Is there any consensus that the last ice age ended because of greenhouse gases? If not, then saying global warming is caused by greenhouse gases implies that the warming that ended the last ice age was a different phenomenon. It would be strange to say that the warming of the earth that ended the last ice age was not an instance of global warming. |
Is there any consensus that the last ice age ended because of greenhouse gases? If not, then saying global warming is caused by greenhouse gases implies that the warming that ended the last ice age was a different phenomenon. It would be strange to say that the warming of the earth that ended the last ice age was not an instance of global warming. |
:I agree with your comments, and have removed both texts in question. The first of those statements that you question is simply not true, and for the second one, see this web page: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/14/greenhouse.gases.02/ |
This may be relevent since some people may claim that any global warming we are experiencing today is part of the broad historical trend that began thousands of years ago and is not a new, man-made development. So distinguishing between the naturally occuring climate change and any human-induced climate change may be desirable. - TS
I have a complaint about this article, in that I believe that it makes a very common mistake of mixing basic and uncontroversial scientific information with a decidedly normative view of the consequences of change. The article treats global warming as a bad thing, which it may well be, but it does so without a balanced presentation of the potential benefits. I think there's a natural and common tendency to assume that any change to the climate is bad, but this needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.
It is thought that the reduction in forested area has also played a factor, as forests convert these gasses back into organic materials.
I'm not real happy with this (and some related) articles either and they're on my to do list, but they've been slipping a bit lately. --Pinkunicorn
I've moved the bits on the IPCC to later in the article since I think a discussion of what the phenomenon is believed to be should come before a discussion of who is studying it. --KQ
I would recommend restructuring the article so that it lists in order a) what it is, b) what is the evidence, c) what are the suspected causes, d) what are the suspected effects. Right now, these points are all scattered through the article in a confused and disorderly manner. - Tim
That sounds like a good suggestion, Tim. Joao, don't shout, please. :-) I recognize that there is controversy about it; I just moved the info because I thought it made more sense to explain the topic before introducing whoever's studying it--for someone who doesn't know what the topic is, that approach is both distracting and uninformative. Tim's suggested approach seems the most logical. We should not forget to add dissenting opinions at the end, since the subject is controversial. --KQ
Sorry, I maybe wrong on my comment above. However, we must take into account that there several points of view. The point of view of:
I' m going to add more information from the IPCC report. Since english is not my native language I will have some dificulties integrating it in the structure suggested by Tim, so be free to edit everything I write.
Some scientists believe that there are benefits to agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere precisely because of longer growing season and higher CO2 concentrations. joao
Article on that here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/news/090501/1.html --KQ
There is no final consensus about existence of global warming. Temperature is changing all the time and there were hotter times in last thousand years, so it's unsure whether "global warming" is long-term issue or just a short-term fluctuation.
I moved some other parts of old text.
I changed the struture proposed by Tim above:
a) what it is
b) what is the evidence
c) what are the suspected causes
d) what are the suspected effects
and I added:
e) prediction of future trends
Now I think we need to add:
f) possible future effects
g) proposed solutions
h) economic analysis
i) political debate
The IPCC analyzed the consequences of observed warming on the snow cover an ice extent, global average sea level , precipitation, cloud cover, El nino and extreme Whether events. IPCC reports that:
Many people believe that increased of concentrations of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere, which causes more of the energy radiated from the Sun to be absorbed by the Earth might be one of causes. But it could also be a result, as solubility of CO2 in water is smaller in high temperatures, so oceans are releasing more CO2 to the atmosphere as the temperature raises.
But there is life in oceans that might have opposite reaction to temperature and level of CO2 in atmosphere, therefore reaction of ocean waters != reaction of oceans.
And this version isn't NeutralPointOfView. --Taw
I agree. Find or write a summary instead, or remove the link. --Pinkunicorn
I removed the italicized quote above from the main page, to keep the discussion here. --Pinkunicorn
''However, the number of scientists expressing skepticism on the global warming issue continues to grow (see [Heidelberg Appeal]?, [Leipzig Declaration]?). ''
This is not NPOV. Who says the number of scientists expressing skepticism on the global warming issue continues to grow? They desagree about what? That there is no Global Warming? That Global Warming is not important? It's not antropogenic? Joao
''However, data from weather satellites and balloon instuments show no warming whatsoever, which calls into question how well land station data has been corrected for the urban heat island effect.''
Is this true? Joao