Saw this and thought I'd make all of you without cats feel better....
Saw this and thought I'd make all of you without cats feel better....
I stopped reading when I realised it was total b******s. According to that theory plants grow better in a CO2 rich environment. If that were true all these greenhouse farms would be pumping CO2 in to make them more money. Plants would grow faster closer to power stations. No that's just not true, plants take whatever CO2 from the atmosphere they need. Just like animals take as much oxygen as they need.
Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere creates the green-house effect which causes a rise in the earth's temperature. How much it raises and how much of an affect it has is certainly debatable but the basic facts are undeniable.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory with no scientific merit. For instance: it cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period.
To explain: the climate was approximately 1 degree C warmer in the Medieval Warm Period (c. 950 AD to 1050 AD) than it is today.
If the Medieval Warm Period ocurred due to anthropogenic (man-made) effects, how did this happen at a time when the only heavy industry was Cathedral building? And why (if the MWP was anthropogenic) did the temperature drop and stay lower for the next 800 years?
And if the Medieval Warm Period wasn't caused by anthropogenic (man-made) effects, then what is the basis for stating that our Modern Warm Period is due to anthropogenic forces?
The answer is that climate changes sinusoidally over time. This is due to changes in received solar radiance caused by changes in the Earth's orbital path and angle (the Milankovitch cycle).
There are also decadal cycles in the Sun's magnetosphere that appear to affect low- and high- cloud formation (which affect climate in opposite directions)
These periodic or sinusoidal oscillations in climate can be seen clearly in the following graph which are the collated US Senate Reconstruction of climate as reported in 2005. Note that the temperature was warm in about 1000 AD and is warm again now, and was rather cold in the 1600s.
We have this observed sinusoidal oscillation over ~ 1000 years. There was a warm period from about 50 BC to 50 AD. There was a warm spot in the period 1300 BC to 900 BC. We are in one now, and we had one in ~1000 AD.
So there is a millenial cycle, no doubt about it. But (thinking about it) I don't think we can obtain this observed ~1000 year cycle from the Milankovitch cycles.
Just to expound on this: there are five Milankovitch cycles, each with its own multi-millenial frequency:
Apidal Precession (rotation of the locus of the Earths orbit about the sun) which you wouldn't think would have a large effect.
Shape of Orbit (how close to a circle the orbit is) which should have a large effect on received radiation.
Orbital Inclination (angle of orbit to plane of the ecliptic) - I guess a light effect.
Axial Tilt (North-South angle to earths orbit): large effect.
Axial Precession (North-South angle against sidereal background). I can't distinguish a difference in insolation between this and Axial tilt but maybe there's some factor I'm not seeing.
So there are five Milankovitch cycles, maybe two or three of them are important oscillations. And they vary in frequency from about 100,000 years down to 25,000 years. Adding their effects together would give us an interesting wobbly curve, but the addition of low frequency curves cannot magically give us one with a modulated frequency of ~ a thousand years.
I guess therefore that we have to look for another factor that effects effective insolation (sunshine entering the Earth's energy budget) as a source for the "1000-year itch".
We already have the high frequency 11-year and 121 year temperature cycles. These are discernable from the Senate graphs and are well correlated to sunspot activity, or the lack thereof.
For instance: there was a period of low sunspot activity at the start of the 18th century called the Maunder Minimum: this coincided with Europe's so-called "Little Ice Age".
In passing: there is an interesting piece of history here. 200 years ago, during the "Little Ice Age" the famous astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and noted that grain prices were higher in years with low sunspot activity (meaning that the harvest was poorer in those years). This seemed a crazy correlation at the time, but we can now begin to make sense of it.
Here's the theory: in periods of high Solar magnetic activity ( = loads of sunspots) the Sun's magnetosphere is relatively strong. It acts as a 'shield' against the background sleet of powerful cosmic rays that normally cause cloud-formation at low level -which is a strong cooling effect.
When the sunspot-count is low, more cosmic rays get through, causing low-level clouds and cooling. When the sunspot-count is high less cosmic rays get through. It conceivable (but not remotely proven) that the weakened cosmic rays during high sunspot periods have a role in high atmosphere cloud formation, which would have a strong warming effect.
These magnetic mechanisms have a 11 year and 121 year cycle. It seems perfectly plausible that there is a ~ 1000 year periodicity to the Suns magnetic cycle as well. Or maybe a 1331 year cycle, which would maintain the baffling 11-times-table behaviour of this periodicity :0)
Which is my guess: I believe there is a millennial period to the Sun's magnetosphere, as well as the known 11 and 121 year variations. We don't know enough about the inner workings of the Sun to get a reason for any of these periodicities but a slow thousand-year period seems like a fair hypothesis.
Hope this is helpful.
What do you do for a living Lee? lol
Yep there are many factors to consider in the whole argument and reliability of data is pretty impossible to decipher when you consider the various ways measurements are taken and the inaccuracies they produce.
What I mean is increasing the CO2 levels will increase the temperature without a doubt, but how much is impossible to tell, especially when other factors can cause bigger (and sometimes negative) effects. However at the rate we're burning fuel we're releasing far more CO2 than ever before and it's easily possible that warming could become significant enough to be present in the data. Man DOES have an effect on the earth's temperatue, whether it's causing an increase or a reduced natural decrease is anyone's guess.
global warming is poppycock
I for one don't believe the whole global warming story. It's just a huge steam roller of an industry that governments use as an excuse to get more money out of the public. I believe that climate change is something that happens naturally and always has done.
I find it funny watching adverts about global warming/melting ice caps etc when theres all these different countries having record low temperatures.
S3 S-tronic: Panther Black, lots of extras, MTM remap
I read somewhere that it's the start of the earth cycle , The earth warms up the sea heat's up etc till all hell breaks loose then worldwide multiple earthquake's that throws so much sh*t into the air that the earth enters a new ice age and life as we know it starts over again hence the film 2012 , that's kinda a prediction when its gonna happen again because the mayan callender finishes in 2012 but it doesnt prove diddley sqaut , but its also in nearly every religious book to and how would they know how it goes down ?? wierd stuff ...
The last time it's suppoedly happened was around the dinosuar age , but this collide with the meteor hitting earth theory who know's what the truth is all i know is that were in the sh*t ..
Last edited by 10blazin; 14th January 2010 at 00:27.
If you want to get some proper background on the subject in layman's terms, I'd suggest http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462.
Yes, there are solar cycles, yes there are weather cycles (el-nino/la-nina) and a whole host of things that contribute to global climate. But believe it or not, professional climate researchers actually know about this and take it into account.
It's really simple when you break it down, everything else is just fluff.
FACT: Without greenhouses gasses, the average global temperature would be around -18C
FACT: With greenhouse gasses, the average global termperature is around 14C
FACT: Carbon dioxide makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere
FACT: Carbon dioxide causes about 20% of the waming required for an average of 14C
FACT: Only about half of the man-made carbon emissions each year are re-absorbed, the rest accumulate in the atmosphere.
A gas that makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere causes 20% of our planet's 32C greenhouse warming. We keep adding more and more of it to the atmosphere. It doesn't take much to figure out what the consequences of that will be. And worse, the more warming that is caused by CO2, the more water vapour enters the atmosphere. Water vapour currently contributes to about 50% of our warming, magnifying the contribution of CO2 even further.
Oh and P.S. those temperature reconstruction graphs you show are not accurate. For example Moberg 2005 can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...ng/moberg.html. Someone has been playing with the data it seems.
Last edited by Hatchet; 14th January 2010 at 09:26.
An excerpt from a recent report in the Daily Mail:
Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'
In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.
Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.
Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.
Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.
Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.
Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all ? something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0caGmRcKx
Lets be fair, everyone has their opinion on Global Warming. Be it true or not, the bottom line is that we, as a species should evolve and adapt to new and changing conditions.
I think that it shows our failure as a species (the modern man) to not be able to adapt, and therefore, by rights should become extinct, like every other species that has failed to adapt to new conditions in the past.
It also makes me laugh that 25 years ago, climate 'experts' were telling us we were entering another ice age. Then 20 years later, we're going to boil to death, or become mutants from the UV radiation from the sun...
My view is that Global warming, as currently presented, is nothing more than a global 'con trick', the sole purpose of which is to tax us all to the hilt in order to pay the wages of those involved in the con.......!
As, just one, example look at the 'carbon trading' scam......
A debate needs to be had, but all debate is being 'closed down', just look at the language used. If you're not convinced about global warming, you are called a 'denier'.......... Ring any bells...??
In my personal opinion
Mr Al Gore tells us that CO2 causes the temperatures to rise. In actual fact, it's the other way around. The temperatures rise which make the CO2 go up too. I simply don't believe that what ever mankind does will ever be more powerful than the sun.
S3 S-tronic: Panther Black, lots of extras, MTM remap
I think who ever says global warming is poppy cock or isnt happening is seriously deluded its happening anyway but we are speeding it up for sure , the amount of natural disaster's this century is nothing short of shocking , the sea IS rising the artic shelf IS melting at a stupid rate , Not bible bashing or anything but the bible and koran both warn of what is happening now and its effin scary , We are in the last day's for sure ..
And to be honest it's slowly but surely gona hit everyone on the planet even the rich , starvation , flood's , earthquake's , plague's , riots and war is all coming . This decade is gonna be hard i tell you...
Obcourse its true, everyone knows the global warming propaganda bandwagon is about money and nothing more.
Next someone will be saying we went to iraq to find weapons of mass destruction
Maritus Blue Audi A4 3.0 V6 S-Line TDi 275bhp, 585nm Torque
I wonder what contry which has oil will be the next 'county with weapons of mass destruction' that we need to invade and install a new government into....?Next someone will be saying we went to iraq to find weapons of mass destruction
Thats if the mayan calendar does wipe us all out first.... Anyone seen 2012? lol.Not bible bashing or anything but the bible and koran both warn of what is happening now and its effin scary , We are in the last day's for sure ..
What a 'can of worms' thread this turned out to be....
Any man made variation still has an affect even is it were smaller than a natural change. What ever size the effect is it still exists.Are you telling me that something that is less than the natural variation will make a difference?
How does the heat create CO2?Mr Al Gore tells us that CO2 causes the temperatures to rise. In actual fact, it's the other way around. The temperatures rise which make the CO2 go up too. I simply don't believe that what ever mankind does will ever be more powerful than the sun.
I saw on the tv the other day that the ice sheet had grown in size lol. I think that the earths doing it by itself as it showed it started at the start of the 20th centerury but were just speeding it up a bit.
Then they say sea temperatures are going to get colder thus creating colder seasons for the whole earth. I think the world leaders know its not really happening as they doing nothing about it anyway.
Its gone replaced with a mk2 golf gti 16v :D
The polar ice caps are relics of the ice-age in my eyes
We are entering another ice age weather you like it or not , The government aint gona tell you sh*t cos there will be world wide panic , just like it say's in the bible armagheddon , Why are the government's building some serious underground bunkers , In every country to ..
Its cos were basically doomed those on the surface , were f*cked but i guess were gona get a ringside seat which will be cool i guess , Call me insane which i probably am but ive kinda watched and studied everything i can and im just a realist , there's no point kidding yourself ..
Unless the government's ruduce the earth's population by 1 third , the planet cannot sustain life as we know it , this is why aid's was introduced by the world health organisation and why swine flu has been introduced its all bull**** untill they re-release the spanish flu of i think 1918 which was dug up by scientist and has been tinkered with expect it's entrace soon .
They gotta be cruel to be kind , collateral i guess
And YES it does make a difference, according to 97% of climate scientists (2009 survey) and every major scientific body in the world (including the Royal Society).
Last edited by Hatchet; 14th January 2010 at 23:39.
You are absolutely correct that in the past as temperatures have risen, CO2 release has followed. One of the reasons for this is that warmer oceans are less capable of absorbing CO2 than cooler waters. As we warm the planet, it is going to be less capable of absorbing CO2 than in the past, very possibly making the situation much worse!
1) If scientists wanted to make money out of this, surely they would be promoting a controvery rather than a consensus.
2) These scientists make a very modest salary, with most of them working at universities.
3) It doesn't matter how much money they pull in in grants for reasearch programs, they still make the same salary. They can employ more people and buy more equipment, but that is about it.
However on the "dissident" side you have organisations like the Heartland Instute, which accepts millions of dollars each year from oil companies and is run by muli-millionaires.
If you want to make money, I know which side of the fence I'd prefer to be on.
I'm not refering to the scientists, as you say, they don't get any more out of it either way.........
If you had read the remainder of my post it would have pointed you on the right direction....!! Think also about the politics of global energy? How many vested interests are there in the production of vast 'wind farms' for example...??
In my personal opinion
But if what you propose is true, then the scientists would have to be in on it, because there is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that warming is occurring and that it has a human cause.
Now any scheme that imposes a tariff on carbon will probably work just about as well as any other government scheme and I'm not really sure what I think about it. I do know that we have a quite sucessful scheme in NSW, which hardly anyone knows about, called the Renewable Energy Certificate scheme. It only applies to energy generation. When you buy a solar water heater etc, you get a number of certificates and power generators will buy off you for real money to offset their carbon emissions and subsidising the cost of the water heater. Most people don't even see the certificates because it happens behind the scenes.
I think such schemes can work, however I'm skeptical that it can be applied on a global scale.
You need to do a bit of research on carbon trading........... It already IS a global scam! It's a multi billion pound industry......
You might also want to look up the other 'energy' interests of the large oil companies.......??
Then rethink your position... Perhaps..?
In my personal opinion
I have seen huge exagerations, especially in the media, on the effects of warming. I've also seen so much misinformation coming out of the "unbeliever" side, that I can only conclude it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. I've seen politicians trying to score cheap points off each other. And I also see people stuggling to get real and accurate information about the issue. But I've not, so far, seen any signs of a scam.
But I'm happy to look at anything you have, because really I don't care if the climate is warming or cooling or staying the same, manmade or not. I just like to understand the science of what is actually happening so that we can be prepared to deal with it.
Crikey, is the education system that bad these days????? Plants absolutely thrive on CO2 and it is used in commercial greenhouses along with fertilisers. And if you want to debate about the facts, you better make sure you know them all from both sides of the arguement. Most AGW theories from the CRU are crude and selective - keeps them in funding.
Yes it is that bad. Or perhaps I just couldn't remember. But yes you're right plants do better in a CO2 rich environment. I'm happy to have my errors pointed out though as it means I learn something
There is a point though where increasing the CO2 level has minimal affect on the plant's growth but yet still has a big affect on the greenhouse effect, and for this reason it's still not a good idea to pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere.