Global Warming...the true facts ?

Just watched a really interesting programme on Channel 4's Dispatches here in the UK.

Many scientists interviewed.

It showed that Global Warming produces increased levels of Carbon Dioxide, not the other way round, as per the popular misconception.

Basically, Global Warming is produced by................the Sun !!

(Correlated to Sunspot activity too)

It showed graphs of temperature v CO2, which clearly showed a delay of around 800 years between temperature changes, and CO2, the temperature changes occuring first.

Explained by the Oceans absorbing CO2 when cooler, and releasing CO2 when warmer, the huge volume explaining the time lag.

With regards to mans impact, that is a a very small amount, much less than environmental factors, such as volcanos, animals and decay.

Many other facts, but basically the myth is expounded by the (discredited) EU IPCC and others (media) with an invested interest.

Another fact was that it was being used to try and halt development by growing "Third World" countries, expecting them to use expensive "Non Carbon" alternatives to produce energy, such as solar and wind power, which they could ill afford.

It also showed that the world has cycles, including warmer and colder spells than we are currently experiencing, and not to worry too much about it.


So, it would appear that attempts to curb Global Warming by reduction of CO2 is a worthy cause, (in reducing pollution) but will have little effect on Global Warming.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

The film sounds like it is one of those sponsored by Exxon. CO2 levels are not only extremely high, but the CO2 is tagged so scientists can prove that the increase comes from manmade sources. The CO2 rate in oceans is increasing, threatening to kill off the lower levels on the food chain. Exxon has been very aggressive about hiring scientists to promote its point of view, but the vast majority of independent scientists acknowledge that global warming is real, is caused by human activity and is a threat to our future and the future of our children.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

***The Facts***

1, there is for the most part, nothing we can do to change it unless we can trigger a large volcano erruption or block out the sun.

2. people would rather argue rather or not we are experiencing global warming than doing anything about it.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

"but the CO2 is tagged so scientists can prove that the increase comes from manmade sources."


So, what do they hook the tag to? Is it a micro stamp on each molocule? A "Hi, I'm man made" name tag?

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

This is a good topic... worthy of discussion. BUT!... it has the potential to get nasty. Keep it civil guys... attack the post... not the poster... and we'll keep it open. Anyone deliberately trying to get it closed will have their post removed and they will be banned. Yes... that's a warning.

OH! ... and watch out for the punk in this one... he seems to know a little bit about this...

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

On the radio, the other day, Rush Limbaugh was pointing out how in the 50's everybody had there panties in a bunch about the global *cooling* that was happening. Now, it's global warming. Do we really know what's going on? Hole in the ozone layer? Global warming? These are things we've just recently been talking about (recently, compared to the age of the earth) and studying, and, in fact, these are things that we've just recently (relatively speaking) gained the scientific ability to measure. Who knows what was going on in thousands and millions of years past? Maybe, the ozone layer actually has a fluctuating hole in it, that recedes and fills up every so many thousands of years. Perhaps, we're only seeing the "hole phase" right now and we think we're making it, when in fact, we've got little to do with it. Perhaps, the same thing goes for global warming. Maybe, a cooling and warming phase just happens, naturally, and some of us think that we're doing it. Do we really know? I don't think so, not unless we're looking at the whole of time while dining in the restaurant at the end of the universe.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

While I don't believe what certain types try to force feed us/me I do believe and try to live in a way that reflects my view.

We as thinking beings should do what we can to ease the footprint we leave while keeping open minds and freedoms in tact.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Just for fun, more weather science from news papers:

f you like glaciers, you'll enjoy Rocky Mountain National Park. That any glaciers exist there in 2006 might have surprised readers of the Nov. 7, 1937, Rocky Mountain News. According to the 1937 News, scientific measurement of the glaciers in Rocky Mountain National Park showed that "these sheets of 'eternal' ice, within a few short decades, may be 'eternally gone.' " The News pointed to climate graphs showing that "winters are not what they used to be in the Never Summer Range." Thus, the glaciers were "inexorably retreating to extinction."

"Can it be possible that the Earth is undergoing a slow, but steady climactic change?" asked another Denver paper. The article pointed out that the "The winters are becoming colder, and the summers drier and hotter." The changes were taking place "all over the continent", while "In Europe we hear of climatic changes as strange as they are unaccountable." The newspaper was the Denver Tribune, and the year was 1874.

As the Tribune noted, climate change is nothing new. As the News demonstrated, neither are alarmist, inaccurate media predictions about climate. The Business and Media Institute, a branch of the right-wing Media Research Center, recently published Fire and Ice, a study detailing the national media's terrible record of climate hysteria over the last century.

For example, The New York Times in 1895 predicted widespread global cooling. In 1924, the paper reported "Signs of New Ice Age." But in 1933, 1952, 1959, and 1969, the Times declared global warming. Then in 1974 and 1975, the Times decided that the new ice age was coming, with catastrophic consequences: "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade" leading to "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence."

The Washington Post announced a "New Ice Age" in 1970, and, in 1974, Fortune agreed, touting a scientist who predicted that a billion people would die from starvation caused by global cooling. Time magazine declared global warming in 1939, global cooling in 1974, and currently believes in global warming....

Click to expand...

-Bill

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Sasha said:

This is a good topic... worthy of discussion. BUT!... it has the potential to get nasty. Keep it civil guys... attack the post... not the poster... and we'll keep it open. Anyone deliberately trying to get it closed will have their post removed and they will be banned. Yes... that's a warning.

OH! ... and watch out for the punk in this one... he seems to know a little bit about this...

Click to expand...

Is that a Global Warning, or just a local warning for this thread?

-Bill

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

It's funny, I was reading a "Great events of the last Century" book published in the mid to late 70's just the other day and it had an extensive article on Global Cooling, and that all the scientists were predicting a "little Ice Age" similar to the Monder Minimum that some scientists are now proposing was responsible for the trees that created the great Stadavari violins.

Cold or Hot we're all in it together, but we can't seem to agree what IT is!!

Bill

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

The liberal media wants a weather crisis. It just can't figure out which one. Either one will do, as long as it forms a basis for attacking capitalism.

New York Times Headlines:

- Sept 18, 1924: "Macmillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age" (thats global cooling )

- March 27, 1933: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Record a 25 year Rise" (thats global warming )

- May 21, 1975: "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Seen as Inevitable" (thats global cooling )

- Dec 27, 2005: "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming" (thats global warming )


Time Magazine:

- Sept 10, 1923: " . . . possible advent of a new ice age . . . ." (thats global cooling )

- Jan 2, 1939: " . . . weather men have no doubt . . . that the world is growing warmer . . . ." (thats global warming )

- June 24, 1974: " . . . harbinger of another ice age . . . ." (thats global cooling )

- April 9, 2001: "cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." (thats global warming )

For some fun reading, here is a PDF file showing a goofy April 28, 1975 Newsweek article warning of the impending global cooling crisis and possibility of mass starvation. It has pretty graphs, lots of numbers, and references to twisters and hurricanes. Just like those relied on by the promoters of the current weather scam.

So, the liberal media creates a series of demonstrably false crises which are abandoned when the weather doesn't cooperate. One may be assured that they'll be back to their dire warnings of global cooling sometime in the range of 2030. Anything to get my SUV away from me.

cheers

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

It must be really bad if we're causing the poles of Mars to melt!

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

BB said:

Is that a Global Warning, or just a local warning for this thread?

-Bill

Click to expand...

It's a climate warning...

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

bwaites said:

... a "little Ice Age" similar to the Monder Minimum that some scientists are now proposing was responsible for the trees that created the great Stadavari violins.

Click to expand...

Maunder Minimum?

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

...waiting for that punk to show up. He probably knew this was coming.

But while she gets here, there are some random things to keep in mind:

- Earth's climate is controlled at many different scales going from astronomical (yes, the sun and our planet's movement influence weather) to local (think rainshadows), from eons (climate) to short-term (weather) temporal effects.

- The "energy balance" of our planet is the core control of Earth's climatic patterns. All planets have energy balances and their own climate systems. Some are similar to Earth's, some are not.

- Earth's climate is responds interactively (and not always linearly or in the same magnitude and direction) to positive and negative energy feedbacks from oceans, atmosphere, and terrestrial ecosystems. The spatial and temporal scales of these feedbacks and responses vary from millenia to decades (and in some select cases just a few years).

- Climate change is inherently a global phenomenon. Our planet has seen drastic climate change naturally in the past, and will continue to suffer from its effects in the future. The difference is that future climate change will be influenced in great extent by human activities.

- We now live in a human dominated world; our influence is evident in a multitude of our planet's systems. We can finally pat ourselves in the back - we've finally controlled climate. :nana:


Now, let me address some questions that have already come up:

- "tagging" CO2: scientists use radioactive isotopes of carbon and oxygen, which can be correlated to past climatic conditions. We're talking millions of years of climatic records here which have been pieced together from multiple and independent "proxies" (lines of evidence which encompass ice cores, coral rings, tree rings, boreholes, etc.).

- cobb is, in a very broad sense, correct on both accounts. I would only add that, being an optimistic, I trust we will find technological solutions that will allow us to mitigate and adapt to the effects of global climate change. Technological solutions have their own pros and cons.

And while I'm the topic of "what to do"... I try very hard not to get involved in the political side of this debate. I'd be happy to attempt to explain some basics of climate change science. Climate change science involves knowledge of atmospheric science, oceanography, physics, terrestrial and marine ecology, geomorphology, chemistry, biogeochemistry, and a super long etc. after that so don't expect me to know all the answers or be able to explain everything. I have varying degrees of familiarity and understanding of some of these; some I'll just look at you and go HUH? Don't expect me to run over to the library to look for references either - got more fun things to do.

Anyway, that's just a tiny bit of my take on the subject.

I know of at least another CPF'er who works on this subject. Maybe they'll stop by and say :wave: Maybe the punk Sasha mentioned will show up here to elaborate too, but maybe she'll just hide under a rock if the political debate takes off.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

My spelling was evidently incorrect. The more proper spelling is "Maunder Minimum".

In my defense, I took the spelling I used from this, "These isotope records confirm the occurrence of the monder minimum every few centuries, for example, in the 13th, 15th and 17th centuries, those low dips in the curve, but also occasional grand magnetic maxima of the sun."

Which is from this transcript:

http://www.ncpa.org/press/0929gwd.html

Bill

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

My message to all sides of such arguements is... do you beleive everything you're told, see, and read? Or when an interesting piece of information comes to your attention, do you take the effort to track down and examine the source of the information yourself? Do you take into account who is bringing this new information to your attention and what their agenda is? Or do you only ever listen to the same single side of the story day in and day out because it fits your beliefs nicely?
Make the effort to confirm things yourself, don't just take someone else's word for it.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

bwaites said:

The more proper spelling is "Maunder Minimum".

Click to expand...

Explanation accepted although I believe the phrase is "the correct spelling" since we're talking about a guy's name. It's not "more proper" - it's just right or wrong. If only climate change were that simple.

A couple or three years ago I was going over transcripts of an environment-friendly conference to correct typos, and found that there were so many mistakes it would have been just as fast to transcribe the whole thing myself (which would also have saved paying someone else to do it). The problem was that the typist just wasn't familiar with the industry. In the talks there was so much jargon and so many references to organisations, people, practices etc that were obvious to someone who knew a little about it, that simply vanished into mumbling for someone who didn't. I guess this was one of those cases.

cobb said:

***The Facts***

1, there is for the most part, nothing we can do to change it unless we can trigger a large volcano erruption or block out the sun.

Click to expand...

Cobb, is it here the "fact" of global warming or the environment itself?

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Minor points...

Mars "phenomena" has been attributed to a slight oscillation in Mars's rotational axis which points the poles more directly at the sun than usual. Notice that the guy's paper has been out for a year or two (2005 I believe) and has generally been ignored by scientists. Then the media picks it up.

News source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html. Based on this source, I don't even think the guy wrote a paper about this... which in the scientific world means its just a conjecture.


3rd World Country... Please show some links for that. Frankly, I doubt GW has ANYTHING to do with "putting down" 3rd world countries. We were/are worried about India/China becuase they have the capability to double+ CO2 emissions, but they are usually not conisdered 3rd World but rather 2nd World/Transition to 1st world. And this transition is a dangerous period also, as evidenced by Britan's white/black moth corrleation with smog and general health (classic evolution/adaption example). This involves leaded gasoline, smog, etc. and as much as China doesn't want to admit it, but the pollution has begun to affect the general population which is why the government has put some environmental restrictions on industries. But in general... shutting down 3rd World Countries? um.....


The best link I could find is this: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=805 . Note, I didn't look very hard. The crux of this argument was

"The activists? recipe for solving global warming thus appears to be, first, to kill off economic development in the developed world and, then, to have the developed world send what money it has left over to the developing world. It?s not clear, though, that an economically crippled developed world would be able or willing to subsidize poor countries, leaving those countries forever impoverished." Which is a shady relationship at best.

and this "After a four-year-long campaign, the RAN pressured Citigroup to restrict its lending practices in the developing world, including: not lending to projects that might adversely impact natural habitats; banning logging in tropical forests; avoiding investment in fossil fuel energy projects; and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from power projects in its lending portfolio." Which is more valid, but still... the US itself is moving towards such measures; we're essentially telling these countries "this technological fork is nearly dead, don't go this way" in terms of investment in FFE projects, which may or may not be true, but considering we are actively moving away from FF's....


CO2 tagging like greenLED said is done usually by radioactive isotope tagging where the isotopes are extremely rare in nature.


I will agree with many here that the media has overhyped manmade global warming, but to not do anything about it isn't such a great idea either. Considering the ozone layer hole has now stablilized and has, I believe, to show signs of regression, I don't see why minor changes in everyday lifestyle is so controversial the majority of the population. While gas guzzlers have essentially been mandated by the auto industry for the past few decades (due to consumer demand), more fuel efficient SUV's/trucks/etc. are available now. Changing to florescent lightbulbs etc. is a trivial (and money saving) matter now. Its not much, but even that stuff helps in conserving resources and helping the environment. I ain't saying "CUT ALL COAL/NATURAL GAS PLANTS!!!" but reducing electricity consumption (which those things are usually run for) can save a lot in a short period of time.

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

abvidledUK said:

......... Basically, Global Warming is produced by................the Sun !! .........

Click to expand...

That's just way too simple of an explanation to be true.

Besides, if "the vast majority of scientists" were to come out and say so, there would be no Chicken Little hysteria to fuel funding for their "research".

I, for one, am not buying into the Global Warming Misconceptions spewed by misanthropic segments of society and others with hidden agendas.

If people want to live off solar panels and windmills, all the more power to them! While I'd like to, it's just not practical for me. I do however try to practice common sense when it comes to energy usage and not just because the utility bills suck.

It would certainly be wise to curtail mans' use of the planets resources, but this current load of crap being thrust upon us is almost more than I can take.

Oh yes, either Al Gore is a complete fraud, or a complete idiot. What kind of person cries out for others to conserve energy while consuming mass quantities of it himself. Someone please enlighten me, or has the whole world gone mad?