The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on January 28, 2008, 12:24:03 PM
-
Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting
Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.
In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.
"This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet" in Antarctica, Vaughan said.
Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.
Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell during the next 2,300 years.
Still, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves over an elliptical area about 110 miles, or 176 kilometers, wide were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.
The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. "It's probably within Alexander the Great's lifetime, but not more precise than that," Vaughan said.
Story (http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=9358350)
an inconvenient :doh:
-
Just wait.....
algore will blame the volcanoes on the "hole in the ozone" over Antarctica. :whatever:
...which, of course, can be blamed on the eeeeeeeevil Booooooosh!
:mental:
-
This might be good in ammo forum...
GLOBAL WARMING: Volcanoes, Not Man, Melting Anarctic Ice
-
This might be good in ammo forum...
GLOBAL WARMING: Volcanoes, Not Man, Melting Anarctic Ice
Not so fast. According to the article, volcanoes are contributing to glacier melt but are not the primary cause of it...
Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.
If you are looking for science to support the claim that global warming is not anthropogenic, this article is not it.
-
This might be good in ammo forum...
GLOBAL WARMING: Volcanoes, Not Man, Melting Anarctic Ice
Not so fast. According to the article, volcanoes are not the primary cause of glacier melting but are only contributing to it...
Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.
If you are looking for evidence to support the claim that global warming is not anthropogenic, this article is not it.
any time a climatologist suggests anything other than my SUV as the sole cause of global climate change, and any solution other than outlawing both the internal combustion engine (for openers) and human economic choice (ultimately), it is a flat win for common sense.
-
any time a climatologist suggests anything other than my SUV as the sole cause of global climate change, and any solution other than outlawing both the internal combustion engine (for openers) and human economic choice (ultimately), it is a flat win for common sense.
I can assure you that no scientist worth his or her salt is arguing that one SUV is causing climate change.
:-)
-
any time a climatologist suggests anything other than my SUV as the sole cause of global climate change, and any solution other than outlawing both the internal combustion engine (for openers) and human economic choice (ultimately), it is a flat win for common sense.
I can assure you that no scientist worth his or her salt is arguing that one SUV is causing climate change.
:-)
Must you always be so disingenuous?
So Vaughn says warmer oceans.
Methinks the sun is more likely to warm the oceans far before mankind.
-
Must you always be so disingenuous?
What have I been disingenuous about?
So Vaughn says warmer oceans.
You suggested that the article in question is "ammo" which can be used to refute the claim that climate change is anthropogenic, but nothing in the article refutes the claim that climate change is anthropogenic. All the article says is that volcanoes may be contributing to the melting of glaciers. You jumped the gun.
Methinks the sun is more likely to warm the oceans far before mankind.
What you thinks is not necessarily what David Vaughan thinks.
-
When cornered you tend to respond with flippant, irrelevant comments. That's being disingenuous.
As for "jumping the gun" nothing in the article suggests GW is man-made, only that glacial melting is volcanic and possibly oceanic. Now before we hand over regulatory, legislative and economic control to a bunch of alarmists in Lear jets do we have anything worth being alarmed about?
-
When cornered you tend to respond with flippant, irrelevant comments. That's being disingenuous.
Lighten up, guy. My comment that no scientists are arguing that one SUV is the source of climate change was a joke. I thought you guys from The Peep's Cube had a sense of humor.
As for "jumping the gun" nothing in the article suggests GW is man-made, only that glacial melting is volcanic and possibly oceanic.
Dude... I haven't argued that the article suggests that global warming is the result of human activities. All I'm saying is that the article is not what you thought it to be. No biggie.
-
any time a climatologist suggests anything other than my SUV as the sole cause of global climate change, and any solution other than outlawing both the internal combustion engine (for openers) and human economic choice (ultimately), it is a flat win for common sense.
I can assure you that no scientist worth his or her salt is arguing that one SUV is causing climate change.
:-)
yeah, but you can't swing your arm in academia without whacking a salt-free scientist.
-
When cornered you tend to respond with flippant, irrelevant comments. That's being disingenuous.
Lighten up, guy. My comment that no scientists are arguing that one SUV is the source of climate change was a joke. I thought you guys from The Peep's Cube had a sense of humor.
As for "jumping the gun" nothing in the article suggests GW is man-made, only that glacial melting is volcanic and possibly oceanic.
Dude... I haven't argued that the article suggests that global warming is the result of human activities. All I'm saying is that the article is not what you thought it to be. No biggie.
Except your comment was not to me, it was towards someone who, granted was using hyperbole, to illustrate the point that SUV's are more than likely NOT the culprit to the earth's cyclical warming.
As you chose to not respond with a genuine answer we must assume you have no answer.
Your (over-)reliance on muddled ambiguity, i.e. "What you thinks is not necessarily what David Vaughan thinks." only adds to the contention you have nothing to add. This is the same tactic you're attempting in the Fight Club thread: make assertion, leave it unproven, rely on meaningless statements such as "the court of public opinion."
I maintain my petition that you not be banned because you serve as a prime example of the vacuousness of liberal ideology.
-
This might be good in ammo forum...
GLOBAL WARMING: Volcanoes, Not Man, Melting Anarctic Ice
Not so fast. According to the article, volcanoes are contributing to glacier melt but are not the primary cause of it...
Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.
If you are looking for science to support the claim that global warming is not anthropogenic, this article is not it.
It is yet another brick in the wall against -- and provides no support for --human-based GW.
Just as algore created a paper tiger based on junk science brick by brick, so shall real science eventually reassert itself, brick by brick.
Liar.
-
It is yet another brick in the wall against -- and provides no support for --human-based GW.
The fact that the article does not present evidence in support of the idea that global warming is being caused by human activities does not mean that it should be taken as evidence against the idea that global warming is being cause by human activities.
The article is about a recent study which indicates that volcanoes are contributing to the melting of glaciers- nothing more and nothing less.
-
It is yet another brick in the wall against -- and provides no support for --human-based GW.
The fact that the article does not present evidence in support of the idea that global warming is being caused by human activities does not mean that it should be taken as evidence against the idea that global warming is being cause by human activities.
The article is about a recent study which indicates that volcanoes are contributing to the melting of glaciers- nothing more and nothing less.
As glacial melting is thrown at us as evidence of global warming...yeah, this article does much to debunk the allegation.
-
It is yet another brick in the wall against -- and provides no support for --human-based GW.
The fact that the article does not present evidence in support of the idea that global warming is being caused by human activities does not mean that it should be taken as evidence against the idea that global warming is being cause by human activities.
The article is about a recent study which indicates that volcanoes are contributing to the melting of glaciers- nothing more and nothing less.
Did you major in non-sequiturs?
Proof that global warming is being caused by volcanoes subtracts from any ideas that GW is cause by humans.
You can slick your skin with vasoline but that doesn't make you any slicker.
We have proof that GW is natural. You have no proof that humans cause it.
Yet another liberal lie.
Liar.
-
Proof that global warming is being caused by volcanoes subtracts from any ideas that GW is cause by humans.
The article does not contain any claims that volcanoes are causing global warming. The article is about a study which suggests that volcanoes may be contributing to glacial melting.
-
Proof that global warming is being caused by volcanoes subtracts from any ideas that GW is cause by humans.
The article does not contain any claims that volcanoes are causing global warming. The article is about a study which suggests that volcanoes may be contributing to glacial melting.
which, in turn, is used as a major support for . . . . never mind.
-
As glacial melting is thrown at us as evidence of global warming...yeah, this article does much to debunk the allegation.
Considering that the article indicates that volcanoes are only contributing to glacial melting and not causing it, I don't understand why you would suggest that it debunks the notion that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.
Some have tried to suggest that a conflict exists between the idea that natural processes are contributing to global warming and the idea that mankind is the primary cause of global warming, but scientists don't see it that way. Most of the science on global warming supports the idea that it may be the result of a combination of natural processes and human activities.
-
OK, let's try this again for the cephalically-impaired...
Melting glaciers are used as evidence of human caused global warming.
The article says volcanoes are a contributor.
However it also says the warming of the oceans may contribute as well.
(Although for my money if I were to wager as to which was a bigger contributor: magma that is 1000's of degrees in temperature or global warming that has raised temps by tenths of a degree...)
At best the question then becomes one of: what is warming the oceans because glacial ice melt pretty much ceases to serve as a GW bludgeon because if you say, "We have GW and we know this because the glaciers are melting!" we'll tell you that the scare tactics aren't going to wash if the ice is being melted by a volcano.
You need to find another Bogey Man because the creaking and the shadows scaring you at night were just the old elm tree outside the window.
-
most of the reports I have read refuse to admit that any natural causes may even contribute slightly to global warming; it is invariably attributed to man's presence on the planet, i.e., my SUV. I don't recall algore mentioning volcanoes. in fact, anyone that disagrees with the orthodoxy that man's activity is the sole cause of climate change is usually hooted right out of academic circles.
but I also found it interesting that infallible science misinterpreted a layer of ash as bedrock, thus causing the incorrect estimate of the depth of the ice shelf; it is thicker than they thought.
-
OK, let's try this again for the cephalically-impaired...
Melting glaciers are used as evidence of human caused global warming.
The article says volcanoes are a contributor.
However it also says the warming of the oceans may contribute as well.
(Although for my money if I were to wager as to which was a bigger contributor: magma that is 1000's of degrees in temperature or global warming that has raised temps by tenths of a degree...)
At best the question then becomes one of: what is warming the oceans because glacial ice melt pretty much ceases to serve as a GW bludgeon because if you say, "We have GW and we know this because the glaciers are melting!" we'll tell you that the scare tactics aren't going to wash if the ice is being melted by a volcano.
You need to find another Bogey Man because the creaking and the shadows scaring you at night were just the old elm tree outside the window.
Because TNO misinterprets all data ON PURPOSE. He is a self-confessed by implication liar and can't help himself. If you were to say "the sky is blue" he would say "well, it isn't green so that supports (libtard talking point here)."
He is a liar of the highest order.
-
So what is the correct temperature of the earth anyway?
-
So what is the correct temperature of the earth anyway?
the correct temperature of the earth is "not too cold, and not too hot". :-)
I think the whole notion of a "global temperature" is pretty misleading; the earth is too big, it's climate too diverse, it's geography to drastically different, and it's seasons too consequential, for there to be a particular number that can be relied upon as a global temperature without looking silly from a scientific perspective.
besides, I'm always a little cold, anyway.
-
So what is the correct temperature of the earth anyway?
the correct temperature of the earth is "not too cold, and not too hot". :-)
Eesh!
I had a vision of Algore in a pink dress and blonde curls playing Goldilocks.
-
So what is the correct temperature of the earth anyway?
the correct temperature of the earth is "not too cold, and not too hot". :-)
Eesh!
I had a vision of Algore in a pink dress and blonde curls playing Goldilocks.
bingo. :-)
-
At best the question then becomes one of: what is warming the oceans because glacial ice melt pretty much ceases to serve as a GW bludgeon because if you say, "We have GW and we know this because the glaciers are melting!" we'll tell you that the scare tactics aren't going to wash if the ice is being melted by a volcano.
Huh? On what basis do make the claim that glacial melting has ceased to be evidence that the Earth is warming and that mankind may be the primary cause of that warming? As I have said at least a few times now, the article indicates that volcanoes are only contributing to glacial melting, not causing it. The fact that volcanoes are contributing to glacial melting does not mean that anthropgenic warming is not the primary force or at least a significant force contributing to global warming.
That natural processes may be contributing to global warming in no way disputes the theory that global warming is anthropogenic in nature.
-
At best the question then becomes one of: what is warming the oceans because glacial ice melt pretty much ceases to serve as a GW bludgeon because if you say, "We have GW and we know this because the glaciers are melting!" we'll tell you that the scare tactics aren't going to wash if the ice is being melted by a volcano.
Huh? On what basis do make the claim that glacial melting has ceased to be evidence that the Earth is warming and that mankind may be the primary cause of that warming? As I have said at least a few times now, the article indicates that volcanoes are only contributing to glacial melting, not causing it. The fact that volcanoes are contributing to glacial melting does not mean that anthropgenic warming is not the primary force or at least a significant force contributing to global warming.
That natural processes may be contributing to global warming in no way disputes the theory that global warming is anthropogenic in nature.
For real? I mean, IF the glaciers in the Antarctic are melting because of volcanic activity does that not undermine the theory that man is causiong GW to some extent at least?
-
in fact, anyone that disagrees with the orthodoxy that man's activity is the sole cause of climate change is usually hooted right out of academic circles.
Among scientists who accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the most widely accepted view on what is causing that warming is best represented by the IPCC report. According to the IPCC, human activities are the primary cause of global warming, not the sole cause of it.
Please read page 100 of the IPCC FAQ on global warming...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases,
aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
-
For real? I mean, IF the glaciers in the Antarctic are melting because of volcanic activity does that not undermine the theory that man is causiong GW to some extent at least?
Please read the entire thread. The article in question does not contain a claim that glaciers are melting because of volcanic activities. The article is about research which indicates that volcanic activitiy is contributing to glacial melting.
-
Huh? On what basis do make the claim that glacial melting has ceased to be evidence that the Earth is warming and that mankind may be the primary cause of that warming? As I have said at least a few times now, the article indicates that volcanoes are only contributing to glacial melting, not causing it. The fact that volcanoes are contributing to glacial melting does not mean that anthropgenic warming is not the primary force or at least a significant force contributing to global warming.
That natural processes may be contributing to global warming in no way disputes the theory that global warming is anthropogenic in nature.
You are so goddam dense Superman can't see through your head.
The point is: taking melting glaciers, hoisting them in the air and yelling, "See! See! Mankind is doing this! Now hand over your economy and your laws!" is no longer viable. You need to lok at something other than glaciers to frighten us with your little bogey man stories.
Now go find us evidence of anthropogenic global warming that does not involve melting glaciers. The article mentioned the oceans. Why not try to tell us why the oceans are getting warmer (or as was alluded to earlier: perhaps they're returning to normal temperatures after a cool-down cycle)?
-
The point is: taking melting glaciers, hoisting them in the air and yelling, "See! See! Mankind is doing this! Now hand over your economy and your laws!" is no longer viable. You need to lok at something other than glaciers to frighten us with your little bogey man stories.
Straight up, guy... Why do you keep arguing that an article which contains a claim that volcanoes are contributing to, not causing, glacial melting somehow disproves the claim that mankind is the primary cause of climate change? I just don't understand your reasoning.
Now go find us evidence of anthropogenic global warming that does not involve melting glaciers.
You haven't provided a shred of evidence to prove the idea that glacial melting is entirely the result of natural processes so don't ask me to accept that idea as the premise for further discussion.
The fact that volcanoes and other natural forces are contributing to global warming does not disprove the idea that human activities are the primary cause or a significant cause of global warming. I don't know how to put it more simply than that.
The article mentioned the oceans. Why not try to tell us why the oceans are getting warmer (or as was alluded to earlier: perhaps they're returning to normal temperatures after a cool-down cycle)?
I haven't discussed the cause of rising ocean temperatures because my goal in this thread is to disabuse you of the notion that the article this thread is about contains evidence that mankind is not the cause of global warming or for that matter glacial melting.
-
in fact, anyone that disagrees with the orthodoxy that man's activity is the sole cause of climate change is usually hooted right out of academic circles.
Among scientists who accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the most widely accepted view on what is causing that warming is best represented by the IPCC report. According to the IPCC, human activities are the primary cause of global warming, not the sole cause of it.
Please read page 100 of the IPCC FAQ on global warming...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases,
aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
Jeeze, a study by a body that will get tons of money and, more importantly, power, by finding GW is caused by humans! Wow! I think you will have to wake me up from my fainting by surprise!!
Climatology is an infant science -- less than 30 years old. Remember Global Cooling in the 70's? Same folks.
I know science very well. And I assure you climatology is NOT science, yet. Give it 100 years or so and it might be a hand-child of science.
It is politics and guesswork at this point.
-
SUBJECT:
Glacial Ice Melt
POSSIBLE CAUSES:
Magma, measuring 1000's of degrees
Naturally occurring cyclical temperature shifts
Anthropogenic global warming measured in tenths-of-degrees
Of all the things listed that could be causing glacier melting why should I view mankind as THE threat?
-
Climatology is an infant science -- less than 30 years old. Remember Global Cooling in the 70's? Same folks.
Not true. The theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s was not widely accepted by scientists at the time. It was mostly a media phenomenon.
-
Not true. The theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s was not widely accepted by scientists at the time. It was mostly a media phenomenon.
Are you claiming there is a "consensus" among scientists concerning glabla warming?
Please say, yes.
-
Climatology is an infant science -- less than 30 years old. Remember Global Cooling in the 70's? Same folks.
Not true. The theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s was not widely accepted by scientists at the time. It was mostly a media phenomenon.
Source of your assertion? Liar.
-
SUBJECT:
Glacial Ice Melt
POSSIBLE CAUSES:
Magma, measuring 1000's of degrees
Naturally occurring cyclical temperature shifts
Anthropogenic global warming measured in tenths-of-degrees
Of all the things listed that could be causing glacier melting why should I view mankind as THE threat?
Silly rabbit. That's where the money and the power is!
-
IPCC: flawed data - http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12088
IPCC: flawed review process - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/45d3617c27d5ce63
As bad as the Hockey Stick.
Over 400 scientists, including many fromt the IPCC, seek to stave of anthropogenic GW bogey man - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
-
Not true. The theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s was not widely accepted by scientists at the time. It was mostly a media phenomenon.
Apparently, (http://www.oism.org/pproject)
neither (http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html)
is (http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977)
global (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)
warming. (http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html)
-
Source of your assertion? Liar.
If the theory of global cooling was widely supported by scientists in the 1970s, then you should have no trouble finding a lot of scientific literature in support of the theory. So, where is it? As far as I know, only one or two studies from the 1970s supported the theory of global cooling.
-
in fact, anyone that disagrees with the orthodoxy that man's activity is the sole cause of climate change is usually hooted right out of academic circles.
Among scientists who accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the most widely accepted view on what is causing that warming is best represented by the IPCC report. According to the IPCC, human activities are the primary cause of global warming, not the sole cause of it.
Please read page 100 of the IPCC FAQ on global warming...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases,
aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
you're trying to divert the focus of the discussion into an argument about your use of the word "primary", and my hyperbolic use of "sole" . . . and I'm not biting.
if you can't see how the geothermic activity of heretofore unknown volcanoes being significantly linked to glacial melting knocks a primary support out from under the entire global warming extortion industry, then you just haven't been paying attention to the puffed up propaganda that has been paraded around as science for the past decade ot so.
-
Source of your assertion? Liar.
If the theory of global cooling was widely supported by scientists in the 1970s, then you should have no trouble finding a lot of scientific literature in support of the theory. So, where is it? As far as I know, only one or two studies from the 1970s supported the theory of global cooling.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html
The latter has more sources.
Once again, I tell the truth and you lie.
Liar.
-
in fact, anyone that disagrees with the orthodoxy that man's activity is the sole cause of climate change is usually hooted right out of academic circles.
Among scientists who accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the most widely accepted view on what is causing that warming is best represented by the IPCC report. According to the IPCC, human activities are the primary cause of global warming, not the sole cause of it.
Please read page 100 of the IPCC FAQ on global warming...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases,
aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
Jeeze, a study by a body that will get tons of money and, more importantly, power, by finding GW is caused by humans! Wow! I think you will have to wake me up from my fainting by surprise!!
[snip]
this is the same bunch of bug eyed zealots that shared algore's nobel prize last year. that should tell you all you need to know about them.
-
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
An article in Newsweek is not what most people consider to be scientific literature.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html
Um... I hate to be the one to throw the cold water, but... the www.wmconnolley.org.uk page seems to refute, not support, your suggestion that the theory of global cooling was widely accepted by scientists. From the page...
I would summarise the Nat Geog article as supporting my POV: its non-commital. You could easily find out-of-context quotes to support your own POV, and so could I. So I'll do my best to quote honestly. The Nat Geog stuff is pretty similar to the Newsweek article from about the same time but much longer, and probbaly better.
To begin I'll show you the last two pages of the article and the graph thereon. Click on the thumbnail for a larger version (1200x900). Despite my poor photo (sorry about the flash; apologies about the appalling state of our carpet) I'm sure you can see the graph at the top with two dotted continuations at the end, one marked "warmer", the other "cooler". This is a pretty fair summary: no prediction (other than change, I suppose) and a clear indication of uncertainty.