Global Warming VS Global Cooling and Greenpeace

[IR15H]

Tim has mentioned the recent IPPC report, complied by hundreds of scientists, from all over the world, which recieved acceptance from the global community and has also provided numerous America scientific bodies who also support such a position. If you wish to argue against the statements within the report, or present a similar but opposing report from scientific bodies please now do so. Please also refer to scientific bodies or reports, not internet articels written by journalists.

Climate change is a natural occurance, no one said it wasn't. What is not natural is the rate at which the change is happening.

1. Greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, basically trap heat within the atmosphere, making it warmer.

Carbon dioxide.


Methane.


Nitrous oxide.



There are of course the natural effects (such as volcanoes, as mentioned) which one must consider.

[Tim Skellett]

Originally Posted by Shelley_c

Exactly how many household appliances have you got switched on including your computer and all the extra gadgets

If you're asking my personal details, my house is wired for maximum energy saving. It's also renovated widely to save energy. All appliances in my house conform to the most recent standards for energy-saving. Fairly soon I will also have a solar-cell covered roof on the large roof of the ex-factory building I also own next to my house.

Originally Posted by carpefile

The point you are trying to make (Tim), is the error itself. A problem does not exist, climate change is a natural phenomena, with man's impact accounting for slightly over 1/4 of 1%.

No, that's wrong. Ask the inhabitants of low-lying Pacific island nations about the rising sea levels owing to global warming; they will point out exactly what the problem is. Ask about increasing catastrophic long-duration droughts in Australia. Ask by how much average temperatures will increase in the southern USA and in southern Europe, and how much average rainfall will decrease. Ask about the spread of tropical diseases up north, in the USA and in Europe.
There is a very real problem going on; denying it doesn't cure it.
As for your claim about the proportion of global warming that is owing to manmade activities, I don't buy that one at all either, for good reasons. Do you have any scientific citation for your claim?

That is why I say stop the fear mongering. Trumpeting over and over that the sky is falling, doesn't make it so. Constantly referencing an alleged consensus of scientists, when in fact none exists, does not prove your point.

Nonsense. "Alleged"? Puh-leeze, I gave the exact citation, so you could actually look at it. Perhaps you would actually look at the evidence given here, which proved an actual scientific consensus, and if you wish to debate, give actual evidence in reply, instead of throwing around empty accusations like "fear-mongering".

[carpefile]

You again miss the point. Nobody is saying global warming does not exist. That's your consensus in a nutshell. What is nowhere near consensus is WHY.
The IPCC Summary you keep referencing as proof is a flawed document. The summary does not reflect the actual report.
It is not nearly as easy to present the dissenting view as it is not as neatly packaged as the reader's digest version you submit as "proof", but you asked for it, so I will oblige.

Prepare for a lot of reading.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4870
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...1/fulltext.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Li...g_31Jan07.html

Originally Posted by excerpt from above link regarding IPCC Summary for Policymakers

It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL028492.shtml

That should hold you for a few minutes anyway, assuming you do bother to read any of it.

It is also important to note that the so-called “Skeptics” include Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard; Claude Allegre, one of the most decorated French geophysicists; Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia: Dr. Fred Singer; Professor Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Australia;

85 scientists and climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzeg Declaration which called drastic climate controls “ill-advised, lacking credible support from the underlying science;

17,000 scientists and leaders involved in climate study who signed a petition issued by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying there is no evidence green house gasses cause global warming;

and the 4,000 scientists and leaders from around the world, including 70 Nobel Prize winners, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal calling greenhouse global warming theories “highly uncertain scientific theories.”

There simply is no consensus, nor massive cause for alarm. You may be able to cram this down the throats of Joe Sixpack who gets his world view from "The Fair and Balanced Reporting" of Fox News, but people who actually analyze the data and think for themselves can't be so easily swayed.

BTW, I do appreciate that this discussion has remained civil throughout, and hope it continues to be so as I doubt it will be allowed to continue if it becomes too heated.

[Tim Skellett]

Originally Posted by carpefile

You again miss the point. Nobody is saying global warming does not exist.

Wrong again. Go back and read just the OP; it certainly seems to deny any such thing happening.

The IPCC Summary you keep referencing as proof is a flawed document. The summary does not reflect the actual report.

Oh please. Either produce exact quotes and evidence, or stop with empty claims already.

.....That should hold you for a few minutes anyway, assuming you do bother to read any of it.

I'm glad to see you producing some evidence, though I am quite amused to see the Cato Institute being implied to be an authority on climatology there.
Since I have been the one so far to produce any evidence at all, maybe you could just answer points directly instead of making unasked-for comments about what I may not read.

There simply is no consensus, nor massive cause for alarm.

You claimed this before, it simply isn't true. Later when I have more time, I will be going right through what you've finally cited, but I will remind you of your claim before -- you claimed that the same scientists who had endorsed the report that I cited had disavowed it. You have produced so far zero but zero evidence for that claim.

BTW, I do appreciate that this discussion has remained civil throughout, and hope it continues to be so as I doubt it will be allowed to continue if it becomes too heated.

Perhaps less emotional accusations of "fear mongering" would help that cause. Or comments about what I may not read. Cheers.

[IR15H]

Whether there is a scientific consenus or not, is, to a large extent, irrelevant - and not a point I have argued. If the majority of the world though that it was flat it wouldn't make it true. Raise points about the evidence you disagree with.

Your first link, dated '92, says it feels the worst case scenrios are unlikely. It mentions that man made greenhouse gases account for a small percent of total greenhouse gases but says nothing on how changing this affects nature's balance. The last bit is about scientific consensus, which I've already addressed.

Your second link, from what I gather, is someone who supports global warming. He says that someone missed used his work, by edited out some lines on a graph, in an attempt to discredit it. He says sceptics are useful as they make people search for the answers to the questions and he feels that in time the questions will be answered.

Your third link, seems to suggest man contribution to CO2 is largely insignificant. I would disagree with this, seeing as in 650,000 years CO2 ppm never exceeded 300.



I don't buy that massive increase in natural. Furthermore, it argues that water vapour is more important but also fails to adress the effect the other greenhouse gases have on water vapour. The latter half talks about Kyoto Protocol not being the best way to tackle the problem, which doesn't mean there isn't one.

Your fourth link, written by a journalist with no argue of substance.

Your fifth link, argues that because CO2 is responsible for warming holding it steady will result in a drop in temperature. However, the point is that CO2 levels are not steady, and with China opening up a new coal plant everyday, or something ridiculous, there is no sign that it's going to be a problem. Also, it doesn't deny current warming, and how such current warming could result in the release of more CO2 from natural sources, such as the oceans. It also fails to mention any greenhouse gases other than CO2. I only read the summary and introduction, however.

Your sixth link, talks about thermohaline circulation, saying it feels it is unlikely that global warming (which it didn't deny) would be unlikely to result in th shutting down of the Gulf Stream - which would actually result in localised cooling for parts of Europe. The Gulf Stream has shut down before, when glaciers from north America melted and flooded the stream with massive amounts of freshwater, this resulted in a mini ice age for Europe. The concern this time round is with Greenland, and the effect it's glaciers melting could have on the stream. The research into this is as of yet inconclusive and it is only preposed as a possiblity.

Your seventh link, talks about sea levels. Given the industrial revolution has been for over 200 years I would have prefered to see sea levels of longer than just 100. However, it says that the sea levels have indeed been rising. Furthermore, it mentions nothing of what continual rises in temperature would do, particularly on the effects of land glaciers melting, or the density of water changing due to temperature change. Also, rising sea levels is just one possible effect of climate change.

EDIT:

In future could you please post specific things you disagree with and why you disagree with them. Posting a list of sites to read isn't really a debate as such, and is very timely to go through it all and pick out points that you are trying to present as your disagreement.

[fsw]

For the sake of this bit - lets assume the following.

1) Global Warming is real - undeniable - man is responsible.


Don't care if you think it is or not - for the next bit - you do.


Now lets consider somethings

1) Its estimated at the current rates or use, and growth in use - if this trend did not evern stop until the last drop of oil was out of the ground ... we have between 40 and 50 years left. The only thing that would probably be wrong with the estimation is that the growth in use is going to grow even faster as China, India, etc catch up with the West.

Good balanced reference - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...shortage_x.htm


2) Regardless of the exact time frame of the amount of oil left - its clear that we are not talking a long period of time. Being that when Americans panic - the world comes along fro the ride - when Prudhoe Bay goes belly up - oil is going to spike in a big way. Thats in the next few years.

Another reference - accounting for both 1 and 2. http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...on-prudhoe/254

3) No reference here - just common sense. Somewhere between now - and when we would run out of oil - oil will no longer be economically viable for the use as it is now. I would guess it to be somewhere around when we have about 20 years supply left.

Natural supply and demand is the second and obvious reason. (first is in #2) Demand will far exceed supply.

Oil prices will soar - and I really do believe - soar to heights we can not even imagine. You have many products that are dependent on oil as an ingredient - products that can absorb a much higher cost of oil than day to day use can. That is the third reason.

Governments will begin stockpilling it in amounts that dwarf what we see today. There is no military in the world that can take a chance with being in a war 40 years later and having nothing to fill the tanks of their fighters. Thats reason number four.

Reason number five - is completely artificial. That being short term investors competing with long term corporation investment. The short term being obviously the buy/sell now type - the long term looking at 50, 100, and even longer style of investments. As it becomes more and more of an expensive, very limited commodity - you are going to see more and more of it bought and stuck in private holding tanks - to sit - and wait. Doesnt cost that much money to dig a hole - throw some storage in - and put a parking lot on top of it.


... ok - so we got maybe 20-25 years of oil under 10 dollars US a gallon left. If we are lucky.


Ok - now lets take that info and think about it.

Just to throw out a common link - but good enough for here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

You can also just search on the net and find more references that back up this next part than you could ever read.


... so here it is.

Nothing that has been agreed to or proposed and is being seriously considered has any real effect on Greenhouse gases or otherwise.

The amount of effect that they have is completely offset by the fact that over 1/2 of the worlds emmissions come from exempt countries... and including countries like the US that are not on board with the latest things like Kyoto - thats nearly 75% of the worlds Greenhouse gases.


So - now lets throw in the last bit on this.

I have seen that for the low low cost of only 1% of the Worlds GDP - we can implement all these ideas and suggestions that will have very little effect overall on the issuue.

Thats it just 1 penny on the dollar. Not a bad price you have to admit.



That leaves us with two options as I see it.


A) Find someone that is going to fork over 450 Billion bucks so we can do a good deed - pat ourselves on the back - we saved the world... and then even pat ourselves in harder on the back because --- -see - nobody uses Oil anymore --- since its 59.99 a gallon at the local Esso (I figure that in 20 to 30 years Esso will be listing its prices in dollars )

or

B) Do nothing - and still run out of Oil - and still be forced into another fuel source. The do nothing plan effects nothing in terms of our Greenhouse gases we release - because nothing proposed, agreed to - or otherwise does anything like that anyway - and it has the one advantage of we do not need Santa to show up with 450 Billion bucks.



....... Personally - I will take plan B.


(oh - coal power plants.... as soon as many of the same environmental groups that are screaming about Global Warming stop doing everything in their power to prevent the construction of Nuclear Power Plants.... this will be a non issue and take care of itself)

.. and damnit - I was just looking for something else - completley unrelated - how the heck did I just send up writing a post for an hour here on this

[PennylessZ28]

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural

Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly."

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

[Chris M]

Has anyone actually got any knowledge of what subject this is about?

Global warming is a natural process - All we are doing is accelerating it by a few hundred years... I agree that's wrong but there is so much hype over something that is going to happen anyway...

Chris

[PennylessZ28]

Originally Posted by Chris M

Has anyone actually got any knowledge of what subject this is about?

Global warming is a natural process - All we are doing is accelerating it by a few hundred years... I agree that's wrong but there is so much hype over something that is going to happen anyway...

Chris

Chris, the main reason behind the hype, and the UN has already stated it, is to create a global carbon tax, to fund more bullshit by power elite. They feed off everyones normal and understandable fears and interested in wanting to take care of the planet.

These same people, want to TAX everyone in the world, and punish you for having more then two children, (part of a depopulation agenda by the UN), taxing the world will mostly burden third world countries and prevent them from raising up out of poverty. Name one place the UN has been, where it's actually gotten better? Anyone? They invent a problem, wait for you reaction, then create a solution (the Solution is always more government btw) And yes its natural, as temperatures have been raising on all the planets. And when they reverse, they'll be able to go, look it's working, we were right.

EVIL, hiding behind the guise of world peace and unity. I love it.