Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by PhiloNysh, Oct 5, 2003.


If global warming an environmental concern?

  1. Yes -humans caused it

    38 vote(s)
  2. No- it is a natural cause

    26 vote(s)
  3. Not sure

    17 vote(s)
  1. PhiloNysh Registered Member

    I have often heard of people worrying about Global warming. But others (specifically Geologists) have told me that it is of no concern, as the world has been hotter.

    But is that the case? Has not people had any influence in changing the world's temperature, due to the increase of Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide?

    Give your opinion here, and a reason.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. A Canadian Why talk? When you can listen? Registered Senior Member

    green house gasses are natural (volcanos for instance), but not the main source of green house gases to date (polution burnin up our ozone layers)

    but from what i heard green house gasses are going down thurout the world
    im not concerned
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. and2000x Guest

    Humans only contribute about 1% of the green house problem. The rest is usually from natural cause. Eventually the earth is going to go Venus style. Greens should spend more time worrying about actual problems: in the last 10 years, 80% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and deforestation is so bad I can't give an estimate.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    I thought part of the coral bleaching was due to the earth warming up. So whether its man caused or not, global warming is an environmental concern. The other problem I see is that if htings get warmer, like they have done before, they did so before there were all these humans and their habitats etc about, thus restricting the reange of animals and plants etc that would otherwise survive the warming by changing their range, ie moving further north or further up the hillside.

    Actually, I dont see how the earth is supposed to go Venus style unless you mean when the sun starts running out of fuel, and swells in size. As long as theres life on the planet, therell be feedback mechanisms helping to take care of things.
  8. Quasi Registered Senior Member

    Deforestation? There are a lot more forests today than 80 years ago. Also, only 15% of rain forests have been lost in the past 500 years. Predictions based on current forest growth show there will be yet more forest cover in the world as we go along in time. As for GW, yep it is happening, but global cooling and climate change in general is bad in extremes. We will continue to benefit up to 2-3 more degrees celsius, then bad. A similar decrease, however would be much worse. No one knows exactly how much is caused by humans or by non-human intervention.
  9. Faith the Thinker Registered Member

    Wait, what the hell are you saying, there are more forests today than 80 years ago? We are starting to strip away a ton of forests at places that had stayed relatively untouched for thousands of years.

    About Globabl Warming, its a big problem guys.
    Weather is becoming more extreme with many records being set these days. As well, have you guys heard about the various news story of all the ice melting on glaciers and in the north pole.

    If enough of that melts then low lying land areas will be covered with water, fine for the fish, bad for the land based life there, and bad for us. It won't be fast enough to drown people so they will be able to walk away from the devastation but there's going to be a lot more people (7 billion and counting) in less space and if we have problems currently with as much land as we do have then we are looking at chaos in the future.

    Coral bleaching occured because too much fertelizer is washed into the oceans from farm operations if i remember correctly.
    Actually, I dont see how the earth is supposed to go Venus style unless you mean when the sun starts running out of fuel, and swells in size. As long as theres life on the planet, therell be feedback mechanisms helping to take care of things.

    k, right now we live in a fairly stable biologically balanced earth. And no matter what life will go on, unless we blow the planet up from the center even if we were to use nukes life would go on, eventually. But for us global warming is a major danger because its going to cause a lot of people with nothing to riot and start going nuts. If we dont have enough food, water, then people all over the world will start to die and they'll fight to take it from people that do have it because they have nothing left to lose.

    So the future looks interesting, get educated about global warming and do what you can to change the trend. Otherwise, get ready for a fun time ahead.
  10. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Some facts

    1) Warming is happenig, of course (0.6º C since 1850)

    2) That increase is well into the natural warming expected from a rebound from the Little Ice Age (1450-1860). <b>Man has nothing to do with it.</b>

    3) The Medieval Warm period of 800 AD - 1300 AD was 2.0º C warmer than today. This period was known by climatologists as the <b>"Little Climatic Optimum"</b>, becasue that seems to be the best temperature on Earth for living creatures (vegetal or animal). That alone should discredit the "catastrophic" view pushed by the IPCC and other "Apocalyptics".

    4) CO2 concentratrions during the Cretaceus period were in the range of 2,600 to 6,000 ppm (now we are at 370 ppm) but according to proxy studies temperatures were just 1.5º C higher than present.

    4) That gives the clue for scientists to say CO2 is a poor "greenhouse gas", contributing to the "greenhouse effect" with <b>barely 3,5%.</b>

    5) The main "greenhouse gas" is <b>water vapor</b>, taking into account for about 95% of the "greenhouse effect".

    6) The famous "runaway greenhouse" in Venus, is due not to CO2 concentration, but to the <b>density of its atmosphere</b>, having 90 times more pressure than Earth's atomsphere, and its being <b>much closer to the Sun</b>. Earth is just lucky to have been formed at its present distance from the Sun. A mere 5% difference - on either side - would have made us into another Venus or another Mars.

    7) Earth`s climate is <v>driven by the Sun's energy output</b>, nothing else. As the solar cycles varies, so does the climate. When sunspots are high (as now) energy output is high, and temperature on Earth increases.

    8) When sunspots are low (as during the <b>double Maunder and Spoerer Minima</b> in the 1500s) temperature goes down abruptly (the <b>Little Ice Age</b>).

    9) By the year 2030 there will be another double minimum: the <b>double Gleissberg Minimum</b>, that will bring Earth's temperature down to those exerienced in the 16th Century. We'll freeze!

    10) The 20th Century was not the warmest in the last 1000 years as the IPCC wants us to believe. Their "global wamring" theory is just hot air. Please see the facts:

    See the study here:

    And why not?, go here and have fun:

    More facts on subsequent posts -- if you are still interested.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2003
  11. Craig Smith Banned Banned

    I believe we are experiencing simultaneously a regular climactic irregularity (I couldn't resist that phrase) as well as a destabilized concept brought on by global warming as a result of unchecked industrial expansion. We may not for some time have any confirmed evidence that makes it 100% clear in a Biblical sense that global warming is a real problem, but at that point, it will be too late to do anything but put on our corporate survival suits.
  12. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member


    <B><CENTER><font size="5" color="#ff0000">Hotter Sun = Warmer Earth</font></b></center>
    Satellites measure the radiation of the sun directly, and newly published data shows the sun has been getting hotter in recent years.  The impact of the sun on global climate is an issue that is scarcely addressed by the IPCC, who basically don't want to know about it as it would mean an acknowledgement that recent climatic trends are caused by the sun, not to greenhouse gases.  The belief by the greenhouse industry that the sun has no significant effect on climate is just too absurd and is a measure of its collective incompetence.

    Here is the chart published by our beloved NASA, of solar radiation reaching Earth as measured by their satellites.

    <CENTER><img src=""></CENTER>

    According to <a href=""></a>, <b><i><font color=#bb0000>&quot;the recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) ... was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years.&quot; </font></i></b> As the chart shows, the solar minimum of the mid-1990s was hotter than the previous minimum of the mid-1980s.

    Solar minima provide the opportunity for the Earth to "cool off" after the enhanced radiation of a solar maximum; however, the strong radiation of the 1990s minimum has kept earth's climate "on the boil" so to speak.

    How much warmth are we talking about here? The average energy shown above of 1,366 watts/m2 results in a global average of 387 watts/m2 absorbed by the planet after deduction for reflected radiation. An increase of 0.05% equates to an increase of 0.77 watts/m2 in radiation absorbed by the earth <font color="bb0000">(0.2% of 387 watts/m2).</font> The Stefan-Boltzmann Law which <b><i><font color=#bb0000>relates radiant energy to temperature</font></i></b> gives a temperature increase <b><i><font color=#bb0000>without feedbacks</font></i></b> of 0.1°C.  

    That doesn't sound like much, but the same time period is covered by the satellite temperature record of the lower troposphere, measured by NOAA's satellites. See graph:

    <center><img src="" width=500 height=200></center>

    This record shows a global warming over the same period of <b>0.076°C per decade</b>.  Since the record spans 25 years, this gives a total global warming over a full quarter-century, as measured by the satellites, of <b>0.076 x 2.5 = 0.19°C.</B>

    That means that more than half the warming measured by satellites over the last 25 years <font color=#bb0000>is explainable exclusively by the sun </font>(assuming no feedbacks), leaving <b><font color=#bb0000>only 0.09°C unexplained.</font></b> If some positive feedbacks are assumed (<b><i>as claimed by the IPCC</i></b>), then the entire warming over the last quarter century <b><i><font color=#bb0000>is explainable by the sun alone.</font></i></b></B>

    <b><i><font color=#bb0000>If no feedbacks are assumed</font></i></b>, then the small residual warming might or might not be attributable to greenhouse gases, but its magnitude suggests that even after 100 years, greenhouse warming will amount to little more than a few tenths of a degree, <b><i><font color=#bb0000>not the whole degrees claimed by the IPCC</font></i></b> and the incompetent science it leads.

    With such trivial warmings on offer, there is absolutely no reason for countries to impoverish themselves with draconian energy rationing or desecrate whole landscapes and seascapes with ugly, inefficient windmills in a vain attempt to head off a big warming that simply won't happen.
    We might also ask - what will happen to global climate <b><i><font color=#bb0000>when the sun inevitably goes into a cooler phase</font></i></b> as it did 350 years ago during the Little Ice Age?  Greenhouse gases will be but a feeble buffer to the resulting cooling.

    This a scientific evidence <b><i><font color=#bb0000>that is irrefutable</font></i></b>. It is pure good old physics. I know many people hate it, but <b><i><font size=4 color=#ff0000>"Journalism is saying something that somebody does not want it to be known. The rest is propaganda"</font></i></b>.
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    If humens wish to continue living on the planet then it is our concern no matter the cause.
  14. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


    Hi PhiloNysh{not having a go at you btw}

    The geologists you spoke to must have been intoxicated.
    Anyone who wants to properly understand this issue, must consider it in it's context, ie, today, with 6 billion approaching 9-10billion people and covering most of the livable parts of the earth.

    The proper question one should be asking is: What are the dangers associated with this rate of warming with this many people.

    Sure, and GHG theory explains and predicts this, ie, if we alter an internal climate mechanism{the atmospheric composition}, we will delay the release of radiation, this delayed radiation adds to the global energy budget, and manifests itself as heat and weather{NO atmosphere=NO weather}.

    Now they way science works is this, you rely on your UNDISPUTED theories{which GHG is}, you make your observations, and you make your predictions based on the Undisputed theories at your disposal.
    This is what The IPCC have done .

    And they've presented the SCIENCE for your perusal

    Sane and rational people don't waste much time with junk science btw, and until the IPCC say otherwise, we have to take their word or call ALL of science into question.

    And of course AGW is one aspect of our current global insanity with regard to our degradation of the biosphere{our life support system}.
    Next IPCC report is due in 2006.
  15. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    No. Global warming isn't a serious environmental concern. Warmer would be good.

    Even if the climate did become hotter, that doesn't mean it is in any worse shape. It might even be better for humans. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to bundle up in heavy winter coats and scarves?

    What about the possible benefits I heard of a long time ago?

    A longer growing season to grow more crops to feed more people.

    Less fuel burned to heat our homes.

    More of the globe at comfortably warm temperatures so growing human populations could spread closer to the poles of the planet and over a lot more land. Siberia could be warmer and more inviting for habitation. So could Canada.

    Perhaps they are afraid that "global warming" might make the climate more friendly to humans, so we would have all the more room to grow in population? Notice how they attack harmless CO2, because it is involved in much energy production, so they can make people poorer, and more dependent on government? Plants need CO2 to grow. We even put it in our soda pop.

    Besides, "global warming" and "ozone depletion" are pseudo-science hearsay hoaxes. Not a shred of conclusive evidence to support either.
  16. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


    Your post was one of the most ignorant I've ever read, in fact I can't believe any reasonable person could ever reach so many stupid conclusions, thus I'm assuming you're either a troll or on the fossil fool payroll.

    The IPCC's 2500 scientists have done a mega-peer-review, I gave you link above, read it.
    Also, the most prestigious science academy in the world, The United States National Academy of Sciences said in 2000, "Global Warming is a scientific principle no longer needing debate, but discussion relating to mitigating action".

    The IPCC's work has also been endorsed by many of the worlds science academies.
  17. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Re: No. Global warming isn't a serious environmental concern. Warmer would be good.

    And melted icecaps leading to higher sea levels, crowding out the millions of people now living there, and flooding some of the worlds most productive farmland.
    More fuel burned to cool homes in the summer.

    More southern and mid latitude diseases and parasites moving farther north.

    No one with any scientific credibility now doubts that the globe is getting gradually warmer. The debate is only over what is causing it.

    Their could be benefits, but it appears that any benefits would be more than made up for by disastrous consequences.
    Climate is so complex, there is no way to be sure at this point. Or probably at any time in the near future.

    I suppose you think those Granolas at NASA are making it all up?

    From 2000

    * Note; I am not really arguing with Pronatalist. I know it is pointless, he is in fact quite insane.
    I'm rebutting his arguments for others who might think he has a shred of credibility.

    Pronatalist, I suspect you are a creationist. If you think that there is inadequate proof for Evolution, then obviously the non dogmatic uncertainty of climatologists will fail to persuade you.

    So why are you here?
  18. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Some scientific facts

    <center><FONT face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=6><B>What Satellite Records Reveal</B></FONT>

    <IMG height=3 src="" width=80% border=0>

    <FONT face=Arial color=#aa0000 size=5><B>Introduction</B></FONT></center>
    <dir><FONT face=verdana size=2>We have an excellent, well reviewed and verified record of temperature changes in the troposphere for the period since <b><font color=#aa0000>MSU</font></b> Microwave Sounding Units satellites were launched back in 1979. This record allow us to make two things:

    <dir><I><B>1. See were errors are located in surface temperature records.

    2. Determine if temperature changes are caused by greenhouse gases.</B></I> </dir>

    First, data. Here are shown temperature changes, as recorded by both, MSU satellites and surface weather stations.&nbsp; The graph shows temperature changes from the North Pole to the South Pole, divided in latitude bands 10º in width.

    <center><IMG height=261 src="" width=499 border=0><p><b>Source:</b> data MSU by &lt; <A href=""></A> &gt;<BR>Surface data by Jones et. al, &lt; <A href=""></A> &gt;</center>

    First, we are going to see what this reveals us about temperature records.

    <FONT face=Arial color=#aa0000 size=4><B>Errors in the surface temperature records</B></font>

    MSU data have been rigorously examined in order to establishing <b><font color=#aa0000>its absolute accuracy</font></b>. On the other hand, surface temperature records have an enormous amount of problems, and have never been audited for determinig the bad information. It suffers from a lack of global coverage, distortion by the "urban heat island effect", data erroneoulsy taken, and changes in the instrumentation.

    <FONT face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=4><b>1) LACK of COVERAGE</b></font>

    <CENTER><IMG height=270 src="" width=320 border=0>
    <P><b>Source:</b> Surface data by Jones <I>et. al</I>,&nbsp;<BR>&lt; <A href=""></A> &gt;</center>

    1) The lack of coverage problem is shown by a big peak in the surface temperature records between 60ºS and 70ºS. This is clearly an artifact, because the peak is too high to be real, and because both satellites and ground stations show that there has been a cooling on both sides of the peak.

    This is confirmed by a detailed examination to see where the peak is located. It is in the band between 60ºS and 75ºS.

    The reason for this peak can be seen in any world map. Virtually, the whole band from 60ºS to 65ºS is open sea - where there are no weather stations. The few stations in firm ground in that band are in the Antarctic Peninsula, one of the few areas in the world that is warming <FONT color=#aa0000><b><i>(most of Antarctica is cooling)</i></b></font>.

    This is a problem of lack of coverage -- the warming for a small portion (2% of Antarctica) is claimed as representative of a whole latitude band, in this case a band we know from satellite readings, <b><font color=#aa0000>it is cooling.</font></b> While this is only a small example, the same problem extends to the surface temperature record. About 75% of the Earth is covered by oceans, and ground stations <b><font color=#aa0000>do not cover the oceans at all.</font></b>

    <font face=arial color=#ff0000 size=4><B>2) URBAN WARMING</B></font>

    Contamination of records by urban warming becomes visible if we ignore the erroneous peak between 60ºS and 70ºS. The peak absent, surface and satellite records are in general agreement from the North Pole down to 50ºN, and from 40ºS to the South Pole. In the areas between polar regions, however, surface temperature records are consistently warmer than satellite records.

    Since the majority of cities on Earth are in these medium latitudes, these erroneously high temperatures are the highly probable result of urban warming. Although efforts have been made to correct the data in order to eliminate the urban warming adjusting temperature records based on population in cities, there is no evidence that these efforts had succeded. On the contrary, the fact is satellite data on medium latitudes show these efforts have failed.

    The only way to eliminate these urban warming errors would be examine all and every one of ground stations to determine if conditions in the station area have changed. Even in a small town, the building of a power generating utility close to the weather station, or something as little as the growth of trees surrounding the station, will increase the local temperature. there is no way for correcting this based on population counts -- one muest go to all and any station and check the surroundings. It goes without saying, this effort has not been done.


    In certain parts of the world, data gathering is erratic, and sometimes contain deliberate errors. In the Russian Siberian areas, por instance, cities and villages used to get money from the Russian central government based on their temperatures - if the weather was colder, more money was given to them for compensating the increased fuel costs for fighting the cold. This gave the people an incentive for reporting false low temperatures.

    With the fall of the Soviet empire in the late 80s, however, this practice ended. This change in policy can be seen clearly in the ground weather stations records of those regions:

    Notice the radical change at the late 80s. This problem has not been corrected in surface temperature records, so the Russian ground records show as if there was a huge warming between the late 1980s and today. However, the new data, this time real, <b><font color=#aa0000>show a strong decreasing trend.</font></b><p><center><IMG height=223 src="" width=380 border=0><br><b><font face=verdana size=2>Source:</b> Surface temperature data by Jones et. al, <A href=""></A></CENTER>

    However, far from showing a warming trend, the surface record show that from 1930 until late 1980s there was no significant warming in this region, and that temperatures decreased slightly since 1990 to present days.

    <font face=arial size=4 color=#ff0000><B>4) CHANGES in INSTRUMENTATION</B><p></FONT>
    Surface temperature records have also not been audited regarding changes in instrumentation. These changes include change of thermometers, and the instalation of automatic recording devices <FONT color=#aa0000>(they give a higher reading because the cabinet door is never opened)</font>, and changes in the station location. As an example, this is the Vardo, Norway, station record:<center>

    <IMG height=256 src="" width=522 border=0></center>

    Clearly, something happened in 1920 that resulted in a sudden rise in temperatures reported at Vardo. We don't know which was the change there, if it was a new thermometer or the station displacement to a new location, but the result is more than evident.

    Without correction, the average surface temperature record shows erroneously almost a full degree centigrade increase in a century. After the correction, <b><font color=#aa0000>the increase is barely 0,12º C in 100 years.</font></b>

    Summing up, satellite records highlight the great amount of problems that ground station records have, revealing some errors directly, and pointing indireclty to others. Considering this, the surface temperature records cannot be considered reliable.
    <P><B><FONT color=red size=4>Warming and Greenhouse Gases</B></font>

    In addition to some errors revealed in surface temperature data, satellite data can also tell us something about the observed change in temperatures.

    <center><IMG height=260 src="" width=497 border=0></center>

    Here is the satellite data, along with the trend line for the data:

    There are a pair of noteworthy items shown in this graph. Firstly, temperature increased more in the north, and less in the south. In fact, Antarctic regions, from 50ºS down to the South Pole, <b><font color=#aa0000>have cooled,not warmed.</font></b>

    This support the idea that the warming is not caused by CO<FONT size=1>2</font>, because the greenhouse gases theory predicts a greater temperature increase in colder regions. This has not happened, and in a very clear way by all means, and this real result <FONT color=#aa0000>(cooling in the south, warming in the north)</font> is not predicted by any computer model used by the IPCC.

    For instance, the IPCC says that <FONT color=#ff0000><b>"It is expected that Polar environmental changes will be greater than for other places in Earth".</b></font> <FONT color=#aa0000> (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.5).</font>", and <FONT color=#ff0000><b>"The projected warming in Polar regions is greater than the projected warming for many other regions in the world"</b></font>. <A href=""></A>

    However, both surface station and satellite records agree that <b><font color=#aa0000>this "prophesized" South Pole warming has not taken place.</font></b>

    Second: tropics are areas of great worrying if the "global warming" were occurring, since those regions already are the warmest on the planet. Any additional warming there would be a danger for those regions. But, far from warming, <b><font color=#aa0000>tropical regions have cooled during the last 24 years</font></b>. again, this has not been foreseen by any computer model used by the "greenhouse industry". Here is a graph of the areas in the world that have warmed and those who have cooled:

    <center><IMG height=340 src="" width=470 border=0><p><b>Source:</b> Graph by RSS<BR>Temperatures by Christy, <A href=""></A></center>

    It must be noted that the RSS graph above uses color in a subtle and misleading way. The light and dark reds really mean <font color=#ff0000><b>little or NO warming</b></font>. Colors in the graph create a perception of a generalized warming (by a subconscious association with <font color=#ff0000>fire and heat</font>), and many people will not notice the color bar at the bottom of the graph, that says red really means <font color=#ff0000><b>"no change"</b>!)</font>

    <font color=#0000bb face=verdana size=2><b>Note by Eduardo Ferreyra - president of FAEC, Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology:</b> Using a graphic design program, such as Corel's "Photo Paint", I have used the menu function <b>"Image &gt; Adjuste &gt; hue/saturation/density"</b>, to <b>automatic and proportionally</b> shift the color scale towards values that provide a better visual idea (more real) of temperature changes shown in the graph. The "subconscious" hot red has disappeared, being replaced by a dark blue shade, and the "real" warming is represented by by <b><font color=#ff00ff>purple shades</font></b>, that shows more clearly the regions that <b><font color=#ff0000>have really warmed</font></b>. It should be noted, also, that black means <b><font color=#aa0000>cooling</font></b>, and black, along with dark and medium blues (no change) are predominant. Compare with the color bar at the bottom.

    <center><IMG height=340 src="" width=470 border=0>

    <b><font size=4>¿Do you see any catastrophic warming here?</font></b></center>

    <B><FONT color=#aa0000 size=4>Summary:</B></font>

    <font face=verdana size=2 color=#000000>
    Although the MSU satellite is only a short 24 years record there is not a single indication that there might be occurring a 2warming by greenhouse". The pattern for the present warming <FONT color=#aa0000>(shown above)</font> it is not predicted by IPCC's computerized simulations for warming by CO<font size=1>2</font> and other grenhouse gases increase.

    The entire satellite data for the whole world shows a warming during the 1979-2002 period of <b><font color=#aa0000>just 0.005º C by year</font></b>, or <font color=#ff0000><b>0.5º C in a century</b></font>. This is, by far, much less than "prophesized" by the IPCC's "global warming" hypothesis for the recorded period, that was characterized by massive CO<font size=1>2</font> emissions to the atmosphere.

    This demonstrates that there is no "global warming", as it demonstrates that there is <b><font color=#aa0000>no anomalous warming</font></b>. Satellite records, the best available information we have, show the present warming trend - half a degree Celsius by century - is well within the range shown for the last few hundred years.

    <b><font face=arial color=#0000bb size=4>Addendum by FAEC:</font></b>

    <font face=arial size=4 color=red><b>Hohenpeissenberg Station</b></font>

    The Hohenpeissenberg weather station is located in the Bavarian Alps, south of Germany, and has kept temperature records - in the obsessive German tradition for accuracy - for an uninterrupted span of 222 years. According to its records, the chart below plots temperatures and the resulting trend of 0.6º C in 222 years, or 0.3º C by century. Hohenpeissenberg is located in a region that has remained virtually unaltered by industrial or urban development, so it is a surface station that does not suffer from "urban warming".

    This is not just a "single station in the Alps", but one of thousand of stations around the world that can be used to show there is not a catastrophic trend. But the Hohenpeissenberg station is the one with the longest reliable data available, in is paradigmatic in the case of temperature trends. Trying to dismiss it, is acknowledging this data is too dangerous for the Apocalyptic predictions of the IPCC.

    The graph also show the reason why the IPCC and their supporters have chosen 1879-1880 as their starting point for the trend in their graphs: it was the coldest year in many years, and <b><font color=#aa0000>a very convenient point</font></b> for starting a trend that would show <b><font color=#aa0000>"significant" warming</font></b>.

    But seeing the picture in a wider time scale - 222 years - the trend <b><font color=red>is reduced to 0,3ºC by century</font></b>, well within the natural variation induced by a more active Sun.

    <center><IMG height=340 src="" width=550 border=0></center>

    The lower temperatures in 1829 and 1816 (<b>The Year Without a Summer</b> - the Tambora volcano eruption of 1815, on the island of Sumbawa), <b><font color=#aa0000>were too far on the time scale, and would not render a steep warming trend as 1880 does.</font></b> Clever (and dishonest people) out there.

    The case has been presented with enough hard facts and sound reliable data available from the provided references and links.

    <center><IMG height=3 src="" width=80% border=0>
  19. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


    My understanding is that the CO2 science site is considered as junk science, and furthermore, you want US to believe that the IPCC{2500 experts}, The United States National Academy of Sciences and the various other Academies that have endorsed the IPCC's work are wrong and on the say so of a junk science website.

    I believe September 2003 was the hottest on instrumental record, and I think{not certain}, that October was also a record.
  20. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Do you also believe in Santa Claus, UFOs and Chemtrail sprayings, don't you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. David Mayes Registered Senior Member

    Insight into the mentality of a junk science junkie

    Nahhh, just prefer our elite scientists and the undisputed theories at our disposal, rather than junk science sites.
  22. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Strawman fallacy
  23. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


Share This Page