global warming experts weigh in: new challenge to warming theory

[greenman3610]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=058da957fcfbf301&ex=1163134800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1162993949-YRimJ1PbhxSWltXpx4Pftw

For the first time, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that analyzes global warming, plans to include a chapter on the reconstructions in its latest report, due early next year.

The discoveries have stirred a little-known dispute that, if resolved, could have major implications. At issue is whether the findings back or undermine the prevailing view on global warming. One side foresees a looming crisis of planetary heating; the other, temperature increases that would be more nuisance than catastroph.


----

But the experts who peer back millions of years, though they may debate what their work means, do agree on the relevance of their findings. They also agree that the eon known as the Phanerozoic, a lengthy span from the present to 550 million years ago, the dawn of complex life, typically bore concentrations of carbon dioxide that were up to 18 times the levels present in the short reign of Homo sapiens.

The carbon dioxide, the scientists agree, came from volcanoes and other natural sources, as on Mars and Venus. The levels have generally dropped over the ages, as the carbon became a building block of many rock formations and all living things.

Moreover, the opponents tend to agree on why the early Earth’s high carbon dioxide levels failed to roast the planet. First, the Sun was dimmer in its youth. Second, as the gas concentrations increase, its heat trapping capacity slows and reaches a plateau.

Where the specialists clash is on what the evidence means for the idea that industrial civilization and the burning of fossil fuels are the main culprits in climate change. The two sides agree that carbon dioxide can block solar energy that would otherwise radiate back into space, an effect known as greenhouse warming. But they differ sharply on its strength.

[back2basics909]

1. I read this, but you left out key parts...

.. this science is unproven. It in its infancy. And most scientists do not believe it's worth discussing until far more work has been done.

Also at the end of the article it points to two recent and very important studies bringing in to doubt the size of the suns influence. Its thought to be a third.

The article does show that Co2 may have been painted as the main cause when it's actually more complicated than that.

But that, to people who follow this closely, is like the argument made by creationists that evolution says we evolved from monkeys. The hard science has never said that, it's a misrepresentation common in the media that makes it easier to understand.

Methane, Co2, ozone gasses, the Sun and many other factors are playing a part in Warming.

People should read the full article because its different to the picture painted in the first few paragraphs. But it's great, its now time to talk about how complex the science is, and show its not as simple as people like to think.

[sam sarrha]

3. the ice is melted, the under sea currents will stop.. and yes maybe only half of the world will

freeze, but much the other half will suffer desertification or hyper tempertaures and monsoons and billions will die. that is a fact and it is beginning to happen right now the ice is nearly gone.

it will only take about 400 to 800 years to fix itself to the point the humans left can reinhabit the devistated areas.. but when the ocean curents are not cooled by the ice that is gone.. we are in deep shit and civilization will end as we know it.

[sam sarrha]

2. they should be told if they are wrong they and their families will be sent to a devastated area in

Africa and suffer the consequences together of being corporate whores