Subject: »Climate Change and Global Warming

i've known several professors at my university who dont believe a word about the GW... if specialists do not agree, why am I supposed to think that our habits pose a serious threat for the nature?

You seems to be tottaly ignorant, sorry...

it's not a matter of believing

it's a matter of knowledge.

and I'm pretty sure that noone from those profesors are climatologist or geophysicist.
let me guess - geologists or engineers? :>

if Science has clearly proved that GW is such a serious fact, i am sure that a professor, whose work is linked somehow with the environment xD, should have, at least, a slight idea about this.

on the other hand, it could go against the most important countries' interest, so the truth is being hidden..

I think its natural but human kind did it faster than it would be...

i'm sorry but that's what GW stands for

to me

And maybe your even right .. But it's not a believe, it's science. You must have done some research to come to your conclussion, so show some sources that are the basis of your conclussion, (online) articles, websites, documentaries etc.

Yes, I think it too.
Now is Interglacial period and sometimes will be Glacial period....
I think now it is the end of Interglacial
(edited)

So excuse me, Einstein. Enlighten me. Where are the evidence of an anthropogenic global warming???

me vely hapi when warm!

1. CO2 concentration:




2. contribution of CO2 in greenhouse effect:



3. global temperature measures:



4. global temperatures reconstruction:



5. reconstruction with evaluation of solar and volcanig forcings:



6. reconstruction with evaluation of solar, volcanic and oceanic forcings in last decades:






If You have any questions, do not hesitate!

One 1st question :

Why on the 2nd graph, we observe some decrease of the red curve please ? (2 times)

Then, i would just like to tell that your showing graphs are oriented to show us what you want to show... As ancient world's earth could not be well observed as now, you can't compare to it (i hope my english is well understood enough)

Why on the 2nd graph, we observe some decrease of the red curve please ? (2 times)

very hard one.

i guess because of world industrial cryses in years 30s and 70's


As ancient world's earth could not be well observed as now, you can't compare to it

current global warming is very specific in comparison with past climate changes because of so huge tempo of increasing CO2 concentration. the scale of our activity is unprecedented in natural earth history.

and another one thing

Then, i would just like to tell that your showing graphs are oriented to show us what you want to show...

well, i want You show only the facts! i can paste the sources in scientific literature for them. if You think that some of those informations are some kind of manipulation from me then You're wrong.

Situation where CO2 levels are twice or even more the level they are now is not dangerous, because the result of this increase will intensify photosynthesis(assuming we dont destroy all the plants). A doubled CO2 level will increase the productivity of biomass by 30% and reduces the evaporation from the plants. Also after CO2 levels have increased 2-3 times, the greenhouse effect will weaken because the temperature and CO2 levels are not increasing in same proportions.

Also some scientists claim that after the research of air bubbles in Antarctic ice caves they have found that in last 30000 years CO2 levels have been increasing and decreasing quite drastically over thousands and also hundred years, so we cant really prove that our tehnology is the reason behind these changes, may well be the Earth itself.


My point is that CO2 levels are raising and it is bad, but not as drastically bad as some people think.

Quite drastically means current levels of CO2 in total and the increased amount have been achieved by Earth itself in the past

(edited)

For my 1st question, i think that 1st part of answer is right with the lecture of the graph but the 2nd part of your answer (70's), it seems t obe more the 90's that could be less explainable.

Then, I never said that human activities are not relied to the climate's change or acceleration as you said : current global warming is very specific in comparison with past climate changes because of so huge tempo of increasing CO2 concentration. the scale of our activity is unprecedented in natural earth history. , but i would prevent all readers that every graphs shown has always to be global to be compared. You only show us graphs from min the year 0 which is really poor in datas to explain that it is only the human activities that are risponsible of this change. If you show us in the same graph the temperature graphs including the beginning of lives on Earth thus we can compare and conclude something otherwise you oriented our views and you're not objective scientifically.

I don't talk about manipulation but about oriented views.