Climate change

[Minty]

Good article IMO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm

[GenevaSaint]

if the MET office etc are getting near term predictions so wrong, how can we be so sure that the end of the world is coming..?

 

TDD, Climate change and the weather are two different things. There is a link, but short term weather is just that.

[Minty]

That article I just posted above highlights it quite nicely, and exactly the kind of misunderstanding that TDD has.

[dune]

THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL

 

FRESH doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.

 

 

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.

 

It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.

 

Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development.

 

Dr Pachauri denies any conflict of interest arising from his various roles.

 

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry.

 

Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: “I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.”

 

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

 

The IPCC was set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. It issued the glacier warning in a benchmark report in 2007 that was allegedly based on the latest research into global warming.

 

The scientists behind the report now admit they relied on a news story published in the New Scientist journal in 1999. The article was based on a short telephone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, then based in Delhi, who has since said his views were “speculation”.

 

The New Scientist report was picked up by the WWF and included in a 2005 paper.

 

It then became a key source for the IPCC which went further in suggesting the melting of the glaciers was “very likely”.

 

Yesterday, Professor Murari Lal who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

 

Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly.

 

Before the weakness in the IPCC’s research was exposed, Dr Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as “voodoo science”.

 

The revelations are the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal in November last year when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit appeared to show scientists fiddling the figures to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.

 

The scandal prompted critics to suggest that many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research.

 

Last month, the Daily Express published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man made.

 

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/152422

 

Cue scoffing from the leftie climate comrades. It's not an article in the Tree Huggers Daily AKA The Guardian so it cannot be taken seriously.

[aintforever]

Good article IMO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm

 

That is a good article but sceptics would be right to point out that he is only calling for scientists to show responsibility about how their work is presented to the public - now that it's nad freezing cold. There was no call for such thing when the hot summers were being blamed on global warming.

 

A hot summer/winter is as much "just weather" as a cold winter. I guess that's the point he is making but the fact he is making it now does hint at an agenda by the scientists.

[Minty]

That is a good article but sceptics would be right to point out that he is only calling for scientists to show responsibility about how their work is presented to the public - now that it's nad freezing cold. There was no call for such thing when the hot summers were being blamed on global warming.

 

A hot summer/winter is as much "just weather" as a cold winter. I guess that's the point he is making but the fact he is making it now does hint at an agenda by the scientists.

 

You think he hints at an agenda. That's entirely your interpretation. Now, no one will know if he has any agenda or not except him, but how sad is it that that seems to be the default position to any article like this... that someone has an ulterior motive or agenda. Why can't it just be taken for what it is?

 

It's akin to changing the law to 'guilty until proven innocent' and frankly this whole debate will get nowhere whilst that opinion prevails IMO.

[badgerx16]

In reply to Dune, ( his post is far too long to quote );

 

If that had come from any other source than the Express I would give it more credence, however I must admit it is 'interesting' and does merit further investigation; mind you, their '100 reasons' have already been broadly debunked, including comments earlier on this thread, so don't place too much reliance on that as supporting data

[badgerx16]

His qualifications and career are not exactly secret :

 

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm

 

http://www.rkpachauri.org/bio.php

 

And as for the glaciers, the science tends to support the fact that they ARE receding,- the point about the date possibly being misquoted is being used as a smokescreen;

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327113346.htm

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/04/byers-himalaya-changing-landscapes ( Yes I know, it's that tree-hugger's comic the Grauniad )

 

And please note, the quote from Prof Dowdeswell is only debunking the accuracy of the 2035 date, ( which it seems is a typographical error transposing 2350 ) - his research work is investigating the recession of the glaciers and Antarctic ice, and he fully subscribes to the fact they are melting and liable to affect sea levels, it's the rate at which it is happening that is open to debate.

 

( There are plenty enough points questioning Peter Taylor's capability in this field already ).

Edited 18 January, 2010 by badgerx16

[benjii]

Last month, the Daily Express published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man made.

 

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/152422

 

Cue scoffing from the leftie climate comrades. It's not an article in the Tree Huggers Daily AKA The Guardian so it cannot be taken seriously.

 

In fairness though, some of the Express' alleged reasons were completely fecking retard spazzo.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Dumes main post came from the Sun day Times. What is worrying is that we are simply not getting proper debate

[Saint Paul C]

Dumes main post came from the Sun day Times. What is worrying is that we are simply not getting proper debate

 

And the same article was in all of the 'good' Australian papers yesterday.

 

(if there is any such thing as a good Australian newspaper)..

[badgerx16]

Dumes main post came from the Sun day Times. What is worrying is that we are simply not getting proper debate

I saw it on the front page of yesterday's Express,http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422/The-new-climate-change-scandal, ( no mention there of it being lifted from the Murdoch rag ), hence my retort.

[alpine_saint]

Global Warming has been completely debunked as a man-made phenomena in the last few months, and the reputation of the science of global warming and science in general (considering the bullsh*t about pig flu) lies in the gutter, completely trashed.

 

I have always known that scientists play with the data to sustain pet theories in order to keep their lucrative funding rounds (and their jobs) going ...

[TopGun]

Global Warming has been completely debunked as a man-made phenomena in the last few months, and the reputation of the science of global warming and science in general (considering the bullsh*t about pig flu) lies in the gutter, completely trashed.

 

I have always known that scientists play with the data to sustain pet theories in order to keep their lucrative funding rounds (and their jobs) going ...

 

I am afraid that is a personal view that is not shared by the majority. However one can't expect Alpine to back up his view with facts!

[alpine_saint]

I am afraid that is a personal view that is not shared by the majority. However one can't expect Alpine to back up his view with facts!

 

The majority are stupid in this case.

 

You talk about facts. Less than 300 have died from H1N1. The government at the height of its hysteria was talking about 1.2million.

 

You talk about facts. In relation to global warming, what about :

 

The size of the arctic Polar Bear population ?

The rate of shrinking of Himalayan glaciers ?

The temperature of water found by drilling into the Arctic ice-cap ?

Professor Phill Jones of the IPCC and his secret cache of e-mails, including celebrating the death of noted global-warming sceptics ?

 

Now present me some facts about why it is happening...

 

BSE or bird flu, anyone ??

 

I noted recently in that rabidly right-wing rag the GUARDIAN that the dangers of long-term exposure to radiation are now being down-graded....

 

Scientists are f**king liars.

[TopGun]

The majority are stupid in this case.

 

You talk about facts. Less than 300 have died from H1N1. The government at the height of its hysteria was talking about 1.2million.

 

You talk about facts. In relation to global warming, what about :

 

The size of the arctic Polar Bear population ?

The rate of shrinking of Himalayan glaciers ?

The temperature of water found by drilling into the Arctic ice-cap ?

Professor Phill Jones of the IPCC and his secret cache of e-mails, including celebrating the death of noted global-warming sceptics ?

 

Now present me some facts about why it is happening...

 

BSE or bird flu, anyone ??

 

I noted recently in that rabidly right-wing rag the GUARDIAN that the dangers of long-term exposure to radiation are now being down-graded....

 

Scientists are f**king liars.

 

Just another rant...

[alpine_saint]

Just another rant...

 

Excuse me, but its a rant containing the facts you asked for, whereas you offer nothing.

 

OK, you've swallowed the sh*t from Al Gore and co. hook, line, and sinker. Your choice. the rest of us have every right to challenge and dismiss. And our voices are growing as the scientists get sussed out.

[TopGun]

Excuse me, but its a rant containing the facts you asked for, whereas you offer nothing.

 

OK, you've swallowed the sh*t from Al Gore and co. hook, line, and sinker. Your choice. the rest of us have every right to challenge and dismiss. And our voices are growing as the scientists get sussed out.

 

BSE and bird flu have nothing to do with climate change. If you tried to compare apples and pears elsewhere you would be ridiculed. If you had followed the thread you will see that I have put down many observations about climate change and the effect that has on the UK and planet in terms of the future.

[alpine_saint]

BSE and bird flu have nothing to do with climate change. If you tried to compare apples and pears elsewhere you would be ridiculed. If you had followed the thread you will see that I have put down many observations about climate change and the effect that has on the UK and planet in terms of the future.

 

Climate change is just the latest example of scientists getting sussed out with scare stories to keep themselves in work, hence my reference to other recent scares.

[No 2 to Maybush]

I think the main issue for a number of "deniers" is that independant analysis of raw data seems to indicate little growth in temperature elevation, whereas when the software programme employed by the UEA and the other two major sites to "flatten the variables" is added to the numbers it results in the hockey stick graph we have all come to know and love.

 

The fact that the three main sites share raw data and apply the same software programme means that there is no basis to claim that each site is performing independant analysis. My understanding of science in general is that, when one has a theory, one tests that theory against a model. If the model fails, then the theory is disproved. Unfortunately, in terms of the current debate, the scientists did not accept the failure of the theory when it failed against the model; rather they changed the model to make it fit the theory!

 

That, in essence, is why "deniers" don't accept the "Facts" that are provided by these "scientists" I'm afraid.

 

The only way that this debate can move forward is if the data is tested again against the original model. But unfortunately so much raw data has been "lost" by UEA they can't replicate the original work.

 

There is no doubt that humanity is polluting the planet, and so anything that can be done to limit the impact the developed and developing world has on this can only be a benefit. But I am generally of the opinion that we are moving through a period of more generic climate change associated with a long term trend, associated with the lack of sunspot activity, rather than the hockey stick "shoot to the moon" analysis put forth by others.

 

I am also deeply cynical of the carbon "cap and trade" invention that just appears to be a means of impoverishing the developed nations without providing any clear benefits to mankind. If someone would be kind enough to elucidate the benefits of this scam to me I would welcome the debate.

[badgerx16]

:

 

The size of the arctic Polar Bear population ?

 

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

 

The rate of shrinking of Himalayan glaciers ?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hima...rs-growing.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327113346.htm

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ing-landscapes

 

The temperature of water found by drilling into the Arctic ice-cap ?

 

Professor Phill Jones of the IPCC and his secret cache of e-mails, including celebrating the death of noted global-warming sceptics ? Plenty of links on this thread already, go find them.......

 

Now present me some facts about why it is happening...

 

BSE or bird flu, anyone ??

 

The government produces a 'worst case scenario assuming we do nothing' report and gets slated, it produces a 'nothing to worry about' report and gets slated. As with swine flu, we inoculate and introduce other preventative measures, and then get the hysteria about not as many people died as was initially predicted, so we must have overreacted - it's always a lose-lose situation in such cases.

 

 

Answers provided

[Sheaf Saint]

Scientists are f**king liars.

 

All of them? Every single one of them? I hope you have some evidence to back that claim up Alpine, really I do.

 

So a small percentage of scientists have been discovered to have ulterior motives or a conflict of interest. What about all those that haven't? Care to give us your expert opinion on them.

 

Of course not. I guess that applying an ill-informed prejudice is so much easier than actually doing some resarch on the subject.

[dune]

It get the distinct impression that Gordon Browns foot soldiers need a "cause" to make their lives worthwhile. If it wasn't climate change it'd be nuclear power, or saving dolphins, or rolling up at a G8 summit and smashing up the town, or marching with the UAF (except when the extremists is question are islamic), or camping up a tree on a proposed new bypass route, or disrupting a fox hunt.

[Minty]

It get the distinct impression that Gordon Browns foot soldiers need a "cause" to make their lives worthwhile. If it wasn't climate change it'd be nuclear power, or saving dolphins, or rolling up at a G8 summit and smashing up the town, or marching with the UAF (except when the extremists is question are islamic), or camping up a tree on a proposed new bypass route, or disrupting a fox hunt.

 

So you're basically saying that you don't think any of us can think for ourselves and are following orders? The millions of people who share similar views are all just sheep who didn't come to these conclusions by using their own brains and judging information presented to them as they saw fit... oh no... we've all been brainwashed and only you or anyone who shares your opinion is correct?!

 

I will happily discuss this subject with anyone who has a modicum of respect for my opinion and who is willing to engage in healthy debate, but your complete lack of respect and sheer arrogance is stunning.

 

Simple question to finish on: Do you ever respect anyone's views if they disagree with you, or do you always try and bully everyone in the same way?

[Whitey Grandad]

I have always known that scientists play with the data to sustain pet theories in order to keep their lucrative funding rounds (and their jobs) going ...

That has been the case with every scientist that I have ever encountered and is the reason why every time I see a report I look for the sponsor. Cui bono?

[aintforever]

Ignoring general scientific concensus because "scientists tell lies" is a pretty retarded point of view.

 

I think people would take the sceptics more seriously if they came up with valid scientific reasons behind the recent warming (natural and man induced). Opinions vary wildly as to the effects of global warming and the time-scales involved, simply dissproving one or two's predictions mean jack ****, many many predictions will be wrong because science does not have crystal ball.

 

I think much will be learned in the next few years, all we know at the moment is that CO2 absorbs more heat than other gasses in our atmosphere, we are pumping out billions of tons of the stuff and the last half a century has seen a rise in temperature of the planet. Only a complete ****ing idiot would ignore the opinions of experts given the possible scenario that lay ahead.

[Sheaf Saint]

It get the distinct impression that Gordon Browns foot soldiers need a "cause" to make their lives worthwhile. If it wasn't climate change it'd be nuclear power, or saving dolphins, or rolling up at a G8 summit and smashing up the town, or marching with the UAF (except when the extremists is question are islamic), or camping up a tree on a proposed new bypass route, or disrupting a fox hunt.

 

Sorry if I am being dim, but could you please tell us who you are referring to by Gordon Brown's foot soldiers? Seeing as I am not a CC denier, do you include me in that sweeping generalisation?

 

For the record, I have never, and will never support Gordon Brown or any of the rest of his pathetic excuse for a cabinet. I think the guy is an absolute joke of a PM and I would rather stick hot needles in my eyes, cut myself with rusty razorblades and then have a bath in my own p1ss than vote for his rent-a-quote bunch of clowns.

 

For the umpteenth ****ing time Dune, why are you so utterly incapable of seperating the scientific principle of climate change from the political agenda of our government? Why can you not see that they are two completely different things? Just because certain people are using the issue to further their own agenda, DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T ACTUALLY HAPPENING!!!!!!

[Whitey Grandad]

Ignoring general scientific concensus because "scientists tell lies" is a pretty retarded point of view.

 

I think people would take the sceptics more seriously if they came up with valid scientific reasons behind the recent warming (natural and man induced). Opinions vary wildly as to the effects of global warming and the time-scales involved, simply dissproving one or two's predictions mean jack ****, many many predictions will be wrong because science does not have crystal ball.

 

I think much will be learned in the next few years, all we know at the moment is that CO2 absorbs more heat than other gasses in our atmosphere, we are pumping out billions of tons of the stuff and the last half a century has seen a rise in temperature of the planet. Only a complete ****ing idiot would ignore the opinions of experts given the possible scenario that lay ahead.

Water vapour is many times more significant. http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

Or how about Greenpeace? http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/other_gases Water vapour is important .... "The exact size of this important feedback remains to be determined by scientists"

 

This one is interesting, in particular the erudite responses: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Edited 20 January, 2010 by Whitey Grandad

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

 

The arrogance of these people seems to know no boundaries. How irresponsible to make reckless predictions without backing them up with proper research.

[alpine_saint]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

 

The arrogance of these people seems to know no boundaries. How irresponsible to make reckless predictions without backing them up with proper research.

 

nonononono, how arrogant of you to diss these people according to Bexy and TopGun...

[TopGun]

nonononono, how arrogant of you to diss these people according to Bexy and TopGun...

 

One mistake in a 3,000 page document

 

At least I don't make absolutely ridiculous assertions in a relatively good climate change debate such as "all scientists are liars"! And back that up with verification that involves bird flu... Actually, that would be difficult to make up, but you've done it and discredited yourself entirely!

[Sheaf Saint]

nonononono, how arrogant of you to diss these people according to Bexy and TopGun...

 

You just don't get it do you Alpine. I'm not saying that these people should not be criticised - far from it. If there are people who are conducting improper research and twisting data to fit their agenda, then yes I agree that they need to be outed for that.

 

But, and I'm getting really tired of repeating myself to the likes of you, Dune & St George, there are plenty of climate scientists who are not corrupt and do not carry out improper research, but you just can't bring yourself to see it.

 

The failings of the few destroy the reputation of all in your eyes, and you do not seem to be able to grasp just how irrational that attitude is.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Come on TopGun this has called into question the integrity of the whole document. What most of us need is information supported by sound scientific research so we can draw our own conclusions. What happens if you were somebody who was directly effected by the loss of these glaciers in this region?

[badgerx16]

Come on TopGun this has called into question the integrity of the whole document. What most of us need is information supported by sound scientific research so we can draw our own conclusions. What happens if you were somebody who was directly effected by the loss of these glaciers in this region?

See post #921

[Whitey Grandad]

Come on TopGun this has called into question the integrity of the whole document. What most of us need is information supported by sound scientific research so we can draw our own conclusions. What happens if you were somebody who was directly effected by the loss of these glaciers in this region?

Exactly. One mistake is all it takes.

[TopGun]

Exactly. One mistake is all it takes.

 

There are probably far more mistakes than one, given the size of the document. But that doesn't discredit the theory of anthropological climate change or the commitment and understanding of the vast majority of genuine climate scientists.

 

If there was a mistake on a map would you disbelieve the rest of the map or any other map manufactured by the company?

 

If your car suffered a fault, would you believe that every other car of the same type is also faulty?

 

If a plumber/taxi driver/boiler mechanic overcharges you, do you concur with others around you that all such people without fail are thieving gits?

[Whitey Grandad]

There are probably far more mistakes than one, given the size of the document. But that doesn't discredit the theory of anthropological climate change or the commitment and understanding of the vast majority of genuine climate scientists.

 

It discredits the whole document, and the accuracy of the publishers

 

If there was a mistake on a map would you disbelieve the rest of the map or any other map manufactured by the company?

 

Absolutely, how do you know what's correct and what is incorrect

 

If your car suffered a fault, would you believe that every other car of the same type is also faulty?

 

It depends on the type of fault, but I might suspect that other cars of the same type had the same fault.

 

If a plumber/taxi driver/boiler mechanic overcharges you, do you concur with others around you that all such people without fail are thieving gits?

 

No, there's no correlation (but I'd be surprised if they didn't)

If someone can't be bothered to read and correct what they write, then everything that they have published must be questioned.

[tommi]

What happened to Acid rain?

[alpine_saint]

What happened to Acid rain?

 

they broke up on a tour of the Far East citing creative differences and the stresses of touring.

[aintforever]

Water vapour is many times more significant. http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

Or how about Greenpeace? http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/other_gases Water vapour is important .... "The exact size of this important feedback remains to be determined by scientists"

 

This one is interesting, in particular the erudite responses: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

Of course there are other greenhouse gases, pumping out billions of tons of any of them would logically have an effect when most of the atmosphere is made up of non greenhouse gases.

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course there are other greenhouse gases, pumping out billions of tons of any of them would logically have an effect when most of the atmosphere is made up of non greenhouse gases.

Indeed, but water vapour is the most potent, and it is a natural phenomenon, but its production is dependent on global temperatures. The scientific debate is over whether, and by how much, the production of water vapour adds to man-made temperature rise by 'positive feedback'. All that I have found so far is 'we don't know'.

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course there are other greenhouse gases, pumping out billions of tons of any of them would logically have an effect when most of the atmosphere is made up of non greenhouse gases.

One big volcanic eruption has a much bigger effect than anything we have produced.

[aintforever]

One big volcanic eruption has a much bigger effect than anything we have produced.

 

Which big volcanic eruption is responsible for the warming during the last half a century then?

[badgerx16]

Indeed, but water vapour is the most potent, and it is a natural phenomenon, but its production is dependent on global temperatures. The scientific debate is over whether, and by how much, the production of water vapour adds to man-made temperature rise by 'positive feedback'. All that I have found so far is 'we don't know'.

Try this :

http://www.sciscoop.com/climate-change-evidence.html

 

The article basically says that whilst water vapour is technically far more effective than CO2 at absorbing heat, the actual 'greenhouse effect' is felt at high altitudes, where the relative concentration of H2O compared to CO2 and methane drops dramatically; meaning that whilst there may be less CO2 in the total atmosphere, it is has a far greater effect on AGW because of where the bulk of it is found.

[Whitey Grandad]

Try this :

http://www.sciscoop.com/climate-change-evidence.html

 

The article basically says that whilst water vapour is technically far more effective than CO2 at absorbing heat, the actual 'greenhouse effect' is felt at high altitudes, where the relative concentration of H2O compared to CO2 and methane drops dramatically; meaning that whilst there may be less CO2 in the total atmosphere, it is has a far greater effect on AGW because of where the bulk of it is found.

This article is all a little bit vague, really. I like the bit about 'greenhouse gases are much more effective higher up in the atmosphere where it’s colder'. That's also where they will have the least effect.

 

None of the current models deal adequately with the effects of cloud cover, which one would expect to increase with the amount of water vapour. CO2 and other gases cannot account for 15-35% of warming or we would all have have frozen 1000 years ago.

[Thedelldays]

Which big volcanic eruption is responsible for the warming during the last half a century then?

there seems to be a few on the table here...

 

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

[TopGun]

there seems to be a few on the table here...

 

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

 

Don't fancy a Plinian eruption much!

[Whitey Grandad]

Don't fancy a Plinian eruption much!

I have'nt had one of those for years

[Whitey Grandad]

Which big volcanic eruption is responsible for the warming during the last half a century then?

They usually lead to cooling. Mount Pinatubo was the last that I remember. They also emit an enormous amount of CO2, which is where all the atmospheric CO2 is thought to have come from originally (including coal, gas and oil). Of course, without the CO2 there would be no plants, and hence no animals.

 

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

Edited 20 January, 2010 by Whitey Grandad

[aintforever]

there seems to be a few on the table here...

 

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

 

There's obviously been volcanoes, but no real noticable increase in the last half a century.

 

Also I would guess that if Mount Pinatubo had beltched out billions of tons of CO2 in 1991 there would have been a noticable sudden increase measured.

 

Scientists have looked at the data, are think they are better placed than you or me to decide what correlates better Man's CO2 or Volcanoes.