[suncorpse (OP)]

To overcome on the global warming problem, there is a great need to increse the forests and trees every where possible, because the green house effect cause more damages to our environment, the ultraviolate radiation is also growing, the rays coming on the earth are rediverting again on the earth this is the cause for the global temperature rise.

Trees are helpful in respect of giving rich oxygen and inhail co2, trees are best to hold dust pollution on to it. trees are the best to control ground winds, trees are the best if planted nearby sea beaches can minimize the tsunami like effects.

But today we are cutting trees and making the buildings every where, we are cutting the trees for our home's wooden doors, we are cutting the trees in the name of development, we are cutting the trees in the name of building dams.

what we are doing, are we the cause for global temperature and not nature?

[The Silurian Prince]

My lord, another tree hugger.  Don't you people ever wonder why people tune you out.  Your claims sound fanatical when we actually see little of the disastrous effects you are so paranoid of.  And why does it always have to sound like poetry.  Too much Rachel Carson in you maybe.  

I am however in agreement with you on your point.  Can I suggest that you look into some actual research.  I could direct you at some decent research but you would have to come down from your self righteous throne and look at work done by geologists who are bad mining people in your eyes.  

But if you look you will find there is some solid research that shows global warming can be strongly correlated to deforestation by farmers in Europe.  It also shows a response to the collapse of farms during the black plague in the way of a reversal.  

It may help your cause if you but some backing behind it rather than prose.

Enjoy diversity.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

May I suggest you take a look at the moonscape in Canada's backyard also as evidence and possibly the 1930's dust bowl in America, this is not a European problem it's a global problem.

And what may I ask is wrong with hugging trees?

Here in the Good Old United Kingdom, we are experiencing a drought in East Anglia. Way back in 1994 I tried to tell the East Anglia Water Company that reforesting the coastal regions would ensure an adequate water supply for future generations. Guess they thought I was just another tree hugging doo gooder.

Very interesting about the plague and reversal of rising temperatures though. How far did the plague spread through Europe?

Suncorpse, I would rather take a gamble on you being correct than gambling on what will happen when the last great forest on Earth Pales into insignificance at the hands of the two legged termite.

Long live the Chipco Movement!!

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

[suncorpse (OP)]

well I got it, S. Prince and Andrew. Thanks for the replies.
as far as the movements are concern there are many movements are going on in the world, we are discussing world at a glace and not a specific place or an individual what he is doing for the trees. in my opinion a special law has to made for the world to grow the trees round the years and look after them accordingly, what will be the results we have to forget but to increase the population of trees in millions more.

sunil

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by suncorpse
To overcome on the global warming problem, there is a great need to increse the forests and trees every where possible, because the green house effect cause more damages to our environment, the ultraviolate radiation is also growing, the rays coming on the earth are rediverting again on the earth this is the cause for the global temperature rise.

Trees are helpful in respect of giving rich oxygen and inhail co2, trees are best to hold dust pollution on to it. trees are the best to control ground winds, trees are the best if planted nearby sea beaches can minimize the tsunami like effects.

But today we are cutting trees and making the buildings every where, we are cutting the trees for our home's wooden doors, we are cutting the trees in the name of development, we are cutting the trees in the name of building dams.
what we are doing, are we the cause for global temperature and not nature?

While I accept your point about trees being one of the factors for controlling wind, and for managing soil erosion; they do not help with global warming.

Global warming would happen, with or without trees.  The CO2 that is absorbed by trees is released straight beck into the atmosphere in forest fires and when trees are eaten or decay.  A mature forest environment (i.e. one that is neither growing nor shrinking) is a forest that emits exactly as much carbon (wither as CO2 or as CH4) back into the atmosphere as it absorbs from it.

George

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Trees do help with global warming in many ways. For example, it has long been realised that once the trees have been removed from a land the rainfall diminishes, therefore planting trees in a place where they are likely to draw in moisture from the ocean will cause it to fall as rain inland. Also, removing all vegetation from the soil enables the suns energy to strike the land and return it to the atmosphere, whereas having a transpiring forest in place of baron soil would inevitably block out or at least suppress the suns energy. Simply standing in a wooded area on a blazing hot day you can feel a massive difference in ambient temperature.

Global warming is not about how much co2 is in the air, but about how the worlds airborne moisture is circulated around the globe. I.E. a clear sky under the sun around the equator provides nothing in the way of airborne moisture or clouds, in fact the heat from such areas prevents moisture from crossing onto the land by creating thermal lift, causing clouds to roll along the coastline to fall as rain in an area covered in forest, or worse at sea. Spread the clouds around a bit more by reforesting foremer desert areas and we shall begin to see rain falling in these areas and more to the point, if the rain is more equally spread around the globe, we shall see less floods and less mudslides.

Focusing on co2 distribution serves little purpose with this argument.

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

[The Silurian Prince]

I'm with all you guys on this one.  Sorry for cranking you up.  I was just trying to stir the pot.  

I'm a tree hugger myself but I get frustrated with these poetic types that don't but any backing behind their statements.  It's pretty clear from the research I have looked at that deforestation is the main cause of global warming along with rice farming and pasture dung by 8000ya.  

I know this sounds a bit absurd but it's all been charted and shows a strong correlation.  I do have a couple of papers on pdf files that I could send to an email but if your really interested in the black plague farming thing check out the papers written by a guy named William F. Ruddiman at the University of Virginia.  You can find some of his stuff on Google Scholar. He has some pretty good evidence that an ice age should have started a while back in Labrador Canada but was halted by these practices in Europe and Asia.  I wasn't trying to pick on you Europeans.  

Anyway the little ice age lasted a few hundred years and some guys at Utrecht University have shown that lake sediments show an increase in pollen from the natural forest and a decrease in pollen from crops that strongly resembles the climate cooling trend. This would mean that the climate cooled into the little ice age as farms were allowed to regrow into natural areas.  There is alot of modelling because of some insufficient data from that period so take it or leave it. I think it's better than nothing.  And I don't think there is any doubt that there was a long period of very cold years from 1300 on until nearly 1900.  

As far as Another Someone goes, I'm sure he's correct about a healthy forest being in Carbon equilibrium but if you chop the forest down and burn it his argument goes up in smoke.  Boo Yah.

Why is it so hard to think that the Earth System works the same as the rest of nature.  If you offset something that has evolved into balance overcompensation occurs.  In the case of the Earth a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming and sea level rise (I know tectonics have more to do with large transgressions).  Carbonate platforms proliferate during sea level transgressions and dense tropic forests form all over the globe.  Thereby extracting enough Co2 for the system to regain health.  I don't think it's implausible to think overcompensation began when major deforestation and burning began.  



Enjoy diversity.

[suncorpse (OP)]

I think the carbon level was as it is since a very long. Today it is quite clear that we the "man" is responsible to adding it with our great efforts, the oil and other smoke releasing items cause increase in the level of co2, do you think that the growing hydrogen use will minimize this problem, it is also not possible to do a absolute use of hydrogen gas worldwide for our fuel needs and power related machinaries. today we are also fail in maintaining the original status co ante of the earth's atmosphere, the ozone layor is substantially becoming more thin. so besides trees there is need to increase the use of non smoking and non carbon releasing materials to use for burn on the earth.  in the kyoto agreement the use of hydrogen is made much highlighted. silurian prince have a great number of papers as they said above, that's a great work, really commendable one.  

sunil  ( enjoying diversity)

[another_someone]

That there is a reduction in cultivated land during the little ice age is not particularly a surprise – but the real question is which was is the link of causality.  If you reduce global temperatures, then you would expect a reduction in crop yields.

Around the 14th century, the other factor that would have significantly affected crop production would have been the Black Death, which produced a drop in population, and thus both a drop in demand for food, and a drop in available labour force to grow that food.  Nonetheless, long before the 17th century, population levels would have recovered and exceeded earlier values.

The point is that there is good evidence (unless you are to tell me that you know of more recent research to the contrary) that changes in the sunspot cycle were correlated with the changes in global temperature between the 17th and 20th century.  It seems clear that the Earth's climate cannot alter the sunspot cycle, and so the direction of causality cannot be questioned there, only the degree of causality can be brought into question.

As for the notion that the balance of carbon in the environment has been in balance, at a constant level, and has not shifted from that level until Humans came along and started lighting fires and cutting down trees:

From http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2883#30297

quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/883398.stm

quote:
Carbon dioxide is the main gas caused by human activity that has been linked to global warming. Concentrations now are about 360 ppm (parts per million), but will continue to rise as emissions increase.

quote:
The researchers estimate that between about 60 and 52 million years ago, CO2 concentrations reached more than 2,000 ppm.
But from about 55 to 40 million years ago, there was "an erratic decline", which may have been caused by a reduction in CO2 emissions from ocean ridges and volcanoes, and by increased carbon burial.
Since about 24 million years ago, concentrations appear to have remained below 500 ppm and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 million years ago.

In other words, not only have there been significantly greater levels of CO2 in our atmosphere in the past, without our having become Venusian, but in fact, it may even be argued that the CO2 levels of the last 24 million years is anomalously low.

The fact is that the entire atmosphere would be completely CO2, were it not for photosynthesis.  It would seem rather strange if photosynthesis is capable of converting 98.4% of the CO2 into O2, and yet is unable to convert that last 0.16% from CO2 to O2.  Since the level of photosynthesis is already sufficient to get as near to 100% conversion to O2 as to quash any doubt that it has the capacity to go to 100% conversion,. increasing the amount of photosynthesis available is unlikely to make that much difference to the amount of O2 or CO2 in the atmosphere, and it can only be the rate of creation of CO2 alone that must the the determining factor (i.e. CO2 that has not yet been captured by a photosynthetic process, or that has been captured and then reconverted back to O2 and not yet recaptured).  I don't see that even a doubling of the amount of photosynthesis capacity of the planet would make much difference, since we are well on the downward slope of diminishing returns.
Clearly, reducing the amount of fresh CO2 pumped into the atmosphere would have a greater impact, but it is not clear that even this is the determining factor (e.g. it could be that factors such as ambient temperature, which can have an effect on forest fires and other carbon oxidation processes, and maybe on the efficiency of the photosynthesis process itself) could have a reverse causal effect upon the gas ratios in the atmosphere (i.e. that, rather than CO2 causing an increase in temperature, it is the increase in global temperature that causes an increase in CO2, or maybe a combination of both – and then neither is directly under human control).

George

[The Silurian Prince]

Wow,  I'm guessing it was the Boo Yah.

I am aware of fluctutions in the past. It has been proposed as the reason for a couple of mass extinctions from outgasing of volcanoes.  Deccan trap in India was the one your talking about I believe.  I was refering to the last 25 thousand years or so.

What are those estimates based on that you are ranting about. The one that says researchers estimate that between 50 and 60 millions years......  (sorry I can't figure out this quote thing yet).  Thats not science that is Hollywood style funding proposals on the BBC.  I'm a little weary of science in the news, usually looking for funding or fame. What backs up these claims?  There is not much room for blind estimates in this kind of thing.  Show me the results of a study not a sound bit on the BBC.

You have a very good point about the crop thing.  It's a kind of chicken and egg question right.  Did the climate force less crop or ...
Very good point.  Remember I am talking about changes that began 8000 years ago.  After population rebuilt there could be some time before a reversal to a warming trend was felt.

I haven't seen the sun spot correlation myself.  What I know (or at least think up to this point) is that it's a bit of the same science as above. I think that it's possible that the sun effects our climate. I think we are certain that the suns output fluctuates.  As for a strong correlation you would have to show me one.  I have yet to see one that looks good to me.  The correlation is a stretch to tie the Maunder Minimum to the Little Ice Age.  The ages don't even match.  I don't see the correlation so what is it.  

My main point was that a balanced system needs very little to throw it into a state of overcompensation.  The quote about Paleo CO2 levels coincides with the end of the Dinosuars.  So are you trying to say that it's alright if levels fluctuate like that.  Or jsut that we can't control it.  

I think we can't control it if it's related to outgasing that can't be balanced out.  But if the controls are shocked into actions by a small imbalance then we might be able to do something yet.

Enjoy diversity.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by The Silurian Prince
 I was refering to the last 25 thousand years or so.

25,000 years is not a long time – homo sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years.

quote:Originally posted by The Silurian Prince
Remember I am talking about changes that began 8000 years ago.

Interesting you should mention 8,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

quote:
Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode

quote:Originally posted by The Silurian Prince
I haven't seen the sun spot correlation myself.  What I know (or at least think up to this point) is that it's a bit of the same science as above. I think that it's possible that the sun effects our climate. I think we are certain that the suns output fluctuates.  As for a strong correlation you would have to show me one.  I have yet to see one that looks good to me.  The correlation is a stretch to tie the Maunder Minimum to the Little Ice Age.  The ages don't even match.  I don't see the correlation so what is it.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum

quote:
Little Ice Age
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters.
Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate. Some scientists believe that solar variation drives climate change more than carbon dioxide does.

quote:Originally posted by The Silurian Prince
So are you trying to say that it's alright if levels fluctuate like that.  Or jsut that we can't control it.

Not sure what 'all-right' means in this context.  'all-right' seems to imply to me some sort of moral judgement – it is not our place to judge nature, just to learn to survive whatever it is we need to survive.

No, I don't believe we can control it, any more than we can control much else that nature has to throw at us, and I think we just have to learn to roll with the punches, and not believe we can stop those punches from coming our way.

quote:Originally posted by The Silurian Prince
I think we can't control it if it's related to outgasing that can't be balanced out.  But if the controls are shocked into actions by a small imbalance then we might be able to do something yet.

Is that not like saying that we can control a hurricane because the hurricane might have been caused by a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the world, and we know we are capable of stopping a butterfly from flapping its wings.

George

[The Silurian Prince]

I was looking for an argument so I guess I got one.  Ok so homo sapiens have been around for likely a bit longer than 100,000 years.  They lived in harmony with the environment until when?  Likely the agricultural revolution so around 8000 or so years ago in China and Mesopotamia. This spreads fairly rapidly because it allows population to boom and cities to form.  These cities spread to colder regions because people can store food, build shelters and heat them with wood.  

So the Maunder Minimum coincides with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age.  How does this provide a plausible hypothesis as to what brought on the little ice age.  The age began when Sun spot activity was normal.  Thats why I said I haven't seen any solid evidence yet.


What I think is that by the time the little ice age began enough deforestation had occured that a threshold was reached.  Cities were far reaching into cold areas and farming was on a grand scale.  Sounds plausible to me.  If the Maunder min occurred during the middle of the age I say it's likely a coincidence.  If you could show me an obvious fluctuation in activity as the ice age began and a trend then follows the path I would say you've got me. It possibly had a small affect on the coldest part.  There is pretty good evidence from lake cores that changes follow the differences in natural pollen compared to pollen from crops.

So roughly 25000 ya the climate was on it's natural course.  Affected by natural acts,  possibly including sun spot activitiy.  But apparently things changed at about 8,000 ya.  Sun spot activity was normal at this time.  Agriculture was taking off.  Seems like the only logical answer to me is that farming and deforestation caused it.  

I don't know where your going with the two last quotes and comments.  I think maybe you took them out of context or something.   You said that CO2 levels can actually be considered pretty low because when the dinosaurs went extinct they are estimated at being 2000ppm compared to 300 ppm.  I said thats not all right, not kosher, not cool, not healthy, not acceptable,  however you want to say it it was an extinction event and I don't want to go extinct yet.

What I was trying to say about outgasing is that if major volcanic outgasing or release of gas from over-heated oceans is the cause then we should dig holes like the small mammals did to survive the last extinction(just kidding please don't quote me).  If the cause is a threshold reached due to deforestation causing overcompensation of Earth's systems then maybe we can do something about it.  I don't know where you were going with those.

Enjoy diversity.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by The Silurian Prince

I was looking for an argument so I guess I got one.

Always willing to oblige []

quote:
 Ok so homo sapiens have been around for likely a bit longer than 100,000 years.  They lived in harmony with the environment until when?

To me, this is a naïve concept.  Homo sapiens have never lived in harmony with nature, they have been, and are, a part of nature.  To suggest that the live in harmony with nature is to suggest that they are separate from nature.

If you look at the longer term trends:


I cannot see the present recent trends as anything abnormal (although I accept that this graph does not have fine enough detail to show clearly the last few centuries, but it does show quite considerable variability, and a pattern that would allow quite a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature to occur around now, and still be within the long term patterns).

One thing you will notice, that struck me as interesting, is the timing of the CO2 and temperature graphs.  Sometimes the peeks coincide, and sometimes temperature leads CO2, but never the other way around.  This seems to indicate that increasing temperature is the cause of increasing CO2, and not the other way around.

quote:
  Likely the agricultural revolution so around 8000 or so years ago in China and Mesopotamia. This spreads fairly rapidly because it allows population to boom and cities to form.  These cities spread to colder regions because people can store food, build shelters and heat them with wood.  

No, it actually took quite some time for agriculture to reach the cooler parts of the world, because of the need to develop the technology to deal with the heavier soils.

Cities did not reach northern Europe until the spread of the Roman empire, although agriculture had preceded it by a few thousand years (but still, not immediately upon the invention of agriculture in the Middle East, Indus valley, and China (probably northern Mesopotamia was the first of these).

quote:
So the Maunder Minimum coincides with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age.  How does this provide a plausible hypothesis as to what brought on the little ice age.  The age began when Sun spot activity was normal.  Thats why I said I haven't seen any solid evidence yet.

That is not my reading of the article.

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the little ice age, because it was the minimum; but the minimum was part of a process that covered several centuries which bottomed out during that period of time.

quote:
So roughly 25000 ya the climate was on it's natural course.  Affected by natural acts,  possibly including sun spot activitiy.  But apparently things changed at about 8,000 ya.  Sun spot activity was normal at this time.  Agriculture was taking off.  Seems like the only logical answer to me is that farming and deforestation caused it.

On the contrary, if you look at the other quote I gave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

quote:
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago.

In other words, about 8,000 years ago, the level of solar activity was exceptionally high, just as it is today; thus one would have expected a period of time 8,000 years ago that was warmer than any intervening period until today.



The above chart does indeed seem to show just such a warm period about 8000 years ago, which then cooled in the intermediate millennia, only to start warming again only very recently.

One of the inferences that might be taken from this is that increased solar activity actually is a stimulant for human achievment.

quote:
I don't know where your going with the two last quotes and comments.  I think maybe you took them out of context or something.   You said that CO2 levels can actually be considered pretty low because when the dinosaurs went extinct they are estimated at being 2000ppm compared to 300 ppm.  I said thats not all right, not kosher, not cool, not healthy, not acceptable,  however you want to say it it was an extinction event and I don't want to go extinct yet.

Firstly, 300ppm is still well short of 2000ppm.

But that apart, if we have no control over it, then it makes little difference as to whether you think it is cool, kosher, or acceptable – it is not for you to choose.  You either live with it, or you die with it, but it ain't gonna go away.

quote:
If the cause is a threshold reached due to deforestation causing overcompensation of Earth's systems then maybe we can do something about it.  I don't know where you were going with those.

But that is if – what I am saying is that I don't believe that that has a significant contribution to make, and none of the graphs indicate that it has.

I don;t believe that even if we planted a tree in every spare square inch of ground, I don;t believe it will make any significant difference to either CO2 levels, nor to global warming (when you are talking about issues such a soil condition, the matter may be more complex; but that is not the issue we have been discussing).

As I said, the present photosynthesis on this planet is sufficient to convert 98.4% of the CO2 that was in the atmosphere to O2; I don't believe that any system is going to be capable of doing very much better than that, even if you double the amount of photosynthesis capacity of the planet.

The residual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not, IMO, due to lack of photosynthesis capacity, but due to other factors, primarily the rate of CO2 production (not necessarily due to, or solely due to, human activity; and very likely, at least in part, in part a consequence of rising temperatures).

If the level of O2 and CO2 were more equal in the atmosphere, then I could well imagine that ramping up the photosynthesis capacity of the planet would make a significant change to the balance between CO2 and O2; but at the present levels, I suspect the effect would not be noticable.

George

[suncorpse (OP)]

really a big work by another-someone, thanks for the veriations shown in the tables above. do you think that the temperature veriations were mostly much wide during the high activities and very intesively on the earth, during the magma erruptions at that time made our atmosphere already poluted? and the burned material had the carbonic base? till then to upto date the increments of the pollution made the seen much critical today.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by suncorpse

really a big work by another-someone, thanks for the veriations shown in the tables above. do you think that the temperature veriations were mostly much wide during the high activities and very intesively on the earth, during the magma erruptions at that time made our atmosphere already poluted? and the burned material had the carbonic base? till then to upto date the increments of the pollution made the seen much critical today.

Firstly, the term 'polluted' is a human perspective – the atmosphere is constantly influenced by many things, and to regard whether something is polluted or not must imply some prejudiced notion of what an unpolluted atmosphere should be like.

The original 'virgin' atmosphere on this planet would have contained no oxygen, but mostly CO2 and nitrogen.  Oxygen itself is a waste product of photosynthesis, and only arrived on the planet with the evolutionary development of the first blue-green algae, and when it did arrive, the substance was highly toxic to most of the other primitive life forms that existed at the time.  In that context, what do you regard as 'pollution'?

I am not sure how the pattern of volcanism relates to the history of either CO2 content in the atmosphere, nor the temperature on the planet; but since, as I indicated, in a number of cases CO2 levels peeked only after the temperature peeked, and in no case did it peek before the temperature peeked; thus it implies (if the graph is correct) that CO2 itself is not the primary determinant of global temperature; thus it would seem unlikely that volcanism is the primary determinant of global warming (whether it can cause global cooling, or whether volcanism can be triggered by global warming, is not something that is obvious from the graphs).

My own suspicion is that increases in global temperatures cause an increase in natural combustion (forest and peat fires, etc.); and this both raises levels of CO2 directly, as well as temporarily reducing the amount of photosyntheses.  Another, more complex, and thus less probable, scenario could be that increased global temperatures caused an increase in rainfall (due to increased evaporation), which then triggered an increase in the number of earthquakes along slip faults, which then released subterranean methane, which then oxidised to CO2.  There may well be other factors involved that I am not aware of, but this seems the simplest explanation for why CO2 levels might rise in the aftermath of global warming.

Ofcourse, human being do also contribute to the amount of combustion on that planet, which may or may not be above that which is normal (clearly, the human contribution will add the the amount of combustion in one context, what has yet to be ascertained is whether humans are, either directly or indirectly, suppressing other (non-human) sources of combustion).

But, if CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, then controlling CO2 levels is unlikely to have any significant impact upon global warming (at least, not within the small amounts of CO2 that are present in the atmosphere – if we were talking about CO2 levels 100 times greater than they are, the matter might be different, since we have no palaeoclimatic precedent, excepting in the very earliest era of the Earth's existence, for such high amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere).

George

[suncorpse (OP)]

ok, your persepective is quite good one in this regard, increase in level of natural combustion may cause the global warming much on higher side, that's quite right. and you said that only co2 is not the primary cause of global warming, then what are other diterminant points factors to re-define this! GW.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by suncorpse

ok, your persepective is quite good one in this regard, increase in level of natural combustion may cause the global warming much on higher side, that's quite right. and you said that only co2 is not the primary cause of global warming, then what are other diterminant points factors to re-define this! GW.

With regard to the last few thousand years, I think there is adequate correlation between changes in solar output and changes in global temperature for us to assume that this is at least a major factor in global warming (it will probably be impossible to say that it is the only factor, only that the evidence seems to point to it being a major, and probably the primary factor).

When we go beyond the last few thousand years, I don't believe we yet have enough evidence of levels of solar output to know for sure if it was also responsible for the much wider variations that occurred in global temperature.

To be absolutely fair, one also has to be careful in interpreting the graph for such extended time periods (those extending over hundreds of thousands of years).  While it is most tempting to accept the graph at face value, it is likely that the actual figures only reflect what was happening in two or three places around the world, and any guess that this was typical of what was happening throughout the world at that time must be taken with caution.  It may well be that the graphs are telling us a substantially accurate story, but in all fairness to those who may wish to cast doubt on the veracity of those graphs, I doubt that anyone is yet in a position to demonstrate that this is so.

George

[suncorpse (OP)]

well the solar output may be cause as you are saying above, besides the ground pollution like industrial pollution, in the 18th century or before that there was a great use of woods to burn in the hot places round the world, and the smoke go out from the chimney also cause the increment in the co2.

secondly, the middle portion of the earth africa, asia and some other parts of the earth always gone through the very hot zones, the average temperature was 40-48 degrees, today also the same temperature this area is suffering, here in this region the green house effect is continuously doubling than the previous and adding the rise in the temperature and later made the atmosphere more hot than the previous one,  in other directions the coming infrared, ultraviolate, gamma rays on the earth are not properly coming their diversion course is some what disturbed and also cause the temperature rise.  the rain calender is also disturbed, the earth's own heat is rarely getting cool in the evening, the heat is more being hold on the surface and on the upper portions of the atmosphere. the ozone layer is becoming problamatical day by day and we are getting trouble and also we are facing the severe and more intensively the heat matters here.  the solar heat on the earth's atmosphere drops some alarming light and tend to increase in the total temperature wizard.

sunil

[VAlibrarian]

Aha! Global warming, my favorite topic!
While I am a big proponent of tree planting as a means of controlling erosion and improving hydrology in the natural systems that support human life, I do not feel that it is currently adequate of itself to address the massive problem of global warming.  The human activity of burning fossil fuel generates CO2 as we know, which operates in the atmosphere as a heat trapping gas. In past decades the haze of particle pollution in coal fired industry tended to mask this effect by reducing the amount of sunlight that penetrated to ground level. However humans in Europe and North America have in recent decades installed scrubber equipment to eliminate these particles, so there is now very little "haze" to reflect sunlight away from our planet. The heat trapping effect of the constantly rising CO2 levels can therefore be expected to accelerate further in the next few decades.

Please read The Weather Makers by Australian scientist Tim Flannery to be fully informed on this subject. While he points out the grave threats posed by global warming he also points out that optimism is the only logical response to the threat. Taking action is the only way to solve the problem- if we throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can do to change it, then our grandchildren will just have to do without Venice, Florida, Bangladesh, and any other land masses that are within a few feet of sea level.


chris wiegard

[Andrew K Fletcher]

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2686
Practical tree planting without any costs

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"