The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Devonian]

Another thing it said was Co2 comes off humans which was small compared with animals and dead leaves too and with all the deforestation over the years there were many more trees to lose leaves.

Then if our emissions of CO2 are minor by comparison with trees and the rest how come all the CO2 hasn't built up in the atmosphere and asphixiated us?

The climate was much warmer than this during the last periods and the temperature rose quicker then to what it`s doing now,so it`ll warm up so much then cool off rapidly.

Ahh, jam tomorrow. It's been said for years and years and years that cooling is just around the corner.

Another thing about the upper air was interesting too it should be warming much quicker but it`s warming at ground level instead I`ve been looking at past charts upper air and there`s very little difference.

The upper air IS warming fast.

The point is that I believe the IPCC themselves have said that temperatures in the past twenty or thirty years have risen faster than at any other time in the historical record, and this graph shows that assertion to be patently untrue. How many other distortions of the truth are there?

CB

Careful, where do they say that?

Not one iota and as well you know why. I will not be spoon fed by organisations hell-bent on scaremongering. I will not be duped into believing the agw theories.

Neither will I...or do you imply only people like you are intelligent????

[Mondy]

The upper air IS warming fast.

By upper air, specifically what altitude?

[Devonian]

By upper air, specifically what altitude?

I replied to a post that talked about 'upper air' with my best guess as to what that meant viz TLT, Temperature Lower Troposphere. And still it's not good enough

Edited March 10, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well if smog from cities counts, then it could well be quite significant

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2027242,00.html

Obviously those who dispute ACC will dispute this conclusion and no doubt have a more logical explanation?

I don't know enough about it to make comments upon it - since the focal point of the debate is usually CO₂, that's what I've been concentrating on. I'll look into it, though.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Mondy, with the greatest of respect, it takes lots and lots of snow upon snow to build an ice sheet kilometers thick, it takes one season for it to collapse. Recent measurements of some of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (never mind my beloved W.A.I.S.) glaciers moveing only a matter of feet per year at the 'head' and yet, aways downstream, they are scooting at many 10's of feet per year. How long can this continue without us seeing bare mountain slopes being exposed or areas of ice sheet collapsing into the gully's left by the fleeing Glacier? The E.A.I.S. is the 'stable' one with none of it's mass entered into the sea level equations (until this year 2007) Most of the planets fresh water (approx 90%) is held in this sheet. The Greenland ice sheet and the W.A.I.S. hold nothing compared to this mass yet they could easily add 7m to sea level (over 1 season) should a 'collapse' occur.

As I have oft said before most dam breaches start with a crack and nobody ignores a crack in a dam. Antarctica is now begining to be seen as a 'patchwork of cracks'.

Edited March 10, 2007 by shuggee
Language, Timothy

[Mondy]

I replied to a post that talked about 'upper air' with my best guess as to what that mean viz TLT, Temperature Lower Troposphere. And still it's not good enough

Hmm, for a second i was wondering if you were querying the temps of an altitude of say 40000ft. We all know it's about -50c at those heights, so i guess i got my wires crossed with your post. Still, at -50c i suppose warming is allowed

[Mondy]

Mondy, with the greatest of respect, it takes lots and lots of snow upon snow to build an ice sheet kilometers thick, it takes one season for it to collapse. Recent measurements of some of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (never mind my beloved W.A.I.S.) glaciers moveing only a matter of feet per year at the 'head' and yet, aways downstream, they are scooting at many 10's of feet per year. How long can this continue without us seeing bare mountain slopes being exposed or areas of ice sheet collapsing into the gully's left by the fleeing Glacier? The E.A.I.S. is the 'stable' one with none of it's mass entered into the sea level equations (until this year 2007) Most of the planets fresh water (approx 90%) is held in this sheet. The Greenland ice sheet and the W.A.I.S. hold nothing compared to this mass yet they could easily add 7m to sea level (over 1 season) should a 'collapse' occur.

As I have oft said before most dam breaches start with a crack and nobody ignores a crack in a dam. Antarctica is now begining to be seen as a 'patchwork of cracks'.

Also with the greatest of respect, GW, i think you're scaremongering.

Part of the Greenland ice sheet used to be farming settlements, it's now pack ice. It comes and goes with the natural cycles of earth. I guess Antartica does the same to-ing and frowing over time. That really doesn't bother me in the slightest. I know it does you, but life would be dull if we didn't have something to worry about..!

[Essan]

Also with the greatest of respect, GW, i think you're scaremongering.

Part of the Greenland ice sheet used to be farming settlements, it's now pack ice.

Just 'cos the AGW catastrophists exagerate, doesn;t mean you should

This is what the viking settlement at Brattahlid, founded by Erik the Red, looks like today:

(obviously, in summer )

[Gray-Wolf]

Also with the greatest of respect, GW, i think you're scaremongering.

Part of the Greenland ice sheet used to be farming settlements, it's now pack ice. It comes and goes with the natural cycles of earth. I guess Antartica does the same to-ing and frowing over time. That really doesn't bother me in the slightest. I know it does you, but life would be dull if we didn't have something to worry about..!

The Greenland settlements are still exposed (homestead remnants) and the evidence from the graves there show increasing starvation as the reason for their abandonment (short term climate change). The remnants of the Nordic population may well have integrated into the local polar dwellars (blue eyed inuits are only found in NW Greenland) but none of their coastal settlements are covered in ice.

'Greenland' was probably a sales pitch to attract settlers to Eric the Reds new kingdom it not having a vastly different climate to todays but Nordic farming practices quickly depleted the productivity of the soils and so hastened their demise.

If I am wrong in putting together my 'evidence' then we have nothing to fear from rapid polar/antarctic collapse and I will have one less worry. If I am right then we have very little time to wait until the evidence is irrefutable and science will be there to explain, after the event, both how they underestimated things but also the mechanisms for the collapse (evidence which is already starting to amass)

This 'problem' is beyond resolving (unlike CO2 pollution) so we are all left to just wait and see. As such you are correct, nowt we can do so W.T. F.?

Edit:Cheers for that Essan! very timely

Edited March 10, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

So, to continue. Found this excerpt on the 'net from 1976 (Dutch Readers Digest)

"IT IS GETTING COLDER - PARTIALLY DUE TO HUMAN EXPLOITS

Some scientists are convinced that the world climate is cooling by the year, and that we may be heading for circumstances like during the last ice age, that ended some 10000 years ago. One can conclude from history that the northern hemisphere between 1550 and 1700 was a cold period, sometimes referred to as 'the small ice age'. Around 1850 gletchers in Iceland and in the Alps have again shown considerable increases. Thereafter, there was a warmer period, which lasted until 1940. Since then, cooling is again detectable...

So back then it was human exploits being blamed on it getting colder, now we have a complete reversal.

Also, while surfing the 'net, found this straight to the point reply on Space.com

This is the MO of the global warming radicals. Ignore & massage the data. Ignore solar warming. Ignore the GREATEST event of warming in human history, the massive warming about 12K years ago, which created the current interglacial warming period during which ALL of our civilizations have reached incredible heights due it what? Natural global warming. which current global warming models cannot in the least explain, because they are so inadequate. & incomplete.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Mondy

[noggin]

Also, the sun, when it is shining on one side of the Earth, lights it up and heats it up. The side of the Earth upon which the sun is not shining is in darkness and coldness.

My point being:

the sun is so infinitely powerful that it is, to me, inconceivable that anything that we mere mortals do could possibly have any effect on it's effect on us. It is the sun that is responsible for the Earth's variable temperature.

Notwithstanding the above, am really looking forward to seeing the film "Sunshine"! That'll probably get the old tongues wagging on here!

[eddie]

Late to the debate here.

I'm one of those people that thinks we probably are causing the climate to warm but I still enjoyed this program and thought it had some very important points to make.

Firstly, it addressed the point that we (the west) are trying to force our green politics on the third world. We should not deny them their industrial revolution and even if some of the dire predictions do come true many less people will die in Affrica if they have electricity, hospitals, clean water and industrial scale mechanized farming than die today. I don't care how much sea levels rise.

Also, what if it turns out that the warming is natural? We will still have to deal with the consequences of that warming and the world will be in a better position to do so if 3rd world countries have been developed.

Secondly, it addressed the mass hysteria and frankly awful journalism that surounds the GW debate. Reading some of the scare stories in the media you would think half the cities in the world will be under water in 20 years and civilisation will end. People underestimate mans ability to adapt. Just look what has happened in the last 200 years in europe. Whole cities have been near bombed to the ground. Wars have been fought and entire populations displaced. Flu pandemics have killed millons. These events took place over a period of days and months yet we bounced back. Global warming is a slow gradual process measurable over decades. Lets not wreck or slow down our economies trying to rapidly switch from carbon based fuel.

Thirdly, it addressed the point that alternative theories to global warming have not been fully explored yet and any scientist who dares to question AGW is effectively shouted down and dismissed. This is not healthy. The earth has warmed and cooled before we came along and it's just as important we understand why this happened as it is that we understand how CO2 can cause warming.

[Essan]

Also, while surfing the 'net, found this straight to the point reply on Space.com

A somewhat disingenuous comment But you can't explain the climatic variations of the ice age either - so presumably you're no better

Though I do concede that we ought to know more about the ice ages and be able to eliminate them properly from our enquiries

[Mondy]

[ribster]

LOL, good on you Mondy, balls of steel! If you say black some will always say white, even if presented with irrefutable evidence, some would argue their point. The unstoppable media driven, GW freight train that was gathering speed seems to have got a buckle in the tracks!

Seems to have got a few peoples backs up.

Even if everything in the program could be dismissed out of hand, which I don't believe it can, at the very least it has made the average Joe on the street stop and pause for thought - that can never be a bad thing.

[senior ridge]

Here's my contribution in favour of solar activity being the explanation or the main explanation for the current global warming.

An article by THEODOR LANDSCHEIDT on the solar cycle with an interesting correlation of activity coinciding with sacred numbers (i.e fibonacci number sequence).

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/consider.htm

An article by DR. ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV on Solar Warming but with an emphasis on magnetics.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html

[Stratos Ferric]

Anyone care to answer this simple question? Still waiting..

Why are scientific grants made for anything that predicts future disaster and very little if nothing for anything that might disprove the 'CO2 causes Global Warming' Myth?

GW, my basic level of Antarctic ice melting goes something like this.

Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of metloads of snow (tonnes of the stuff) falls on the Antartic continent per year. Just how much snow can one place cope with? Inturn, you start getting icebergs drifting into warmer waters because the Antartic cannot cope with such huge levels of snowfall..it's gotta go somewhere. This process has naturally occured for thousands of years.

As i say, basic level theory, but i like it

No need to be quite so personal, Essan.

Mondy,

Whose money is the government redistributing?

As one who works quite frequently with various agencies of government a genral concern is always to be seen not to be frittering public money. Thus, in an age of refrigeration I am not aware that much research money is being sent in the direction of the use of salt, or dry curing, or smoking, as a preservative. In the age of electricity there is a lot of research into superconductors (this reduces waste) but very little into the efficiency of house fires, or rubbing sticks to make flames. There is little research goes into the horse drawn cart, or the use of long defunct medicinal practice...

Might it be that in determining to focus money in the area on the effects of warming that the Goivernment is backing the form pony?

Even if they are wrong, the downside of the risk far outweight the downside of the short-term cost of investment. You and your ranting about wasted and misdirected money would be far better worrying areas of real and genuine waste rather than any slight marginal tariffs you may have to pay in future in order to take a reasoned position against the porbability taht man is warming the planet toeards some undesireable consequences.

My point being:

the sun is so infinitely powerful that it is, to me, inconceivable that anything that we mere mortals do could possibly have any effect on it's effect on us. It is the sun that is responsible for the Earth's variable temperature.

Notwithstanding the above, am really looking forward to seeing the film "Sunshine"! That'll probably get the old tongues wagging on here!

Noggin: if we didn't have an atmosphere the sun's energy would count for nought. It's not as simple as you seem to think; even a cursory comparison of the planets in the solar system demonstrates that. It follows, therefore, that if variations in temperature for distance and orbit are explained by variation in the nature of planet's atmospheres, that if those atmospheres are changed then so will be the thermal response of the planet within.

[kaz]

hi just i recorded it so only just watched it flipping brill is all i can say... Said what i have been saying for yrs now.. Funny thing is you talk to the man on the street and they agree about GW but says also its not man made, but feel they are not aloud to say anything...

great prog i was nodding all the way through..

lol kaz

[Thundery wintry showers]

Eddie's points seem reasonable; it's also similar to the overall view I had of the programme, summing it up rather better than I did.

[pottyprof]

Eddie's points seem reasonable; it's also similar to the overall view I had of the programme, summing it up rather better than I did.

Have to agree there.. Eddie has, for me, hit the nail on the head. Too many people who have lots to shout about fail to question why things have happened before regarding the Earth warming up.

Why is is so different this time? Why do those sun v's temp charts add up? Why does the CO2 line not fit? Why does the temperature warm first before the CO2 goes up? Surely there has to be something else happening here.. Don't get me wrong, man is not helping the situation but I am more convinced than ever that natural cycles are playing the major part.. More questions than answers i feel..

[davehsug]

Have to agree there.. Eddie has, for me, hit the nail on the head. Too many people who have lots to shout about fail to question why things have happened before regarding the Earth warming up.

Why is is so different this time? Why do those sun v's temp charts add up? Why does the CO2 line not fit? Why does the temperature warm first before the CO2 goes up? Surely there has to be something else happening here.. Don't get me wrong, man is not helping the situation but I am more convinced than ever that natural cycles are playing the major part.. More questions than answers i feel..

Careful prof the smuggy smug smug smugs'll be after you :lol:

Dave

[pottyprof]

Is this my bovvered face?? :lol:

:lol:

[RedShift]

Also with the greatest of respect, GW, i think you're scaremongering.

Part of the Greenland ice sheet used to be farming settlements, it's now pack ice. It comes and goes with the natural cycles of earth.

This is a perennial net weather favourite…Yes, there did appear to be a cooling episode for the Norse in Greenland to contend with, but it isn’t quite as simple as ‘It got cold and then they died’

Why didn’t the local Inuit die out?

Archaeological evidence seems to point to a number of factors why life got tough for the Norse.

They seemed to lose a lot of trade from the ‘homeland’ – less material to work farms. Their diet has been reconstructed showing the animals they took with them (sheep pigs and cattle) were exactly the same as on farms from Scandinavia, they had this ancestral image of how a ‘homeland’ farm should work. They didn’t appear to eat a lot of fish or seals. Their clothes followed French and Dutch fashions, their Church owned a lot of the land, and they didn’t adopt the ‘stone-age’ technologies of the Inuit.

In short they saw themselves as being too European, they didn’t adapt to life in Greenland. The Inuit did fine.

[Iceberg]

A couple of quick points.

1. Are the AGw sceptics ever going to agree that somethink on this program is rubbish or just wrong.? Everytime this is proven they change tack and never admit anything. shame really.

2. This Funding issue is complete rubbish lot's of climate research is funded that is not related to AGW, Argo float measuring, understanding the artic and antarctic more, studies on the varied ecosystems we have in this country and mapping to show the species involved. etc etc. The amount of money that goes to direct AGW research is tiny. It's all about understanding our climate better.IF you support a premiership team, I will almost bet it gets more money to spend than AGW research in this country.

The AGW theory is not perfect by a long way, it's constantly being adapted and changed as our understanding of the climate increases.

Research in to the forcings on temperature are huge including solar (mostly solar) which is why we have so many studies, most people that conclude it's down to natural cycles site solar, the thing is no research has ever shown this. A lot of the reseach can't be replicated and even more of it is just plain wrong i.e Mr landscheidt.

The graph in the program showing the lag between co2 and warming was just plain wrong. There is no lag between them of 800 years, there is a possible lag of 80 years on a time scale dating 450k. But this is due to the nature of the co2 (i.e it's natural and the postive forceback mechanisms.) Scientists have known about this lag for 20 years and have a tried, repeatable, accepted, peer reviewed answer for it.(conviently left out of the ch4 program !).

Now programs and people make mistakes, Al Gore slipped up when he mentioned mossies. but this program is one long slide with errors that any A-level student in geology or environment science could identify.

[Devonian]

Late to the debate here.

I'm one of those people that thinks we probably are causing the climate to warm but I still enjoyed this program and thought it had some very important points to make.

Firstly, it addressed the point that we (the west) are trying to force our green politics on the third world. We should not deny them their industrial revolution and even if some of the dire predictions do come true many less people will die in Affrica if they have electricity, hospitals, clean water and industrial scale mechanized farming than die today. I don't care how much sea levels rise.

If anything is being forced on it's an atmosphere with more and more ghg in it being forced on people like me and the rest of the worlds species...

We went through a fility polluting stage, why can't the third world learn from us? I'm absolutely gobsmacked that people think they have to filthily industrialise so they can become cleaner post industrialised :lol: . Why on earth would you deny them the opportunity to learn from our mistakes?

Secondly, it addressed the mass hysteria and frankly awful journalism that surounds the GW debate. Reading some of the scare stories in the media you would think half the cities in the world will be under water in 20 years and civilisation will end.

People underestimate mans ability to adapt. Just look what has happened in the last 200 years in europe. Whole cities have been near bombed to the ground. Wars have been fought and entire populations displaced. Flu pandemics have killed millons. These events took place over a period of days and months yet we bounced back. Global warming is a slow gradual process measurable over decades. Lets not wreck or slow down our economies trying to rapidly switch from carbon based fuel.

Carry on regardless then? Or is that a, admittedly fairly subtle, re-write of the old hackyned 'you want to send us back to the stone age' attack?

Thirdly, it addressed the point that alternative theories to global warming have not been fully explored yet and any scientist who dares to question AGW is effectively shouted down and dismissed. This is not healthy. The earth has warmed and cooled before we came along and it's just as important we understand why this happened as it is that we understand how CO2 can cause warming.

No. People like me are allowed, I think?, to questioned people like you and people like me are, I think?, still allowed to put our views down in writing?

Much efforts goes into trying to understand both present climate future climate and past climate.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Devonian