bladerider

THE HYPE
The so called GW experts tell us the main cause of global warming is caused by to much greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide.

Wrong, pure propaganda, but a great excuse for governments around the world to come up with new ways of taxation.
But let's assume for a moment that it's true. Plants, crops, trees etc, thrive on CO2. There are many starving nations in the world. If there was more CO2, there would be bigger healthier crops to feed the hungry. As we all know, these crops will absorb the CO2 and give off oxygen, thus making the world a much better place.
So as I see it, it is our duty to use our cars etc to burn up as much hydrocarbons as we can. So lets do our bit for the starving nations.

THE FACTS.
Absolutely nothing we do will have any effect on climate change. It is a totaly natural phenomanon. Have you ever heard a GW expert mention the Milankovitch cycles? No, neither have I. They will never acknowledge the existence of such a controversial theory, as discrediting their own misinformed bullsh*t will have a detrimental effect on the amount of money their governments can extort out of greenhouse taxation.

Over a hundred years ago, a Serbian astrophysicist named Milutin Milankovitch came up with a formula to explain the reason for climate changes
His theory was almost ignored until the computer age when new methods of calculation confirmed his theory was correct.
The earths orbit around the sun varies in three axis. Eccentricity, obliquity, and precession.
I'll explain briefly,

Eccentricity
THe earth does not have a perfectly circular orbit. It varies in eccentricity from 0.0005 degrees to 0.0607 degrees (currently at 0.016). A complete cycle taking aound 100,000 years.

Obliquity
This is the amount of tilt of the earths axis away from the orbital plane. This tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees (currently at 23.5) A complete cycle is around 40.000 years.

Precession
This is the change in orientation of the earths rotational axis and takes around 20,000 years for a complete cycle.

Using these three cycles, Milankovitch was able to fomulate a mathematical model that mapped out climate change for 300,000 years.
You can find out all about it by doing a Google search for Milankovitch's orbital variation theory. It explains the REAL truth about global warming.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Wot my old boy has been saying for years.

Unfortunately, greedy governments cabn't tax the earth for having this cycle, so they ignore it, and tax us instead

Alcazar

ski

Thats correct Global warming is just BIG BS !

Got to get that message to the masses before they get brainwashed with more Horsesh*t from government and media.Evil b.........

Really disapointed with the BBC who ran stories on their news not so long ago,but gave a very one sided view.do the BBC get their programming from Stalin or something??

andyfish

I thought that it was the methane from cow dung that was causing the global warming - makes car emissions look like small fry.

ru'

...and it turns out trees etc. actually release C02 as well. Probably even more when hugged...

Chris L

There's a a good article explaining this on Wikipedia - very technical, but it does also explain afew of the problems with the theory -although I'm more inclined to go along with this as it is backed up by some decent science - which seems to be lacking in many of the explanations of global warming.

oblong

I was going to say yes before you answered your own question. I have heard GW experts mention Milankovitch cycles.

It's not controversial. I am not aware of any climate scientists that doesn't accept Milankovitch cycles (or the concept that long term solar cycles affect earth's temperature), let alone one that doesn't even acknowledge the concept exists.

Milankovitch cycles do not discredit anthropogenic global warming.

Milankovitch cycles explain temperature cycles at scales of thousands of years as you mention. For that reason they are too long term to explain the recent warming in the past century.

"The Milankovitch theory is an explanation of long term climate change"

ie not short term climate change.

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

Wow an expert! NOT.
Short term climatic change is relatively meaningless. The only way to judge climatic change properly is over millions of years. Therfore, I totally agree with bladerider.

However....an explaination of short term climate change over the past century is what you're looking for? Well this can be explained by the Friis-Christensen Lassen report from 1991. I won't bore you with all the details except to say that solar activity has a direct corrolation with climate change over short term cycles of 11 years and 70-90 years.

How's this for short term. Yesterday it was cold and raining, today it's sunny and warm. How's that for a short term dramatic climate change.

Generic User

I never have managed to comprehend the fascination with CO2

We breath it out, as does every living animal.

Cull every human in massively overpopulated countries (like the UK )and we'd still have climate issues, because the world never has had a stable climate.

Ben v7

I have to agree with the notion that the government is using climate change as a good reason to tax us more than out of any genuine concern about the environment.

We have a tiny nation and countries like China and India are pumping out massive amounts of pollution - look at the typical car for example in one of those countries... tens of times more polution that our cars. So why isn't that issue raised... similarily aviation is far more damaging than motoring regarding 'global warming' but how often do you hear the government discussing that one - not often because there is no direct and easy link to higher tax's for the middle classes.

ricardo

Isn't it fascinating that CO2 is suddenly a 'pollutant'. I drive 'one of the most polluting cars' according to the government...

hedgehog

While I don't for one minute support the rantings of the man made global warming true believers it must be said that there are some questions concerning the Svensmark - Friis-Christensen. Some of the pro-man made global warming scientists have accused them of "unacceptable handling of observational data." Of course a very many people are keen to hang on to the man made global warming lie for as long as possible as there is not question that it is the goose that continues to lay golden eggs.

The basis for their claims was that cosmic rays and their intensity can have a marked effect upon how cloudy the earth is. Those who did physics may recall the use of the "cloud chamber" to detect fast moving and very small particles and that is the bottom line with their theory.

Others have given support to the claims made by the Svensmark group including Nir Shaviv working in Jerusalem who contends that a lot of climate change can be explained by cosmic ray density. He also asserts that ice ages at 143 million year intervals are caused by increased cosmic ray flux as the earth passes through the arms of our galaxy.

Despite the considerable political pressures and the total withdrawal of funding from any research which even hints that man made global warming might be a lie it is good to note that money has been allocated for a small experiment at CERN to look into the impact of cosmic ray flux on cloud formation. I think Svensmark or some of his group may actually be involved in the CERN project.

It seems likely that cosmic rays have some impact upon climate and, interestingly, cosmic ray flux has fallen by about 3.7% since 1964 (Lockwood, R. et al, Nature 1999) and so some argue that this could account for a considerable proportion of recent climate change. (e.g. Marsh, N. & Svensmark, H. Space Sci. Rev. 2000)

The fact is that to ignore the sun, which provides all our energy here on earth, when trying to consider climate change is madness. Those who claim that the sun has no impact on our climate have never been outside on a sunny day and considered why it is different to a cloudy day, nor have they considered why winter is colder than summer here in the UK. According to the IPCC figures carbon dioxide MAY in the worst case have contributed a 0.17K warming in the last 100 years and if all the carbon available to us as fuel were to be released at once into the atmosphere then, because warming due to CO2 is a log function, it might produce a further warming of 0.1K. (we have burnt about 1 trillion barrels of oil and about 2 trillion more is currently estimated to remain) The error in our current knowledge of global average temperature is approaching 1K for the best figures so any human contribution to climate change is down in the noise. As the 60 leading climate scientists who wrote to the Canadian PM said:

“"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise".”

oblong

If you want to judge climate change over millions of years then short term climate change will be meaningless. But if you want to judge climate change over say 100 years, or 20,000 years, then short term climate change is very meaningful.

And they revisited their paper in a 2000 article:

Abstract:
Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature: New data
P. Thejll and K. Lassen
It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. Adding new temperature data for the 1990s and expected values for the next sunspot extrema we test whether the solar cycle length model is still adequate. We find that the residuals are now inconsistent with the pure solar model. We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d801025077d61d

Ie their model fit past data but doesn't fit when new data came in.

oblong

Where did you hear that? Got a link?

dnc

A hot topic of debate, this one. I also lie firmly in the camp of believing it is govnmt propaganda to justify green taxes. Good old Dubya seems to be more informed than the rest of the 'global leaders' put together! There is a book by Michael Crichton 'state of fear' which, yes is fictionalised, but gives a good account of the mindset and plain ignorance of the greens. The arguments for mans inflence on climate change is shot down via a number of sciece fact articles, all referenced in the book. Well worth a read if you are a fellow non-believer.

ricardo

Nice graphs here, for those that like graphs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...insolation.jpg

Of course if it is simply a cycle where it suddenly warms up at the end of the interglacial and then tips to an ice age state every time then we're just going round again. If the bit just before each ice age state is a sudden rise in CO2 to the levels we've got now then it probably would be too rapid to have those highest levels registered in the historical data.

oblong

There's a good critism of State Of Fear here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

I think it is about as error ridden as Al Gore's presentation

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

By a house somewhere high and warm (south) and enjoy the view if it happens or if it doesn't.

Doubters are those who don't want to change their selfish habits and can't handle a hideous scenario.

Believers are those who care about their environment and others.

F
PS I haven't said which view I am with.

hedgehog

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. I believe though I don't have any link to those figures and am not aware if they are available on the web.

The discussion on this page touches on some aspects involved in the derivation of the figures, though it doesn't address them directly and certainly doesn't present the same figures. However, it gives some idea of the tune if not the words:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

philc

what colours my thinking on all this is the previous alarms about impending doom - two that I well remember;

in the 60's the commonly held belief was that we were heading for another ice age - PREPARE YOURSELF !

in the early 1970's the commonly held belief was that oil would run out by the end of that decade .....

... and so here we go again; this time it's 'global warming'.

please excuse my cynicism (maybe Ive been reading the newspapers for too long)

TelBoy

The naivety of this statement almost prevented me reading any further.

Yes, it COULD all be a conspiracy, a nasty little global ruse to get us to reduce our usage of the Earth's resources.

So as an opposer, what exactly are you saying? That you deserve the right to plunder those resources at whatever rate you deem fit, that global warming can go stuff itself, and if it DOES prove to be truthful, well oh dear me it's the next generation's problem?

Said it before, say it again. It amazes me the degree to which some people want to absolve themselves of any responsibility on this matter, when all it takes is some minor modifications to your probable prodigal behaviour at present. It isn't particularly onerous. Sometimes i despair of the human race.

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

Global warming and the ice age are the same thing.

F

Leslie

We don't know enough to know whether it is global warming which is causing our undeniable climate change over a comaparatively short period of time. We cannot say whether the scientists are right or wrong in this respect as far as their theories are concerned.

We are however responsible for the legacy that we leave for our descendants so we cannot morally ignore the problem for our own selfish wishes.

Les

Paul3446

"Breathe, start the engine, wind the window down and breathe,
breathe, put a blanket at the door and then just breathe,
when we wake up in the morning of the last day of the world
what the hell they gonna say
at the dawning of the ice age was it worth it after all
I wonder what they'll say, if we breathe".

r32

King Canute ...................

Hoppy

TelBoy, and to everybody else on this thread, have you read hedgehog's link above, and also the related links posted at the bottom of it? It's a good and easy read. There's masses of informed comment on this subject without looking too hard. Just not in most popular media or political manifestos.

If I've understood it right, hedgehog's link is another confirmation that the temperature of our planet is constantly changing, it always has and always will. Up and down. Neither is necessarily good or bad. Mankind has had no measurable influence on it, nor can we do anything to change it. It is mother nature doing what she has always done, beneath the surface of the earth and on the sun. Especially the latter, which seems entirely logical to me.

So yes, trying to reverse nature and wasting time doing things that don't help is, well, a waste of time.

And time is also a finite resource, indeed our most precious, so we should spend it very carefully. If 'saving' the planet is folly (assuming it's in danger, and that somehow we can make time stand still) that is no reason why we shouldn't do as much as possible and spend time (= money, effort) to minimise potential damage to life as we know it, or indeed exploit potential up-sides.

But that is a different issue to global warming, and when and how we use fosil fuels is another question again. The short-sighted people are those that think switching off the lights and changing to solar-powered cars will, like a magic wand, put the world to rights and make us feel happy and righteous about the future.

It's not that simple.

Richard.

Abdabz

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
Thas orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned
'Round the sun that is the source of all our power
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at fourteen thousand miles an hour
Of a galaxy we call the milky way

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick
But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide
We're thirty thousand light-years from galactic central point
We go 'round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space
'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth!

TelBoy

Never in doubt. However;

is a gross assumption. As is;

And lastly, so is;

Massive, massive assumptions.

Personally, i can't just sit there and hope for the best, hope all the extracts linked to on here are right, and be all warm and fuzzy inside when i see the scale of the utter crap that is pumped into our atmosphere. Nobody doubts the Earth is in a warming cycle; what you and nobody else can do is guarantee that we aren't helping it along its way, with potentially catastrophic effects. Yes, it's always happened. Has it happened during the life of a modern, industialised, over-populated planet? No. And i hope everyone who refuses to believe Man has any part in this is happy to tell his children that he did **** all to try and avert the process while he had the chance.

OllyK

Not true. I've said before, using resources sparingly makes sense from the perspective that our resources are finite if nothing else. I believe the planet is warming, I am not inclined to believe that the effect is entirely to do with humans although I think it would be naive to believe that we are having no impact at all. I don't think we can control the change, i.e. if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow (or if we never had), it's still going to carry on getting warmer and places will flood. We'd perhaps be better focused on how we are going to deal with losing many of our coastal towns rather than doing a Canute.

Hoppy

TB, I certainly didn't say do "**** all".

Amongst the massive assumptions that I am making (agreed) are your equally massive assumptions that industrial waste is both a 'cause' and a 'problem' that threatens our imminent future.

Now that is really dangerous because if we stop burning fosil fuels etc etc it WILL have a massively detrimental effect on billions of people. That IS bad. Also, if we did that it would make everybody think that the problem was solved, when it isn't, and so much human effort would have been wasted that there would be much less resource (and enthusiasm) left to address the real issue - the effects, good and bad, of climate change.

So I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying do the right thing because doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. We've got to get it right and so far the knee-jerk reaction of capping fosil fuel use doesn't appear helpful and it is clouding the issue (sorry) most unhelpfully.

Richard.

PS I don't know what the right answers are, either!