Myth or not, GO GREEN. ;)

One can identify four broad types of climate forcing:

 

1. Extra-terrestrial meteorites: if they impact on land, large volumes of debris are injected into the atmosphere causing rapid cooling; or if they impact in an ocean, large volumes of water would be vaporised providing massive cloud insulation, and a temperature increase.

 

2. Radiation variations: ( a ) Eccentricity, changes to the shape of Earth's orbit around the sun every 100-400 thousand years; ( b ) Obliquity, variations in the axial tilt (21.5° - 24.5°) of the Earth every 40 thousand years; and ( c ) Precession, of the Earth's orbit, changing the time of year the Earth is closest to the sun.

 

3. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, higher concentrations promoting higher temperatures, controlled by: ( a ) volcanic activity, from rifting in eastern Africa, releasing large volumes of CO2; ( b ) chemical weathering, as acid rain reacting with rocks removes CO2 from atmosphere; and ( c ) human activities producing CO2 emissions.

 

4. Plate tectonics, therefore the distribution of land and sea. Large well connected oceans create warmer periods; the closure of the gap between North and South America just 3Ma is a key factor in the current ice house period of ice ages and interglacial periods.

 

Our (mankind's) influence on climate is somewhat dwarfed by celestial and planetary processes over which we have no control.

 

You could say our CO2 emissions are merely a drop in the ocean. :lol:

 

Whether it's: the Mediterranean climate in Roman times, no storms in the Atlantic for 2 hundred years during the Viking conquests, or the mini ice age and skating on the Thames; our climate is constantly in flux. Perhaps it's our own, over bloated, feelings of self-importance that makes man think he can alter the course of mother nature.

 

Climate change caused by man is a myth, but we should be ready to adapt to the constant oscillations in climate. Go back 500Ma and you'd be basking in 40°C heat all year round. B)

Edited December 4, 200915 yr by Ethan.

I must admit, as much as i think that we're causing global warming (just because human emissions of CO2 is just one of many factors affecting climate, it doesn't mean that it's not the dominating factor, btw), i honestly don't think it's *that* bad unless it gets so out of control that even if we emitted NO greenhouse gases the temperature would still continue to rise indirectly from our actions. I think that feeding the world will be a bit easier, because looking at it basically, there's a lot more territory that could be turned arable from a warmer climate, than those at risk of desertification (increased temperature means increased evaporation, and therefore more rainfall anyway). Ofc rising sea levels would result in evacuation, even if it is entire countries/islands, it would still happen before deaths occur, should flooding get too frequent. However, 6C could really be pretty nasty. I'm sure the last time temperatures rose 6c though, it took ages for the temperatures to rise compared to atm, and it would take even longer for the effects to be felt and species to start dying out in their masses. Tens of 00s of years, at least.

Edited December 4, 200915 yr by Harve

I think we need to tighten our contribution to the CO2 levels.

 

The EU bring in new emission laws on cars all the time. The EU is now fining car manufacturers who have don't meet the required amount of vehicles sold that emit less than 120g of CO2.

 

Our motor vehicles are so much cleaner now than they were even 10years ago. What we need to do as the 'rich' west is to help the developing countries that are going through an industrial revolution to curb their contribution. China chucks out so much CO2 and it's increasing each year. Even if the EU was entirely carbon Neutral from 2010 onwards it wouldn't take long for the Tiger economies to plug that gap.

 

Things like catalytic converters and methods of reducing emissions from Carbon heavy industry should be made available to India/China/Malaysia etc as cheap as physically possible. Hell, the oil companies could even foot the bill, it's not as if they;d notice a few billion extra in taxes.

 

 

Unless we get the east and the US to cut their emissions the EU can do what ever it wants. Brussels will still be p***ing into the wind.

People say that the earth warming is a "natural cycle", but not at this speed. If this were a natural cycle, i.e. any change ever recorded over the earth's history, there would be no noticeable difference in a lifetime, or even 10 lifetimes. If you look at the climate graph the earth was indeed warming before the 1900s, but not at the rate we're seeing now. And just because the earth hasn't been warming this decade (depending on how you manipulate the data), it doesn't the earth isn't warming. The trend is still there. Just because the earth is warming doesn't mean each year has to be hotter than the previous.

 

the problem is though that reliable recorded history simply doesnt go back far enough. we have collected data from the last 200 years which is nothing.

 

after 200 years of industrialisation, how come the earth has only just started warming in the last 20 years?... there was no big increase in emissions 20 years ago, no big change worldwide, the state we are at now has been a gradual one for 200 years. if man made emissions was to blame, then the climate warming would reflect that and not ignore it for 180 odd years! id also suggest that in the past our great indistrial cities produced far more pollutants, our air is cleaner now then in the past. theres no coal fired industry now, no coal in domestic use (ok a bit here ad there, but not EVERY household like when i was a kid in the 60's)

 

i dont believe global warming is man made, influenced? possibly slightly, but i dont believe for one second that if we all stopped using power today the climate would return to 'how it should be', whatever that is. the warming statistics ARE FLAWED as those emails show, the data being used to 'prove mmgw' isnt complete and outside factors , like solar radiation coming from that massive big nuclear reactor we orbit, isnt being taken into consideration. the sun plays a far bigger part in the earths climate then man.

 

 

One can identify four broad types of climate forcing:

 

1. Extra-terrestrial meteorites: if they impact on land, large volumes of debris are injected into the atmosphere causing rapid cooling; or if they impact in an ocean, large volumes of water would be vaporised providing massive cloud insulation, and a temperature increase.

 

2. Radiation variations: ( a ) Eccentricity, changes to the shape of Earth's orbit around the sun every 100-400 thousand years; ( b ) Obliquity, variations in the axial tilt (21.5° - 24.5°) of the Earth every 40 thousand years; and ( c ) Precession, of the Earth's orbit, changing the time of year the Earth is closest to the sun.

 

3. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, higher concentrations promoting higher temperatures, controlled by: ( a ) volcanic activity, from rifting in eastern Africa, releasing large volumes of CO2; ( b ) chemical weathering, as acid rain reacting with rocks removes CO2 from atmosphere; and ( c ) human activities producing CO2 emissions.

 

4. Plate tectonics, therefore the distribution of land and sea. Large well connected oceans create warmer periods; the closure of the gap between North and South America just 3Ma is a key factor in the current ice house period of ice ages and interglacial periods.

 

Our (mankind's) influence on climate is somewhat dwarfed by celestial and planetary processes over which we have no control.

 

You could say our CO2 emissions are merely a drop in the ocean. :lol:

 

Whether it's: the Mediterranean climate in Roman times, no storms in the Atlantic for 2 hundred years during the Viking conquests, or the mini ice age and skating on the Thames; our climate is constantly in flux. Perhaps it's our own, over bloated, feelings of self-importance that makes man think he can alter the course of mother nature.

 

Climate change caused by man is a myth, but we should be ready to adapt to the constant oscillations in climate. Go back 500Ma and you'd be basking in 40°C heat all year round. B)

What precisely in there states that we have barely any affect on the changing climate? You've stated there are other factors, and that they can inflict far more damage, not that we are 'merely a drop in the ocean'.

 

And furthermore, our climate IS constantly in flux. Not to the degree it has been over the past forty years. Not in over 250 million years to the degree that it is set to change (by 6 degrees Celsius in the next century!).

the problem is though that reliable recorded history simply doesnt go back far enough. we have collected data from the last 200 years which is nothing.

 

after 200 years of industrialisation, how come the earth has only just started warming in the last 20 years?... there was no big increase in emissions 20 years ago, no big change worldwide, the state we are at now has been a gradual one for 200 years. if man made emissions was to blame, then the climate warming would reflect that and not ignore it for 180 odd years! id also suggest that in the past our great indistrial cities produced far more pollutants, our air is cleaner now then in the past. theres no coal fired industry now, no coal in domestic use (ok a bit here ad there, but not EVERY household like when i was a kid in the 60's)

 

i dont believe global warming is man made, influenced? possibly slightly, but i dont believe for one second that if we all stopped using power today the climate would return to 'how it should be', whatever that is. the warming statistics ARE FLAWED as those emails show, the data being used to 'prove mmgw' isnt complete and outside factors , like solar radiation coming from that massive big nuclear reactor we orbit, isnt being taken into consideration. the sun plays a far bigger part in the earths climate then man.

 

Yeah, but mate, what you fail to take into consideration is that at no point during the Industrial Revolution were we dealing with population explosions.... There were far less people on the planet causing less pollution... The likes of China and India weren't Industrialized, but sure are catching up now.... And with both having 1 billion plus populations, they are creating a lot of pollution, as is the US.... There's miles upon miles of the Yangtze river that is now so polluted that the rural Chinese peasants who have lived alongside it for thousands of years are not able to survive off the river because of the pollution, they cant fish the river because the fish are all dead, they cant drink the water because it's poisonous... We ARE adversely affecting nature, simple as....

 

Another thing - Cars, Planes... Did we have those in the Industrial Revolution....? No.... To deny the facts that we are affecting our environment and nature through pollution is foolish and kind of being in denial.... I dunno whether or not we are "causing" Global Warming, but we're certainly fukkin' up the planet with pollution, overpopulation and the insane desire to chase the "Almighty Dollar"....

I'm not a denier, nor am I a global warming campaigner.

 

I would definitely promote green policies to keep the world clean, but I hate hearing people say "Man is causing global warming" when it isn't the case. The earth warms and cools naturally, but I think our actions are accelerating the warming, but in no way are we causing it.

 

 

Yeah, but mate, what you fail to take into consideration is that at no point during the Industrial Revolution were we dealing with population explosions.... There were far less people on the planet causing less pollution... The likes of China and India weren't Industrialized, but sure are catching up now.... And with both having 1 billion plus populations, they are creating a lot of pollution, as is the US.... There's miles upon miles of the Yangtze river that is now so polluted that the rural Chinese peasants who have lived alongside it for thousands of years are not able to survive off the river because of the pollution, they cant fish the river because the fish are all dead, they cant drink the water because it's poisonous... We ARE adversely affecting nature, simple as....

 

Another thing - Cars, Planes... Did we have those in the Industrial Revolution....? No.... To deny the facts that we are affecting our environment and nature through pollution is foolish and kind of being in denial.... I dunno whether or not we are "causing" Global Warming, but we're certainly fukkin' up the planet with pollution, overpopulation and the insane desire to chase the "Almighty Dollar"....

 

it doesnt matter.... lower polulation plus no vehicles.... population and vehicle use didnt suddenly start in 1987, it rose in a gradual slope since records began... the global warming records show that theres been a 'step' change since 1987. that doesnt correlate with the even rise in population and vehicle use.

 

like i said, we should be 'green' and not polute of of respect for mother earth and not because some tin pot politicians have seemingly massaged the data in order to prove a point, and thus tax us.

. Not in over 250 million years to the degree that it is set to change (by 6 degrees Celsius in the next century!).

 

you are assuming that the projected data is a 'given'.... well i can tell you that the very same scientists were promising us a 'new ice age' by the milennium, and petrol supplies would have run out, that nuclear power would remove the need for coal fired powerstations and that ddt would rid the world of insect pests thus creating more food for everyone.

 

i dont believe them, id suggest that everyone be VERY sceptical of these prophesies. by the time your my age it would all be yet another big mistake.

I am very skeptical of it. I think the earth warms and cools naturally, and although we MAY be slightly speeding up the process we aren't the sole cause.

 

I agree with Grimly on his points about over-population.

 

It doesn't help that it comes across, when being taught the theory, in schools that we are the main cause. Government meddling I presume.

it doesnt matter.... lower polulation plus no vehicles.... population and vehicle use didnt suddenly start in 1987, it rose in a gradual slope since records began... the global warming records show that theres been a 'step' change since 1987. that doesnt correlate with the even rise in population and vehicle use.

 

like i said, we should be 'green' and not polute of of respect for mother earth and not because some tin pot politicians have seemingly massaged the data in order to prove a point, and thus tax us.

 

Yeah, but the actuall EFFECTS are starting to be felt in the past 20 years... Take for example India, after WW2, it had a population of around 500 million, now it's over a billion... That's just one example that's happened merely in the past 60 years, and it's only one example, Mexico, Brazil, etc are other examples... This sort of population explosion in that short a period of time is unprecedented in the history of the planet mate, infant mortality rates were extremely high even just 100 years ago in countries such as that....

 

More people also = more cars = more consumption of the world's finite resource that is oil and then you factor in the pollution that more cars, planes, etc is causing..... How can this NOT be a problem dude...? If it's necessary to tax people off the road who dont actually need to use cars or vans, well, so be it, IMO... Things like the "School Run" for example, really pisses me off.....

 

No mate, face facts, even if you poo-pooh the "Greenhouse Effect", human selfishness and greed is STILL the problem and we are on a one-track road to extinction if we dont mend our ways....

Yeah, but the actuall EFFECTS are starting to be felt in the past 20 years... Take for example India, after WW2, it had a population of around 500 million, now it's over a billion... That's just one example that's happened merely in the past 60 years, and it's only one example, Mexico, Brazil, etc are other examples... This sort of population explosion in that short a period of time is unprecedented in the history of the planet mate, infant mortality rates were extremely high even just 100 years ago in countries such as that....

 

More people also = more cars = more consumption of the world's finite resource that is oil and then you factor in the pollution that more cars, planes, etc is causing..... How can this NOT be a problem dude...? If it's necessary to tax people off the road who dont actually need to use cars or vans, well, so be it, IMO... Things like the "School Run" for example, really pisses me off.....

 

No mate, face facts, even if you poo-pooh the "Greenhouse Effect", human selfishness and greed is STILL the problem and we are on a one-track road to extinction if we dont mend our ways....

 

oh i agree that population is the problem, but i very much doubt that population is creating the earths warming. yes its responsible for more pollution, yes we should be tackling that, but my point stands, if there IS a direct link between human activity/population and global warming, why hasnt the global rise in temps graph match the human rise in population graph?

 

only a third of the earths surface is land, only a portion of the land surface is populated by humans, the sun is what....something like 200x bigger then the earth... humans vs the sun?... c'mon anybody ignoring that nuclear furnace is a fool.

LOL at the idiots on here clamining its a myth with no evidence to back up their claim whatsoever.

 

The fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is much larger than ever before coincides with the melting of the polar ice caps is a clear sign that the earth is heating up. With countries like Kiribati no longer existing due to it I'd say that's pretty damning evidence.

you are assuming that the projected data is a 'given'.... well i can tell you that the very same scientists were promising us a 'new ice age' by the milennium, and petrol supplies would have run out, that nuclear power would remove the need for coal fired powerstations and that ddt would rid the world of insect pests thus creating more food for everyone.

 

i dont believe them, id suggest that everyone be VERY sceptical of these prophesies. by the time your my age it would all be yet another big mistake.

So answer my question. What if you are wrong?

So answer my question. What if you are wrong?

 

... then its too late by all accounts, if we ARE solely resposible for global warming then the only way to control the atmosphere would be for the world to go back to pre-industrialisation times. can you really contemplate that? do you really think the world will regress into late medieval conditions? give up electricity (i very much doubt the reknewables cansupply our needs), cars? technology? because 'dipping our toe' will not work. driving 5 miles less? switching off stand bye? recycling everything? whilst we could do that do you think the rest of the world would? and all these punitive measures would be totally lost as population carries on increasing unabaited.

 

i dont think we have the full picture here, we dont know how much co2 the sea can absorb (and does, as warmer seas = more algae which 'fix' co2), and nor do we know exactly how much the sun is responsible for global warming. it isnt a fixed fire up there, its unstable, it varies, and theres fcuk all we can do about it.

 

facts are that there have been many climatic changes in the past and there will be climatic changes in the future with or without man.... whos reign on earth ISNT 'forever'... we WILL become extinct and after humans life will continue on earth..

LOL at the idiots on here clamining its a myth with no evidence to back up their claim whatsoever.

 

The fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is much larger than ever before coincides with the melting of the polar ice caps is a clear sign that the earth is heating up. With countries like Kiribati no longer existing due to it I'd say that's pretty damning evidence.

 

the point is that the data being used to blame man is flawed, THAT is the real 'inconveniant truth'.

 

fact.... england has been 2c WARMER in the reign of edward 1st, 13th centuary...fact the little ice age froze the thames regularly 15th-19th centuary. fact the warmest decade (for the uk) was the 1730's... long before population/industrialisation had any effect .. fact the world temperature has NOT continued rising over the last ten years. fact, co2 FOLLOWS temperature rise, it doesnt cause it.. fact... the polar ice caps ARNT shrinking.

 

FACT ... the data used to prove global warming is man made is flawed, incomplete, manipulated.

fact... the polar ice caps ARNT shrinking.

Actually they ARE. Polar bears are dying out due to loss of land in summers. What evidence is there to show they aren't shrinking? Have you visited the North Pole lately?

Actually they ARE. Polar bears are dying out due to loss of land in summers. What evidence is there to show they aren't shrinking? Have you visited the North Pole lately?

 

eh?..loss of land?.... :lol: there is NO LAND at the north pole, its a sheet of ice! :lol:

Actually they ARE. Polar bears are dying out due to loss of land in summers. What evidence is there to show they aren't shrinking? Have you visited the North Pole lately?

 

no have YOU? idiotic response...

 

read this...

 

 

Hurrah! Intrepid explorer Pen Hadow and his Catlin Arctic Survey team are off the polar ice cap and safe and well. This is a huge relief to those many of us well-wishers concerned that they were doomed to die either by frostbite, attack by one of the numerous killer polar bears that stalk the region, or shame that their expedition had turned out to be such a Scott-tastic flop.

 

 

 

They set out to the high arctic 73 days ago full of high hopes. They were going to tramp all the way to the North Pole. (But were frustrated by the unseasonal cold.) They were going to march 1000 km (they managed 434). Above all, they were going to raise awareness of “climate change” by drilling lots of holes in the polar ice cap so as to show how worryingly thin it is, and in how imminent danger of doom. (But their equipment broke in the freezing temperatures and anyway, as Christopher Booker reported the other day, there are US Army buoys which already do this job perfectly well and have found that since last March the ice has thickened by “at least half a metre”).

 

 

 

And now to cap it all (ho ho), comes the still more tragic news that the Arctic isn’t warming up dramatically after all. According to figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute – as posted by Steven Goddard on the inestimable Watts Up With That site – Arctic mean temperatures have barely changed since the start of their records in 1958. The Arctic was in fact warmer in the 1940s than it is now, but cooled between 1940 and 1980.

 

 

 

“For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I pray that we will heed the findings of the Catlin arctic survey,” said the Prince of Wales when he launched what he called this “remarkably important project.”

 

 

 

For once HRH and I are in complete agreement. Thanks to this expedition’s selfless heroism, we now know that:

 

 

 

1. The Arctic is extremely parky.

 

 

 

2. Even parkier in fact than we could ever have suspected.

 

 

 

3. We can put our melting ice cap terror on hold for a while

 

scource...daily telegraph

 

another conveiniant ommission from the data, the ice caps ARNT melting at anything outside 'normal', as the ice is being replaced as quick as it melts and somewhere (i cant find the link) there is proof positive that the ice caps are no smaller now then at anytime since records commenced.

 

everything on earth goes in cycles, mankind tries to box it all in, make it 'normal', but what IS 'normal'?.. fact, the earths climate has always varied.