TEN MYTHS of Global Warming MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result. MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact. MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything.Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” 2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes” To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant. FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming. FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising. FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise. Source: Friends of Science website.
Comments: Myth1: Biased evaluation of an actually unimportant value. The global temperature does not exist and has no significance to the humans. Slow or fast who determines that? There are no humans on earth affected generally, there are humans at a particular region which are affected. Myth2: “… that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.” Where is the earth's temperature loacated? This is no science even to talk about a probable effect. Myth3: It has increased because the amount of burned fossil fuels has increased and hence its greenhouse effect has increased. The intensity is hard to evaluate, though. Myth4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas due to its largest amount of them. Its less effectiveness doesn’t matter. Myth5: It’s a model only. Myth6: It’s really hard to prove. Myth7: The ‘FACT’ statement about is nothing but dilettantish. To pollute can be always and only a relative aspect. Myth8: It needs no evidence. Temperature is proportional to energy and the probability that energy will be transformed locally with far more power is obvious. Myth9: Open your eyes, the glaciers melting is frightening (Himalaya and Andeans), why to think about the cause IT HAPPENS. Myth10: There will be always periods with more and less ice, but the change always will have an effect on humans Summary: This myth / fact comparison is biased and political and unprofessional, too. It’s of the same character as the character of the politicians who are biased the opposite way. To convince one should not use the same low level the opposite uses. Instead of to argue one should open the eyes. Soon life conditions at particular regions will worsen (lack of water) while others are still debating about global warming...either the affected local people can handle the change there or not.
The amount of information that has become available as a result of the hype is staggering on both sides of the debate .. My current trust lies with sources that don't have a donate button at the top of their page and are not pressured by certain private entities that have a vested interest in the outcome of the test results .. That being said I am hoping I still live in a time where governmental agencies are beyond politics and private enterprise when it comes to testing and the results being published if not we are screwed anyways.. I currently trust this agency in my country http://www.epa.gov/AMD/Climate/GLIMPSE.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics.html My region http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/northeast.html If your country has similar agencies I would be interested in your opinion on trust level and links to compare testing results.
It will worsen whether there is warming or not simply because our population is getting too large and we are populating inhospitable areas. What will happen when the population gets to 20 billion and we can only supply food and water to 10 billion ? Will Global Warming be the cause of suffering for 10 billion? There are many countries, like parts of Africa, where people suffer and yet there are abundant resources. They suffer because of backward policies and idiots in power. You have less than half billion in North America living in relative comfort and about 1.5 billion in Asia living below the poverty line. Am I to assume by your thinking that Global Warming is more prevalent in Asia than in North America? Please don't dump every problem you see on Global Warming, our population is about 4 billion off the ideal.
No, don't get me wrong. I don't dump every problem on global warming, it is a fault to do that! I don't like that as well. I agree with you there. The quote you have used to quote me should state that, to turn away the sight from global warming discussions and focus on local changes, with changes I mean changes of conditions generally. I don't know where Global Warming is more prevalent, since I travel frequently to Asia I have posted what I noticed. At the Andeans it happens as well, I have never been there, though. To point out special locations doesn't exclude others... "population is about 4 billion off the ideal" That is sadly not true, at least regarding foods. The food that is produced in the world and is thrown away would suffice to feed tree times as many of the humans who are living today! The earth still can feed us but we don't let it happen.
Here is the dwd, the German weather service. The 'German science', especially meteorology here is known to be politically unbiased, on a high level and another 'German' attribute is to be accurate. I trust their data and they have the WebWerdis project. It's the Weather Request and Distribution System. One can have access to their data on a scientific level. http://www.dwd.de/webwerdis_en Unfortunately not all their contents are available in English and I guess details are focused on Germany / Europe. http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/b...tPageLabel=_dwdwww_menu2_leistungen_a-z_daten The dwd warns to question the raising temperature in Germany, they have data from the year 1881 till today. http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/b...827171196328354269&lastPageLabel=dwdwww_start You can use a translator for the pages which are not available in English if interested. And one more fact regarding "population is about 4 billion off the ideal" The world's desserts are receiving within 6 hours more solar energy than the entire humankind consumes in one year! Our egoism reduces the amount of humans who can live on earth not the resources, not yet!
@BobSheep I just wanted to apologize for overstating my passion about this topic and making you the target somewhat .. please accept my appology
That all depends on how you look at it. The energy bit you quoted below is correct. If we use solar energy then we have more than enough power for all. However read here . If you take into consideration the location of populations and you try to ideally place cities out of disaster prone areas then you will have limited choices for huge cities. If sea levels are going to rise drastically then you will have to move most coastal cities.
@Yen thanks for the links .. This PDF has charts quite helpful http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/generator/DW...rty=publicationFile.pdf/ZundF_PK_20120503.pdf
This solar project in Tunisia with the potential to export to europe is worth noting.. "Solar power deal in Tunisia will power 700,000 European homes by 2016" Let's hope this works.. http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/01/tunisia-announces-4th-deal-2-gw-of-solar/ http://www.northafricaunited.com/Tunisia-United-Kingdom-a-mega-solar-project-soon_a1083.html I like India's approach also Source : http://www.solarfeeds.com/india-has-solar-equation-right/
@acrsn no offense taken however as I stated I hope that we can agree that the bias, lack of fact checking, and misinformation in the so called media hurts the debate and fills the already uninformed electorate with nothing but talking points from the groups I mentioned above.. To get to the heart of the matter fact check your sources and after you have, vote accordingly.. I personally have experienced where the EPA has saved thousands of lives because of their action so until we have something better we are left to improve on what we have through our vote and eliminating the possibilities of that vote being undermined by special interests and lobbyists.. Please understand that there is a full on smear campaign against the EPA because of the "Clean Air Act" where hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to support the big oil and fossil fuel agenda.. Also it is important to separate the agency (EPA) from the individual that "exaggerate and falsify tests, results and documents/reports in the past".. I agree that the agency is "as corrupt as Washington is"
@R29k, correct me if i am wrong, but was not this ------------------------------------------------------- Do you believe that Global Warming is man made or not, would be interested in seeing what people think and the reasons behind it. ------------------------------------------------------- what you originally started this thread with? all these discussions in the last umpteen posts, however interesting they may be, seem to me to wander away from that original question. we seem to have got lost in the reasons behind it, as you put it, with the original question getting snowed under by all the things that men can do wrong. while there is no denying that men can do things wrong, it leaves the original question covered by metres of snow, imho..and i don`t see that snow melt, just yet.. just my two cents.. wonder what you think of it..
So is someone asking about the credibility of the climate data an illegitimate discussion in relation to the topic ? Might I also point out that there is an admin posting in this discussion and the forum is moderated so if it is off topic then let them do their job! I personally don't see anything wrong with the discussion.
I see it the same way as Mr. R29k these are hard discussions and as the thread is longer it´s normal that we get a little carried away and slightly write offtopic I would say that it´s 50-50 who´s fault for the Global warming. Ok now since millions of years the climate changes from time to time and there weren´t always humans around to affect it so we can´t be blamed for everything. So now on the other side,humans now a days can´t walk even 20 meters to the store without getting there car out of the garage,which produces pollutants for environment and the ozone layer. Basically we all see that something is happening,it´s much warmer than 30-40 years ago,and we hear all kinds of things on tv Some impacts from increasing temperatures are already happening. Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth’s poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. Sea level rise became faster over the last century. Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas. Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues. Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active. Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. Less fresh water will be available. Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. Ecosystems will change—some species will move farther north or become more successful; others won’t be able to move
We are here at the 'beautiful life' section. So contributors should talk spontaneous what they think it fits. At the PC related sections I have a more specified idea what is off topic.... Anyway nodnar's post is also appreciated. If one should have got the impression it went off topic or out of focus, then the one should post that also, so everybody can reply with an opinion. It's like to meet friends after work and have a nice sophisticated discussion...
Given the loaded political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere the debate about global warming is divided , IMHO, on predominantly 2 sides, where one side is representing corporate profits and has little regard for the long term sustainability of the planet and the other side is a grass roots common sense citizenry well versed in living in harmony with nature and only willing to embrace sustainable well thought out solutions.. The corporate interest has entrenched itself on both sides whether corporate green or big oil and fossil fuels, don't be fooled by either as you inform yourself on these issues going forward there is to much at stake in my humble opinion.. How we live on the surface of this planet has ultimately consequences at the climate level, don't let the debate be moved to the extreme margins by corporate money .. IMHO joining together in common sense long term solutions is what is needed over political posturing invoked by corporate cash. This is an informative article on how the lines are being defined in the U.S. as our congress tries to pass the latest "Farm Bill".. http://www.iatp.org/documents/makin...ork-for-the-public-research-and-the-farm-bill
i hope you guys will excuse me for saying i feel left out in the global warming cold.. that self-same corporate interest has got a vested interest in telling us that we are warming up the planet at an alarming rate. that way they can sell us taxation on many things, from internal combustion engines and their fossil fuels to measures against gases that supposedly damage the atmosphere, co2 is not the only one, they are fussing about the freon in cooling systems, halon in fire-extinguishers, etc.. and they make it all cost, for the average user.. they are getting millions out of public funds to research this so-called global warming. the results of this research are entirely predictable, of course. and all the while i just know, that what is happening to the climate today is just a fraction of what happened to it before mankind was even around.. what we feel that must be done about the very real pollution of the planet we live on is a completely different issue, it has got little to do with this global warming scam, imho..
For me, the debate here is a microcosm of the very same globally. @nodnar I would like you to reread what I posted What do you think "corporate green" means.. I really try to read what you write with an open mind and respond based on the information you provide and if I feel I want to contribute.. either you didn't take the time to read what I posted or you have some imaginary idea of my position on the topic because in my mind the 2 quotes mean exactly the same thing. When you take such a hardened posture on something you are rarely able to see when even someone agrees with you.. That is why we are stuck where we are I listen to both sides of the debate and try to inform myself with data and info that is as far removed from agenda's as I can and respond accordingly.. Arming yourself with talking points from people who's job it is to spoon feed you palatable misinformation to make a point only helps divide and does nothing to solve the problems of our time no matter what side of the debate you are on.. I find this pretty much uninformed and exactly what corporate misinformation campaigns want as a result IMHO.. The planet is warming anybody who denies that is either uninformed or doesn't want to inform themselves and is part of the problem rather than trying to be a part of very real and needed solutions.. @nodnar if you are going to make such a statement please back it up with somethinghttp://forums.mydigitallife.net/vb4_style/smilies_default/eek.gif Source : http://www.iatp.org/documents/makin...ork-for-the-public-research-and-the-farm-bill I weighed into this debate here http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...-opinion/page4?p=543782&viewfull=1#post543782 nothing has changed .. Yen posted this which I am in complete agreement with especially "It’s of the same character as the character of the politicians who are biased the opposite way" @ nodnar If you need me to continue to point out the places where we agree, I can but that becomes rather tedious and is frankly wasting my time So buck up old fella and let's work on the solutions .. note: "buck up" = buck up To summon one's courage or spirits; hearten