Everytime i read an article from anywhere, claiming that global warming is just some kind of hype posed. Where is the evidence based on for this claim? About almost every scientist in the world knows that global warming is a real thing.
It is a real thing, and the public often overreacts to it - which is why some consider it a hype. Earth's climate fluctuates with and without our influence. We are still in the process of warming from the last ice age. Still, our planet is vastly colder than it was during the Mesozoic, when there wasn't even ice at the poles.
It seems that people tends to over-react to only the events they have no control over. If they can't stop it from happening, people go into a panic and certain groups start making extravagent claims and studies in hopes that it will calm people down and forget it's even happening. In the last decade, global warming has been the cause of increasing illnesses around the world and alterations in behavior patterns of many species of life, for example. Society doesn't want to hear what's going wrong with the planet if we can't stop it from happening ... so extravagent reports will be distributed to put aside the public's fear. And the problem with that is that society isn't educated enough to understand what's going on around them and to see the difference between a legitimate report and a hype ... unless they are faced with the situation face to face and by that time, it's too late to save them.
One of the biggest problems of global warming is that it cannot be discussed. After the famous quote of Stephen Schneider: Now this removed global warming from science as scientific methods were set aside and the idea was no longer refutable. This is what Global Warming has in common with religion. You cannot debunk it. Since then the discussions have been ugly. The proponents of Global Warming seem to have a tendency to crusify opponents as selfish greedy pigs funded by oil compagnies. Now what are the facts? This is a problem in the first place. The different temperature measurements do not concur. Weather stations give a warmer trend than wheater balloons and satelites. There is much debate about the methods. Urban Heat Islands are back in the centre of attention, giving posible false warming trend signals in weather stations in growing cities that are much greater than previously thought. Bottom line is that there has been a variable warming trend as of the 1990 after alternate cooling and warming before that. This trend has stabilized after 1998. The total warming in the last century was about 0.6 - 0.8 degrees. What caused it? Green house gas - Carbon dioxide? According to clean clinical calculations the warming potential of doubling carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas is somewhere between 0,5 and 1 degree Kelvin using the Stefan - Boltzman method. The concentration has been increasing from some 280 parts per million(ppm) in 1850 to 370 ppm nowadays. This would account for a hypothetical warming of say 0,3 degrees in 150 years or 0.2 degrees per century. What has caused the remainder? "Global warmers" assume that the warming due to greenhouse gas effect has positive feedback factor, melting snow decreases reflectability (Albedo) Warmer seas cause more humidity, water vapour is a very strong greenhouse gas so that this would increase temperatures even more. But water vapour causes clouds that increase reflectivity and hence cause cooling.Moreover a recent study about chaotic behavior of temperatures has shown that the pattern is stable and is not enhanced by any positive feedback factor (Kärner 2002) Recent studies show that the (satelite measured) reflectivity of Earth has been fluctuacting sharply in the last two decades almost exactly in phase with the global temperature fluctuation. The fluctuation was equavalent to about 6-7 degrees temperature fluctuation. And then there is El Nino, volcanoes and the increased solar activity etc etc. It's all the result of very chaotic processes. All in all the increased global warming caused by carbon dioxide is true but it is also rather insignificant when compared to all the other processes which cause definite temperature fluctuations and climate changes. Way back somewhere in 1991 or so we have put all our eggs in one basket by accusing carbon dioxide as the main culprit of climate change. But it is not and the way back is extremely difficult since Global arming is no more science but a religion. Impossible to disprove and everybody believes.
Some proof: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov:8000/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004072917348.html http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5675/1299 http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/images/natural_factors.gif http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
There is no doubt that the climate is changing. We humans have become the dominate force for both climate and landscape change. The problem I have and many others have is that there is a political force using these changes to force there own agenda. The do this by instilling fear. Super storms, mass flooding, drought, sea level change, death, disease, starvation, world war to name but a few of the wild claims that are being proclaimed. Global climate change can also have benefits. It has been demonstrated that global warming is increasing plant growth around the globe. Receding Ice sheets open up habitat for farming. Increasing rainfall providing water for growing populations. We are not about to stop growing. Packing our bags and going back to a simpler life is just not the answer. The fear mongers do more damage then global warming, fear reduces the quality of life of many around the world. To those that preach fear, stop your pessimism, your scaring the children. The cup is half full not half empty...
I've noticed this too. Last Friday I was watching the distinctly one-sided BBC News 24 series of programmes on global warming and they had Professor David Bellamy there to give his view and Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth. Bellamy began by saying that it was his view that global warming was something we shouldn't be concerned about and expressed scepticism over the cause of global warming being anthropogenic in origin. Juniper quickly responded using the standard global warmer tactics of argumentum ad hominem, poisoning the well and appeals to motive. To paraphrase, he said "I think it's very irresponsible for an environmentalist such as your self to be siding with the oil companies." The programme went to a break to the news and when it came back, Bellamy had been disposed of, presumably because of his unconventional views, whilst Juniper was allowed to remain!
Exactly, How about this: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407074.pdf This should be ample reason for newpapers frontpages like "Finally Proven, Global Warming Is A Hoax". You'll see none and also IPCC will not give any attention to this article whatsoever. You can't disprove a religion. It's useless.
oh yes about that question, Hypercane: Well the global warmers are not going to provide it for you. Just tell when it is enough. Perhaps this one helps. It is actually readable without much specialist talk. http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf
Climate Models Another Model Error: Yet another study demonstrates how climate models are unable to reproduce observed climate variations. In this case, climate models are shown to be unable to replicate changes in the daily (diurnal) temperature range. This probably is because the models improperly account for cloud dynamics and, as a result, warm daily temperatures too fast. Read More http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_22a.html I know religion and science don't get along too well, but we can try to discuss the matteer on scientific grounds. Hope so...
We must start the discussion by defining what we understand by “climate change” and “global warming”. Climate on Earth has been changing constantly – there is nothing as unnatural as a stable climate. But in the ongoing battle on global warming the impression that has been instilled on people is 1) climate change will be catastrophic, 2) the change in climate is provoked by mean human activities (as living, for instance). If we review Earth’s climatic history, we can see there have been times when CO2 levels were much higher than today (2600-6000 ppm during the Cretaceous, 65-90 million years ago) while mean air temperature was barely 2º C higher than now. So CO2 is not the issue. Another reason for being skeptical about a “dramatic warming happening”, we have been making some research on temperature records at the US Historical Climatology Network Database, where we can find records dating back to the late 1700s. We have processed those records into graphs and trend charts (1583 of them!) and found there is no such thing as a noticeable temperature increase in the US since the year 1900. We have posted a page in the web showing the first result (available states Alabama through Illinois, for the time being – more during the following days). So if you want to check the data and trends please go here: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html So, I will remain a skeptic until someone shows me contrary evidence.
Good work Edufer. Actually, this paper (big file) says it all. The most thorough sets of evidence against global warming serious that I have ever seen. Now, the big problem is that although this paper may be closer to the truth than anything else, you loose all credit if you publish it in a oil oriented bulletin. The obvious argumentum Ad Hominem is stronger than a thousand truths. But honi soit qui mal y pense
Pessimism of global concerns no matter how small can sometimes do good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And how about pessimism about pessimism? Check this: There is a growing concern about the concernmakers of global warming: I believe this is the first book about it. I'm going to feed the authors with a lot more for the second edition. I'm avoiding to spamming. Therefore I withhold the link that appeals to buying the book. However with this information it should be an easy google.
Ok I will now say my 3cents worth. I agree with everyone on most your opinions. It is very hard to say if we "humans" are having an immediate impact on climate change on a global scale (annual temp increases) If only we had accurate temp and climate data back before the last ice age. Yes climate is defently changing... I know for example in my neck of the woods (Southwestern most B.C. Canada, Victoria) the climate has gone from a Koppen Cfb to a Csa type of climate) yes Csa is a mediterreanean climate like Italy and parts of Spain. We seldom see any snow anymore in the 3 or so days of "winter" we do get. Minimum temps used to get down to -7c regularly (20F) for serveral days. Nowdays we are lucky to see -4c (26F) in one or two overnights. Our Summer temperature extremes have skyrocketed, we hit over 100F this summer for 4 days which is unheard of here.
