jonc

The Earth's temperature has been going up and down like a yo-yo since its creation. There is irrifutable fact.
The CO2 level in the Earth's atmosphere has been going up and down like a yo-yo since its creation. This is irrifutable fact.
CO2 is relatively a poor green house gas, methane for example is 21 times more effective. This is irrifutable fact.
CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the earth's atmoshpere of which a minuscule proportion of that is man made. This is irrifutable fact.
Solar activity has a huge influence on Earth's weather system. This is irrifutable fact.
Solar activity is at its highest in the last 60 years of its 1000 year recorded history. This is irrifutable fact.

Mankinds affect on global warming, Questionable.
A great way of raising revenue through "green" taxation. This is irrifutable fact!

WRXMATT

I have always believed man made global warming to be rubbish, why? because its just common sense. Just look back at earths long history and the temperature has always changed. For me (and i hope anybody with i bit of intelligence) there is no argument.

This program has just shown the science fact to back it up and its about time, i just wish everyone had seen it (shame those people in third world/developing countries couldn't as they aren't allowed electricity).

The big issue is when are the governments going to acknowledge the truth and stop making us all feel guilty. Why are we paying so much for fuel and when are we going to suffer carbon (natural substance we are all made of) rationing.

Matt

unclebuck

Blair and the EU fruit loops in Brussels aren't listening to the facts though:

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | EU agrees renewable energy target

Martin2005

Very dangerous view mate. You can't just use one agenda driven TV show, and say that this is definitive proof that Co2 isn't driving global warming.
The reason you've swallowed this hypothesis hook line and sinker is because the opposite view is inconvenient for you.

The balance of all scientific evidence still rest 80:20 in the man made camp, you cannot just ignore that...can you?

What last night excellent programme did show was that this is an incredibly complex area, and the jury is still out.

WRXMATT

Martin2005,
My view was not because the tv show last night, all that did was show me that i am not the only one.
As for the jury still being out, it isn't, it has been decided that we are causing it and we are going to have to pay. I think this is very wrong as there is such strong evidence arguing against it. As was pointed out on the show last night, this is having an advese affect on people in this world.

I think more debate is needed but until people start looking at both sides this is not going to happen. If people truly care about the planet and believe me i do, then we cannot ignore such evidence and shouldn't be so quick to believe everything we are being told.

Thanks for your comments
Matt

jonc

Likewise you can't just accept all research into concluding that manmade CO2 is heating up the Earth as definitive proof either. Especially since a lot of the research is Government back study. Like you said, climate change is incredibly complex, and then for it to be simplified by saying manmade CO2 is the cause of global warming. Fact is there is no conclusive proof that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.

David Lock

Thanks for the input on my question about what was in the programme.

My usual point which I mention in every thread on this subject is why does every political party buy into the "man's CO2 emissions will destroy the planet" argument. No party is going to be popular sticking on green taxes, banning large vehicles, reducing flying etc etc. So an opposition party that said "hey wait a minute we don't believe all the hype" would be extremely popular. But they don't do that. Why not? Why jump on an unpopular bandwagon? dl

jonc

Its all about being "seen doing the right thing", protecting our future and your children's future. Nothing about proof or fact. Family values rate highly for voters, and is a great way for government to control population and raise revenue.

WRXMATT

I agree, and i fear its too late now for any other view to be considered or even listened too. Some of the comments on hear prove that.

Who knows if in a few decades temperatures might drop and we'll be in fear of another ice age (like in the 1970's) and the end of mankind lol. That would no doubt get blamed on something that would get the government votes.

TonyG

Can I just correct a bit of a myth about the 1970s 'ice age doomsayers' here? An impending ice age was just one of several theories around at that time. Another was global warming (even back then so it's not a recent theory), as being man-made. At the time, none of the theories could be tested since we didn't have the tools/data to make any certain predictions. The ice age one was leapt on by the media of the time because artist's impressions of London disappearing under an ice sheet were far more dramatic than London with a few tropical palm trees dotted around.

||VaNDaL||

we can all do our bit to stop climate change whether it's cyclic as the earths climate seems to be throughout existance or caused by too many politicians spouting off hot air about it,

if every motorist in the world just turned on their air conditioning and opened the windows.........

swaussie

Pay me enough money and I will go on TV and tell anyone what they want to hear as well. Big business has a lot at stake here and I mean a LOT! Smoking comes to mind as another example of what these tossers go on with...

Although I haven't seen the program in question I still think man must be contributing something to global warming. It didn't take us long with the CFC's we were using to create a dirty great hole in the ozone layer, so whats stopping the millions of tons of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere every year adding to global warming?

Sure there are a multitude of factors at play here (sun spots, change in the earths trajectory, earth goes through cycles, whatever) but how can we say unequivocally that a known greenhouse gas (albeit a weak one) could not be adding to global warming one damn bit?

WRXMATT

Even if Co2 did have a small effect, history has shown that the earth's temperature will rise and fall whatever. If the temperature plummets (and it inevitably will one day) and we have scrapped all coal/oil power for renewable energy will we all freeze?

Martin2005

[quote=hutton_d;6732184][quote=Martin2005;6732072]

The balance of all scientific evidence still rest 80:20 in the man made camp, you cannot just ignore that...can you?
You seem pretty certain about that. I genuinely hope you are right.

Martin2005

I agree which is why I keep saying I keep an open mind.

BTW, it's really odd that I keep being attacked for holding a perfectly reasonable an non extreme point of view on this. I don't believe all the scare stories on GW, and I don't believe all the contray stuff either

jonc

Not having ago at you mate, just having a discussion

I just can't see how a miniscule amount of gas (0.04% of Earth's atmosphere, of which a miniscule amount of that being manmade) that has poor "green house" properties is responsible for the recent "extreme" weather, "unseasonal" temparature and the melting of the polar ice caps as sensationalised by the media. For me its like trying to heat an olympic sized swimming pool with a tea cup of hot water at a time.

I'm all for renewable energy sources etc, since fossil fuels is finite and prefer a cleaner environment, but its definitely not because of CO2 emmissions.

51st state

carbon in the atmosphere lasts for 25years only!!!!

if the planets climate did'nt change there would dinosaurs running loose

some of you have forgot the arguement and seton each other in a fight

all this so called scientific evidense has to rely on an educated guess at some point, does it not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and this goverment has a knack of using this kind of popular momentum to lever more money of us in stealth taxes

i did not see the programme , but have never been convinced by the hype, the green people or people who shout a lot are all in my opinion people trying tobe somebody as much they believe in there cause, how many of these PC groups are run by what are really the bottom feeders of life

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

I didn't watch the programme, so I'll wait to see the repeat.

Can anyone tell me if they mentioned the earth's "orbital variation cycles"? (The natural phenomenon which has be PROVED to cause global warming/cooling)
Back in the 1800's, a Serbian astrophysicist called Mulatin Milankovitch developed a mathematical model that accurately maps out global temperature variation. Even without the use of a computer, he worked out the temperature variation for 300,000 years.

oblong

Which demonstrates to me that the program must have been designed to mislead about the science.

1) Temperatures are rising, but this is not something new or unnatural (temps actually fell for 40 years during the greatest C02 production post WW2)

The fact that temperatures "fell" between about 1940 and 1980 isn't something that goes against global warming theory. It was misleading for them to suggest that.

The same climate models that support the anthropogenic theory also reproduce the 1940-1980 "fall", so that clearly isn't something contradicting the theory:
Images from “The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change”

I put "fall" in quotes because the standard temperature records do not show such a large fall in temperature between 1940-1980 as in the graph the documentary used:
Temperature data (HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...ed-temp-pg.gif
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

2) C02 levels lag behind temperature raised by about 800 years, so the notion that C02 causes warming is invalid. In fact global warming causes increased C02, not the other way around.

Their method is not to feed false info, but to only give half the story - ie to leave important info out, therefore misleading the viewer.

In this case they did not mention that only some of the temperature rise happens in that 800 years, while most of the temperature rise takes place over the following few thousand years. That means that the majority of the temperature rise occurs after the co2 rise begins, meaning the impression that they wanted viewers to be left with - that there is no temperature rise following the co2 rise so co2 rise cannot cause temperature rise - is false.

All the ice core data demonstrates is that the initial (~800 years) interglacial warming was not triggered by a rise in co2. It does not show that the co2 rise once it began didn't cause any warming at all.

3) Mans effect on C02 levels is very small (I can't recall the actual numbers)

What they do is compare human co2 emissions with co2 emissions from all natural sources, which is far higher. Therefore they leave the viewer with the impression that "Mans effect on C02 levels is very small" compared to nature's.

But again they mislead by omitting something.

What they chose to not tell the viewers this time is that while nature emits more co2 than man, nature also absorbs a lot of co2. In fact nature absorbs more co2 than it emits. Humans emit more than they absorb. That means man's effect on on co2 levels is to cause them to rise, while nature's effect is to cause them to lower. The recent 30+% rise in co2 levels is virtually all due to man winning this tug of war. So the conclusion they wanted viewers to be left with is actually totally opposite to the truth.

Im not suprised that they would spend time mentioning lack of correlation when it came to co2 rise and temperature (1940-1980), but decided to gloss over the lack of correlation between sunspot trends and temperature (1980 onwards):

Grand Unification: Heliometeorology

oblong

Actually that article pretty much shows how solid the CFC-ozone hole growth theory is.

Notice that Singer does not directly deny that growth of the antarctic hole is caused by CFCs in that article. That was demonstrated beyond doubt when measurements by aircraft flying through the region found ozone loss correlated extremely well with the hypothezied chemical pathway from CFCs to ozone depletion.

He says the science back in the late 80s was not conclusive. In a way it seems this might be an attempt to justify his earlier skepticism. It does read like that.

The only science based argument he seems to be continuing with any effort here is that a growing antarctica ozone hole will not cause any problems. His conclusion that the CFC ban should not be enacted is heavily focused on his argument that ozone loss will cause no problems. It doesn't say CFCs shouldn't be banned because CFCs do not cause ozone depletion. That's quite telling.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

I remember watching a "scientific" cartoon at school when i was a kid.It showed that by 2020 we would all have to don protective suits all year round as when it was sunny we would be burnt alive through the lack of ozone layer, and when it was raining we would have our skin eaten away by acid rain!


Global warming is being taught as fact in our schools now so we have a whole generation believing in this myth.

Geezer

obling, that graph you show to disprove the temp rise from 1940 to 1980 just shows a simialr rise to the one we are having now in a period when we hardly contirbuted to co2 levels at all from 1900 to 1940!

Also please explain why the Mars ice caps are metling in a similar way to earths at the moment. Do we have a secret base up there all running round in V8s?

I appreciate that evidence can be presented in many ways, but it is cold fact that in the past, the atmosphere has been a) much hotter than now b) had far higher levels of CO2, yet he we are to talk about it, we have not turned in to Venus. There is still no evidence that CO2 drives climate.

I found it quite telling that even the founder of Greenpeace appeared on the prog and said just how poilitcal this had become and even Greenpeace themselves had become politicised and had little to do with green issues.

It is quite obvious that the IPCC is publishing stuff without the consent of the people they pupport to have written it. It ain't new, I took part in the Pepsi challenge, chose Coke, and recieved a letter saying thankyou for choosing Pepsi! No wonder 80% of people preferred it! Methinks the IPCC have head hunted a load of Pepsi marketing people............

Geezer

oblong

I posted a link to an image that hinted at the answer to that:
Images from “The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change”

The climate models reproduce the 1900-1940 warming via mostly natural factors. It's the recent 1980 onwards warming that cannot be reproduced without including enhanced greenhouse effect. Ie the anthropogenic signal has only recently (in the last few decades) broken clear of the natural signal.

Well Earth's southern ice cap (antarctica) is not melting much at all (in fact I believe over the last few decades it's cooled there slightly). So when Mar's southern ice cap is melting at a rapid rate (observed over a couple of martian years) that isn't at all the same as the situtation on earth.

Noone is claiming that regional warming can only occur due to enhanced greenhouse effect. Seasonal variation, and plain weather can have effects over a couple of years. With mars there simply is not the history or the records for it to be compared to Earth.

co2 can drive temperature without turning the planet into venus, or making the planet hotter than it has been ever before.

Plus when co2 levels were far higher than todays, human civilisation did not exist, in fact I don't believe our species even existed back then.

They use peer reviewed literature out there which overwhelmingly does not support the views of this documentary.

Mick

iTrader: (1)

That is another problem - 'peer review' - since scientists who investigate away from the 'dogma of the day' have great difficulty getting funded and published. So you have to be very careful as a scientist not to bite the hand that feeds you.

Mick

jonc

It’s a known fact that CO2 is a green house gas, and a relatively poor one at that and that it constitutes 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Since a lot of mankind’s activities produces CO2, a lot of the research into climate change focuses solely on how much of the man made CO2 affects the climate and global warming.

Water vapour on the other hand is more effective as a green house gas many times over than CO2 and constitutes 3% of the earth’s atmosphere. It’s also recognised that human activity has negligible influence on greenhouse water vapour. Because of this, the researches in a lot of the “peer reviewed literature”, greenhouse water vapour is generally ignored and discounts its effect to preserve their arguments when formulating their climate change models.

There are also other known causes of climate change/global warming like Earth’s eccentric orbit and rotation and solar activity. These are of course discounted too since mankind have absolutely no influences in these factors.

oblong

Well that's not true at all. Climate models include water vapor - in fact one of the reason forcasts are as high as they are is because the water vapor feedback is included. As co2 rises, air temperature rises, warmer air can hold more water water and therefore higher levels of water vapor result from evaporation, and the added water vapor causes additional warming.

Solar activity is not discounted. Changes in Earth's orbit are however not a big factor over the course of just 100 years so they are not considered because they have negliable effect in that time period.

oblong

Peer review is a lot better than no review.

This is demonstrated well by this very documentary. If they had got some climate experts to peer review the content of the documentary they would never have aired something filled with stupid mistakes such as the claim that volcanoes emit more co2 than man...

jonc

Currently the researchers for the IPCC report agree that the contribution of water vapour to anthropogenic warming is assumed to be around 50% based on their model calulations. This means that global warming, caused by other greenhouse gases, is assumed to be 50% higher than would be the case if the distribution of water vapor in the air stayed the same. But the model calculations do not forecast a real 50% increase in warming because these simulations do not take into account the influence of clouds.

We have all looked at the evidence for and against mankind's effect on green house gases and global warming. The world is warming, however, there is still no emperical proof that man made CO2 is the sole cause of global warming and climate change. I'm all for renewable and greener energy sources for cleaner environment, but not for reducing CO2, since even reducing CO2 by 30% or whatever the governments targets are, it will still have a negligible effect on warming or change of climate. We seen the evidence on both sides, we draw our own conclusions.