true. In another, I think the solar cycle contributes a lot to extreme weather patterns that go against what we call 'climatology.' The earth is millions of years old not to mention huge and it's hard for me to believe a few hundred years of our research (if that) that humans are the cause of it.
We're apart of nature as much as we try to deny it, and everything we do is a part of nature.
We are almost directly responsible for a species of bird adapting their wing span. We caused some evolution to happen. If we're not nature's force I don't know what is.
I like how if one person who might have a PHD says something, you expect everyone to flock over and say " Oooh err, he must be right, innit!"
So If Al Gore says that is is man made, then it must be? Based on what I have heard, and what tends to be what everyone else thinks, it is our fault the planet is heating up, due to greenhouse gasses, and not nature. OF course climates change naturally, how do you think the last few ice ages happened?! However, the way our climate is changing now is at the wrong time, and is changing far too quickly for it to be down to nature.
Perhaps read what I write first? Firstly I was talking about how you should not believe something just because one man says it, then I made a comparison to a man who believes the opposite to what the so called scientist said.
Joe has a belief system that says that global warming is natural. Joe sees an article that supports his view and posts it. Joe presented evidence to support his claim. You are gullible for believing that Joe read this one article and formed an opinion on it.
a man who believes the opposite
Also a man who we have absolutely no reason to think is right because he is a lawyer. If it were about a law opinion then maybe it would matter what Al Gore thinks.
I personally think it is stupid to try to convince people that global warming is man made. You are 100% convinced that you have 100% proven data that global warming is man made and yet half the people think like Joe.
Yep, that's exactly what I said. All those assumptions you made to back up your argument, because you didn't have one, all completely correct! Job well done.
I guess this is sarcasm, but I never misrepresented what you said. How have I not addressed what you said? What did I say that took your arguments out of context?
I can explain stuff for you if you are too dumb to understand it.
Oh you can explain 'stuff' can you? Oh you must have an absolutely towering intellect if you are able to explain 'stuff'. I never said that Joe was 100% anything, you just had nothing better to do than put words in my mouth, and base your arguments on them. Again, I never said you took my argument out of context!
You're right to have a cartoon child as your avatar.
I never said that Joe was 100% anything, you just had nothing better to do than put words in my mouth, and base your arguments on them.
I didn't say that you said Joe was 100% anything, and I didn't put words in your mouth.
Again, I never said you took my argument out of context!
You just said that I put words in your mouth. That's the same thing as taking your argument out of context.
You said that you were sure that global warming is man made. You seemed so sure that everyone believed the same thing (I know this is an exaggeration, but the point is that there is supposed to be lots of evidence to support it). I pointed out that even though you are convinced on your side, there are still people like Joe who will never be convinced.
Then you decided I was right, and got all pissed off about it.
You called Joe gullible. It is very stupid for you to call him gullible in this case.
You are also an idiot for bringing up Al Gore for no reason. Then getting upset that I associated him with you. That would be like me getting upset with you if you associated me with Joe right now.
It is funny that you asked me to read your stuff when you obviously have terrible reading comprehension.
what is your point?!
An interesting question coming from an idiot with no point. Your argument was that it is stupid to take someones opinion without question, but then go on to imply that the side that Joe is against should be followed blindly. Ironic.
Again, your only argument being calling people idiots! I explained why I brought up Al Gore I had a justifiable reason for doing so, but as always you only see what you want to. An I might add I don't really have terrible reading comprehension, I'll just leave it at that!
You seem to be attacking me at every corner, but again, this debate is about "scientists now say global warming is caused by nature." I pointed out that, no not all scientists think so, just because one does, it does not mean everyone does. Then I made a comparrison, saying " Like if Al Gore says something, you don't expect everyone to believe it." Though you don't seem to be able to understand this. I predict you will reply with some half way witty smut you will deem to be intelligent, when in actual fact all you're doing is making your self look like an angry little pitbull. Yes I did call Joe gullible is a light hearted humerous way because of him making a whole debate on what one man thinks. I'm astonished though at the way you're defending him. I mean it''s nice you have so much affection towards him, leading me to think you're his relative..? Spouse, perhaps?
I pointed out that, no not all scientists think so
You did this in the most round about way that no one but you sees it that way.
Like if Al Gore says something, you don't expect everyone to believe it.
Not directly, that was basically my argument.
I predict ...
Now you are totally projecting on me, nice try.
I'm astonished though at the way you're defending him.
I'm astonished at how you are attacking him. Any plans to murder him? Just wondering. I actually understand what the argument is here, I don't go around downvoting without understanding why the other person is arguing with me.
making a whole debate on what one man thinks
Let me explain what is going on because you do not see the big picture. Accepting global warming as man made will lead us on the path of paying to fix the problem. Joe is against paying to fix a problem he doesn't believe exists, which is reasonable, right? Would you pay to fix the problem with dragons? So, the liberals, like you have pointed out, have already decided that global warming is man made. Joe is pointing out that there are scientists who find natural causes for global warming. Should everything be put in one global warming debate and no other debates on global warming should be created? Your argument is that you have heard enough to convince yourself that global warming is real. Your argument is also that just because someone believes something doesn't mean they are right. You contradict yourself because you are not addressing whether the evidence you have is enough to dispute what Joe has presented.
You believe global warming is man made, Al Gore believes global warming is man made. Therefore, you believe the same thing as Al Gore. That was all I was saying. I wasn't accusing you of believing because of Al Gore either.
You brought up Al Gore and I was pointing out that Al Gore is not a good source for global warming.
Then you read my post and got sand in your vagina, and couldn't deal with it.
Wait, I didn't take much notice of the title and subtitles, but " clouds formed global warming..."
Oh of course, the whole " We are sending Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide which is creating a think layer in the atmosphere which is trapping the suns UV rays and causing the planet to heat up" has nothing to do with this. Of course not, obviously, silly me, that a build up of clouds suddenly causing the planet to heat up is all a natural process, and we have nothing to do with it.
It is proven, you are correct, and has been for nearly two decades now.
Joe gets these articles expecting no one will read the whole thing because he has some weird hard-on for all right-wing propaganda.
The article is about Greenland specifically, not the globe, and an unusual rate of ice melt in Greenland, even more ice melting than in other areas.
"The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "
That Greenland had accelerated ice melt even above what has been caused by man-made global warming is the subject, the subject is not that global warming does not exist. The article does not even make that claim.
That stuff basically can't be proven unfortunately. That's why Joe can keep finding these things.
CO2 is released in the air by non human methods.
Obviously the sun is heating up the Earth, whether or not the clouds are trapping that heat is hard to determine. It could be that the sun is radiating more energy.
2. The article says nothing about man-made global warming, not a word.
That Greenland had accelerated ice melt even above what has been caused by man-made global warming is the subject, the subject is not that global warming does not exist. The article does not make that claim.
I always hear about 'natural cycles'...well, yes, they exist...and if you do a little research, we should be in a cooling part of the cycle. I know what that tells me - if we're warming, it's us that's doing it.
Most scientists believe that global warming is largely caused by human beings and the way they and we run industry and transport by burning fossil fuels. Global warming is caused by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
