Interesting, let me post some things that are made from another point of view to inspire..... (I am a scientist, Chemistry special subject) and I know many other scientists.... Scientists are usually a group of highly esteemed people, people who can teach others. (I am not speaking of myself to gain laurels) So do never forget that they have personal interests (ego) AND that they are not more right than others. I thought that if I study a scientific subject, I would be able to explain more about the 'world' than others. But I was wrong.....other scientists still are convinced that they can. Basically a scientist wants to hear from other (scientists) :"You are right!" "Is Global Warming man made or a natural cycle " The question itself isn't answerable (it is assuming either / or).... The answer is influenced by some matters. What is global warming, what is natural? When is it man made? What is the intention / motivation to find your (personal) answer? One can measure the average temp. every year to record it....and can determine that it's increasing atm. So there is global warming at the moment. Now you can research for more informations about. Informations which (in your personal opinion) prove that it is man made and informations that prove that it is 'normal'. And then you can discuss endless about....... The question to me is: Do we need to change our behavior. Can we at all?? Every person influences its environment and is influenced by it. We have started to discover fossil fuels and are burning them. No other being was able to do that before. This process binds carbon to oxygen and produces carbon dioxide, energy and water. Plants are producing biomass and oxygen again, needing energy for photosynthesis. This equilibrium 'seems' to be disturbed. But as every equilibrium (by its name) it regulates itself. This is natural by its meaning. How it will happen nobody really knows, scientists not better than others. Brainstorming: -It happens all the day that equilibria are active and working. -No condition will remain forever, everything is changing. It is the character of time. You determine the time by ongoing changes. -Hence humans are changing and humans (as they are now) are not the peak of the evolution. If the conditions to live aren't suitable anymore, humankind will die at that particular place. -If humans are a part of the nature, how can there be something 'man' made at all? -Global warming exists in one's mind only and hence it is made by the one. The nature doesn't say: I have global warming. You are the nature and the nature is you, don't be apart. In fact we are all afraid of our own death...actually we try to live forever (the ego does). So should we do nothing about? Absolutely no! Our job is to keep our life conditions in a manner that allows to live with as less suffering as possible. If we have found ways that are delaying the progress of suffering causing conditions we have to go for it. To get our own bliss we need to change our way to think. We have to focus our mind inwards. This can be achieved by every individual alone only. These individuals will project their ideas onto the humankind to make the world to be a better place......scientists as Albert Einstein was. All in all a personal opinion though.
I like that bit , I think at times humans take themselves for granted and forget that a human is just another animal on the planet with a bigger brain. That doesn't go down well with a lot of people.
I think it is all created by men and there is no other source behind this. And still there is no stoppage of it and people are thinking over it.
But, a final word from me on your excellent article yen. Yen, "You are right!" ha-ha no, the German Alfred-Wegener-Institut, the ice has been studied in the last >50.000 years (drilling ice cores) It does not matter really, ultimately that it is absolutely unlikely that this kind of living here permanently. How it ends is irrelevant, it is clear this type are destroyed, others and their environment on this planet. How should it be any different, were a only monkey's children, Robert Charles Darwin's theory, at least the people with the chance to see it all. bye, to you and all others from, a simple monkey's child's. song ps: greetings from Prison... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303499204576387290137752856.html ppslease do now, what i you say with my last pm, yen!
Climate change or global warming! Climate change implies the climate changes - which it always has done naturally! global warming is what people really mean! when they talk of climate change. Question? - wasnt the "climate change" term used to cover their &%@es in case they were wrong? what are your thoughts on this? why the change in nomenclature?
Interesting subject! I found some interesting articles on some of the science behind CO2. "CO2: forced warming Let’s start at the beginning. CO2 molecules capture a small portion of surface energy and transfer this energy to other gas molecules in the atmosphere. Some of this energy escapes into space and the rest finds its way back to the surface, where it is eventually re-radiated, beginning the cycle again. Note that CO2 doesn’t actually retain energy. It acts only to transfer captured energy to other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions. In short, the greenhouse effect of CO2, even at concentrations well below current levels, is energy-limited and not concentration-limited. According to Dr. Pierre Latour, a chemical and process-control engineer, a tripling of CO2 from current levels (approximately 385 parts per million) would not produce any additional warming. In an editorial published in the February issue of Hyrdocarbon Processing magazine, he writes: “CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) that constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in earth’s atmosphere. The first 50 ppm [parts per million] of CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, [and] each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm, there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1,000 ppm, with no additional discernable absorption-emission [warming].” In other words, all the long-wave radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is eventually absorbed. So no additional warming is possible. The process is analogous to adding blankets to a bed on a cold night. Adding one extra blanket will have a big effect. But adding more and more extra blankets will have a progressively smaller effect until there is not effect at all. Some climate scientists claim that water vapor amplifies the radiative “forcing” of man-made CO2 - creating a sort of magic “multiplier effect” that raises surface temperatures. But where’s the proof? There isn’t any. Climate models lack the computational power to accurately simulate clouds and cloud variations. In fact, as recent studies have shown, clouds may act to suppress any warming triggered by greenhouse gases. " http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/p...s_claims_of_runaway_man_made_global_warming2/ If this is indeed true then arent we being conned? another interesting link that I read about when I was a student - not from this source of course. http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago/ This study validates the medieval warm period and and little ice age in the southern hemisphere coinciding with the northern hemisphere http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2011...stence-of-mwp-and-lia-in-southern-hemisphere/ this study shows how the world temperature record has been manipulated by the dropping of stations http://www.uddebatt.wordpress.com/2...-was-manipulated-trough-dropping-of-stations/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Overall, there is no cohesiveness within science on this subject or that is what the media tells us. It has been propagandised by the media and politicised by our governments when our own national weather services consitantly get forecasts completely wrong. Here in the UK, the met office has withdrawn its long range weather forecasts because of its 0% success rate. Conversely weatheractionUK, has an 85+% success rate on predicting the weather world wide. The phyicist who heads this organisation is called Piers Corbyn and his meteorolgical techniques use only information from solar output & the gravitational influence of the moon. His technique has taken decades to devlop and his success rate is increasing all the time for global predictions on weather and climate. He successfully predicted the flooding in Australia, the cold winter across the USA and much more worldwide (look him up on youtube or visit link - http://www.weatheraction.com/ No government backed/funded organisations or individuals come close to the accuracy that this mans organisation is able to acheive and he does not rely on any so called positive feedback mechanisms re: CO2 or otherwise. As CO2 is not included in his calculations and his models have a proven accuracy record, long term and short term globally. As other official research groups have only been able to generalise where Corbyn is specific the only logical conclusion is that CO2 is not causing global warming or climate change whatever you wish to term it, and that any variation is due to natural cycles and most importantly the sun! Anyway - Im sure a lot of people are passionate about global warming aka climate change - Ive just presented the evidence as Ive seen it from a decade ago when I did think global warming was taking place & that it was our fault! As you can see i have since changed my mind in the absence of other empirical evidence. I hope some of you take the time to read through the links as they are from citable sources! thanks.
Update on Global Satellite temps from http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps. In the last 9 years only 2003 is colder than 2011.
To me there is a clear difference. Climate change: Climate at a particular region on earth. It will ever happen and has happened all the time. (Without humans). E.g. fossilizations of tropical plants found at regions with a cold climate now and brown coal is found at cold regions.... Global warming: The average temperature of the entire earth is raising. One can easily get 'scientific results' which might prove their opinion about. It's political when propagated by governments or ego based when propagated by one person, that's all. How would you measure the average temperature of the entire earth? You cannot, but you can recognize that the sea level is raising and the total amount of frozen water is decreasing.... We have to think about if it will become a problem or not instead of thinking if there is global warming or not (or even if it's man made or not). Furthermore as long as Germany is the only nation that has learned from Fukushima it seems almost ridiculous to discuss about. Not to forget that other countries such as Austria have no nuclear plant at all...it's forbidden there by laws
To be honest, the propaganda behind Man Made climate change has done one good thing and that is trying to make power consuming devices more efficient. If you have even been stuck behind a diesel sucking truck belching out carbon monoxide in your face then you will know what I'm talking. In the long run I'm all for cleaner running vehicles and more efficient computer hardware to reduce heat and increase lifespan. The big issue I have is them basing their claims on falsified data and just plain telling lies. Was reading this article earlier, might be interesting to some here ...
Latest Scare, Sea Level rising faster than ever. And from Michael Mann the Hockey Stick Man too. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pnas_kemp-etal_2011_sea_level_rise.pdf Up to 2000 that is. I wonder why the report doesn't include data since then, global cooling perhaps? Also why only use data from North Carolina? The following links show no change in Japan. IPCC Chairman claims Japan Tsunami worsened by climate change Actual historical sea level in Japan shows now change.
To me important is (and that is trustworthy) the frozen total amount of water is decreasing. You easily can compare photos (size) of glaciers for example, pack ice areas also. So the amount (liquid) water must increase (-->sea level rising). The question is do we need to be worried about? And yes, how should we act. And when we know then what we should do against it, we should simply do it, instead of talking about. IMHO there is no need atm to react on that, so we should focus our mind on real problems we have on earth.... What I don't like is that 'talking only' about. Different groups of interests (scientists, politicians....) are propagating their ideas and are using the matching 'scientific' results to prove that they are right, but nothing happens.... Fukushima is the best example. It has proven that nuclear technology is not fully contollable by humans...anyway almost nobody is changing their mind about.....only talking about how bad it is there.... The handling with fuels should be always respectful. It is sad that we need 'scientific results' to prove the existence of gobal warming to make us aware of that. We have lost awareness and are milking the resources like a cow, we exploit the nature without to be thankful. But making money, big money!!! We should be aware that resources are limited, their availability isn't taken for granted all the time. Do you know primitive peoples? They have 'gods'. They thank them for what they have got from mother earth. This may sound underdeveloped, but it shows that they are aware that it is like a gift from mother earth, limited and not for granted all the time. Also we have harvest festival (Thanksgiving (Day)). Are we really aware of the meaning of it???? We also 'harvest' fuels from mother earth. To show responsibility when using fuels and to save them where we can is our duty. Everybody can do it at the own home! Therefore we shouldn't need a scientific proof and a reason to wait for it.... Resources like fossil fuels are limited and they will have an end. I guess everybody knows that, scientist or not.... It is so easy, the exploit of the nature will end 'in revenge of it' if we do not care about alternatives. Fossile fuels will end, economy will break down, humans will fight and kill each others therefore---> Humans will decrease. Equilibrium is restored. This seems more probable to me than 'damages' due to rising sea levels, or bad climate conditions somewhere.
Yen. I generally agree with you on your points. We must live in harmony with the planet otherwise we take everything and give nothing. What I am disgusted with is how the whole debate has been politicized describing people who question if man is actually causing global warming as deniers, sceptics and against the consensus of scientific opinion. One famous person did not agree with the consensus, Albert Einstein said about the consensus publication "100 Authours against Einstein", "if I were wrong then one would be enough". Also inferring trains pulling coal wagons are similar to the Nazi Holocaust. "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/IowaCoal_20071105.pdf This is not science but bullying imho.
That is exactly what will happen, you simply have too large a population and dwindling resources. However, fossil fuel dependency can be changed by switching everything over to alternatives, but there is no money to be made quickly from something like that so it happens slowly. Also when the real issues come about like fuel running out and massive food shortages, if you live in a first world country you will hardly notice. First World countries can buy their way most of the time, it's the third world countries that will feel the full effect of it. Africa, India, China and Central America will all find themselves in deep trouble to support their population. Here is an example from an article from a while back: I mean using commonsense, where are they really going with all these people, the resources simply cannot support it? It is just plain stupidity, China saw the ramifications and instituted the one child policy. Why bring another child into the World to suffer ? As I said before in another thread, Malthus Theory will kick in and do what man couldn't, make more resources available for all, but people won't be able to deal with how it happens, at least the ones that are aware. I really don't see the World going down any other path other than a massive decimation of the population. There is massive death and suffering now but it doesn't offset what is being put back, at some point it will unbalance.
I believe in "Climate change" while a lot of it may be warming, I think it's more than just overall more heat. Weather has just been changing a lot. I noticed it just here where I live. 10-15 years ago I recall we'd get at least 6 feet of snow, and the permanent snow would be here by end of October. Not much by then, but maybe half a foot or so. By December we'd be closed to 6. I was a kid then, so I'd be building huge forts and stuff. I remember the hill at the end of our driveway would be taller than the house by that point and it was fun sliding down. January was the cold month. -50's and such. February and it was starting to warm up. By April most of the snow would be gone. Now, we don't get our snow before mid December, we only get maybe 2 feet of it, if that, but instead of January being our cold month, it's February, sometimes even March. By mid June our snow is gone, and our summers usually suck. Last year's was ok, and this year is apparently suppose to be good, but I'd say those are "abnormal" for the past 15 years or so. So yeah, I totally believe in Global Warming, but I rather call it Climate change. Looking at news, places that never got snow get some these days. Part of it is probably man made because of all the pollution we create, but it's probably not 100% man made.
And yet more selective findings. Washington Posts reports on findings up to 2008. But in 2011 there is still too much snow.
Wild Weather and La Nada Good to see this statement made That is contrary to the rubbish you hear on news now.