First time in human history, possibly no ice at Norh Pole

[mardi gras skin]

There is NOTHING wrong with admitting:

1. That on most topics there are people that know a lot more than you.

2. That on those topics those people's opinions are significantly more likely to be right than yours.

3. And that on some topics, your opinion is so useless, it isn't even worth stating.

4. And Google does NOT magically level the playing field. :laugh:

[twa]

Peter ,He agrees the world is warming and simply endorses better understanding why and determining causes.

from your link

Scientists have no clear knowledge of the cause of the Little Ice Age and of the subsequent rebound; or of the Big Ice Age; or of a warm period when the Arctic Ocean had no ice; or of the medieval warming period. In fact, IPCC scientists do not understand the causes of the rapid increase of temperature from 1910 to 1945; or the decrease from 1945 to 1975, when CO2 levels were rising. Without understanding these recent changes, it is premature for the IPCC to jump to the conclusion that CO2 is the main cause of the last 30 years of global warming.

THE explanation to your question is other contributing factors,which we need to clarify to attempt to address....as he stated in my first link

[TradeTheBeal!]

CO2 is not necessarily a main cause BUT, it is a probable cause that man can control. Perhaps the only one. Why not dial it down?

[PeterMP]

Peter ,He agrees the world is warming and simply endorses better understanding why and determining causes.

from your link

Scientists have no clear knowledge of the cause of the Little Ice Age and of the subsequent rebound; or of the Big Ice Age; or of a warm period when the Arctic Ocean had no ice; or of the medieval warming period. In fact, IPCC scientists do not understand the causes of the rapid increase of temperature from 1910 to 1945; or the decrease from 1945 to 1975, when CO2 levels were rising. Without understanding these recent changes, it is premature for the IPCC to jump to the conclusion that CO2 is the main cause of the last 30 years of global warming.

THE explanation to your question is other contributing factors,which we need to clarify to attempt to address....as he stated in my first link

1. His "theory" is that warming is the result of a "rebound" from the little ice age. My simple, ten minute analysis, shows that isn't likely to be correct:

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

If his message was as simple as you suggests, I wouldn't as much of a problem, but he that isn't all he is saying. He's gone further to suggests an alternative "theory" that would indicate that our understanding of global warming is worse than your statements suggests. The sad thing is that ten minutes of looking at the data shows that his idea has a major flaw.

2. There are multiple studies on the warming from the earlier part of the century and cooling in the 1970's (e.g.:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/early_20th_cent_warming.html

"Simulation of early 20th century global warming")

As far as I know, they always include a role for green house gases in the warming in the early part of the 20th century. Essentially, it seems that greenhouse gases caused warming, but particles in the air released by dirty power plants caused cooling. The particles though TEND to cause a "local" affect because they don't stay in the air as long.

The greenhouse gases caused warming, with time and as more power plants were built the influence of the particles over came this affect (the cooling was primarily limited to the northern hemisphere), but then we cleaned up those power plants and warming kicked backed in.

Of course, w/o good data about radiation coming into Earth, it is hard to draw REALLY GOOD conclusions, and that is the biggest problem with the general arguement that you put forth. You are ignoring multiple decades of work now W/ data on incoming radiation because we can't adequately explain things in the past that we don't and never will have good data for.