Man made Climate change a myth

[Catharnach74]

We should be spending money on strengthening defences and nuclear energy than wasting money on renewable energy schemes due to a myth of man made climate change what's really a natural phenomenon. History tells the facts about climate change its certainly nothing to do with mans contribution to carbon emission etc. I think the volcanic eruption on Iceland put that myth to bed when a erupting volcano spews 100years of mans carbon emissions in one day, that's part of the worlds natural cycle to cool the planet. I think man is responsible for destroying habitats and Eco systems but climate change is too big a thing for man to have any evolence.

[redeyedtreefrog]

We should be spending money on strengthening defences and nuclear energy than wasting money on renewable energy schemes due to a myth of man made climate change what's really a natural phenomenon. History tells the facts about climate change its certainly nothing to do with mans contribution to carbon emission etc. I think the volcanic eruption on Iceland put that myth to bed when a erupting volcano spews 100years of mans carbon emissions in one day, that's part of the worlds natural cycle to cool the planet. I think man is responsible for destroying habitats and Eco systems but climate change is too big a thing for man to have any evolence.

Scientific evidence tells a completely different story, I shall post some links later.

Even if global warming isn't anthropogenic (the consensus is that it is), then we should be spending money developing renewables so we're not using depleting resources and polluting the ecosystem with the by-products, you yourself said "I think man is responsible for destroying habitats and Eco systems". Your statement makes no sense.

[theone]

I am not not an expert on climate change, and I cannot pretend to be.

As such, I have to listen to the experts to find out what is the truth. The general consensus from the experts is that climate change has been influenced by human activity, particularly over the last 200 years or so.

Whilst I am a believer in nuclear energy, and don't agree with the ways we are expanding into renewables, I have to say that I think your dismissal of climate change is nonsense.

[crayola]

Is the OP initiating the charge of the light brigade?

That sentence has so many double entendres regarding this and other recent threads that my brain is exploding with inappropriately immodest pride.

[theone]

volcanic eruption on Iceland put that myth to bed when a erupting volcano spews 100years of mans carbon emissions in one day

And that is pure lies.

I remember reading that the carbon output of the icelandic volcano was on a par with that of belgium.

I doubt if Belgium emmits 100 years of worldwide man made carbon every day, but then again, I'm not an expert.

[Stargazer]

No doubt that climate change exists, it always has. However, plenty of people and companies are making a mint out of 'green' energy and hopefully a big wad of cash and jobs will be coming to Caithness because of it.

[Catharnach74]

Scientific evidence tells a completely different story, I shall post some links later.

Even if global warming isn't anthropogenic (the consensus is that it is), then we should be spending money developing renewables so we're not using depleting resources and polluting the ecosystem with the by-products, you yourself said "I think man is responsible for destroying habitats and Eco systems". Your statement makes no sense.

Many experts believe that climate change is now unequivocal as humans are now feeling the ill effects brought by this major environmental problem. The adverse effects of climate change are manifested through the melting of icecaps in the Polar Regions, extreme longer hot season and rainy season, droughts, and existence of more than an average number of storms. Furthermore, a series of flash floods has also plagued various areas in the world which claimed thousands of lives and left many homeless. Others, meanwhile, have suffered setbacks in its economic development as some of its products, such as agriculture, are adversely affected by global warming and climate change. Climate Change is a natural phenomenon wherein there is a change in the normal climactic system within a long period of time. This is brought upon by the evolution of time and other natural occurrences. What happened at present, however, is that the normal shift of climate change is being disrupted by human activities; hence, the fast-paced climate change and the extreme adverse effects that go with it. Volcanic activity has the ability to affect global climate on still longer time scales. Over periods of millions or even tens of millions of years, increased volcanic activity can emit enormous volumes of greenhouse gases, with the potential of substantial global warming. However, the global cooling effects of sulphur dioxide emissions will act to counter the greenhouse warming, and the resultant climate changes remain uncertain. Much will depend upon the nature of volcanic activity. Basaltic outpourings release far less sulphur dioxide and ash, proportionally, than do the more explosive eruptions.

[northener]

Many experts believe that climate change is now unequivocal as humans are now feeling the ill effects brought by this major environmental problem. The adverse effects of climate change are manifested through the melting of icecaps in the Polar Regions, extreme longer hot season and rainy season, droughts, and existence of more than an average number of storms. Furthermore, a series of flash floods has also plagued various areas in the world which claimed thousands of lives and left many homeless. Others, meanwhile, have suffered setbacks in its economic development as some of its products, such as agriculture, are adversely affected by global warming and climate change. Climate Change is a natural phenomenon wherein there is a change in the normal climactic system within a long period of time. This is brought upon by the evolution of time and other natural occurrences.

What happened at present, however, is that the normal shift of climate change is being disrupted by human activities; hence, the fast-paced climate change and the extreme adverse effects that go with it.

Volcanic activity has the ability to affect global climate on still longer time scales. Over periods of millions or even tens of millions of years, increased volcanic activity can emit enormous volumes of greenhouse gases, with the potential of substantial global warming. However, the global cooling effects of sulphur dioxide emissions will act to counter the greenhouse warming, and the resultant climate changes remain uncertain. Much will depend upon the nature of volcanic activity. Basaltic outpourings release far less sulphur dioxide and ash, proportionally, than do the more explosive eruptions.

Either your cut and paste technique is clumsy or you've just hoisted yourself by your own petard.......

[Phill]

inappropriately immodest pride.

I remember reading that the carbon output of the icelandic volcano was on a par with that of belgium.

Yeah, lets blame Belgium ......................or the Russians.

[Gronnuck]

IMHO the blame must lie with farting cows. Unless we can find a use for all that methane we're dooommed ah tell ye!

[Corrie 3]

I reckon its all these BBQ's down south thats done it for us...we are all doomed !!!!

C3...

[redeyedtreefrog]

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:
of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

All fully referenced on Wikipedia.

Also, http://americasclimatechoices.org/cl...2008_final.pdf

[Catharnach74]

The climate change hoax is based on faulty science from two things. First, hoaxers assume that ice layers give information on temperature like tree rings do with rainfall. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, from thousands of years of deposits, are measured for CO2 content of the air at the time the snow layer was deposited and thickness of the ice layers. The thickness of these snow fall layers is then assumed to be an indication of global temperature. There are numerous errors in this assumption, which have been presented in a more technical analysis, but for now pretend that this evidence is true. The hoaxers then show graphs over time with a near perfect match of CO2 levels and snow thickness and by implication the earth’s temperature. The second bit of “proof” of human caused global warming is the Global Climate Model which is available to all at Wikipedia. By their own admission, this model was developed for SHORT RANGE weather forecasting and we all know how accurate that is. This formula, though not given on this web site, has a hundred parameters each with its own coefficient and exponent. By manipulating these numbers the hoaxers are able to “prove” that an increase of CO2 will raise world temperature.

[Catharnach74]

Either your cut and paste technique is clumsy or you've just hoisted yourself by your own petard.......

So What if paste to get my point across and in my haste I make an error, everybody is at it on this forum why the nastiest?

[redeyedtreefrog]

The climate change hoax is based on faulty science from two things. First, hoaxers assume that ice layers give information on temperature like tree rings do with rainfall. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, from thousands of years of deposits, are measured for CO2 content of the air at the time the snow layer was deposited and thickness of the ice layers. The thickness of these snow fall layers is then assumed to be an indication of global temperature. There are numerous errors in this assumption, which have been presented in a more technical analysis, but for now pretend that this evidence is true. The hoaxers then show graphs over time with a near perfect match of CO2 levels and snow thickness and by implication the earth’s temperature. The second bit of “proof” of human caused global warming is the Global Climate Model which is available to all at Wikipedia. By their own admission, this model was developed for SHORT RANGE weather forecasting and we all know how accurate that is. This formula, though not given on this web site, has a hundred parameters each with its own coefficient and exponent. By manipulating these numbers the hoaxers are able to “prove” that an increase of CO2 will raise world temperature.

If that truly was the case, climate experts wouldn't all agree that warming is anthropogenic. The whole point of science is that it adjusts its view based on what's observed.

[crayola]

What strikes me from the opening post is that the author doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about. The only thing he presents as 'fact' is a blatant lie. When challenged his response is to cut and paste some text that contradicts his assertions. He's done this twice already but don't worry he won't last much longer because he never does and he never can.

This isn't the first time he's done this. Indeed his previous attempt somehow led to the thread with the most posts the org has ever seen, most of which were as bad and as stupid as his own posts. Now as everyone will know I'm not an expert on climate change but I do have a dilettante interest. (Thanks to a fellow orger for that expression, I hope you don't mind me borrowing it.) And I do happen to know some genuine world experts on the subject who have explained their science so many times that I think I understand it.

Our self-appointed soldier clearly doesn't understand anything.

[theone]

The "hoaxers" lol.

Are you suggesting some kind of conspiracy?

If so who is behind the conspiracy?

And if so what is their aim?



Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. Humans have caused an increase in it's emmisions. That is fact.

The volcano which you mentioned earlier produced, at its peak, 0.3% of global greenhouse gas emmisions, and the US geological service states that human activities emmit 130 times the amount of carbon dioxide of ALL the volcanoes in the world. You can check the sources in this blog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics

I'm all for sensible debate and differing viewpoints, but the original poster offers nothing based on scientific fact.

[Phill]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread454717/pg1

One of many sites peddling the same shite you erroneously posted as YOUR POINT ??!!!


Troll

[Mystical Potato Head]

The one thing the op is correct about is that history does indeed show that the earth has gone through many climate changes in the past so ice ages and global warming, where the temperatures have been much warmer than todays,are indeed naturally occuring.

The earth wobbles on its axis which takes 26,000 years to complete one rotation of the wobble so the for a few thousand years the Artic ice is nearer the sun so it melts,as the rotation continues the other extreme happens ,the Northern Hemisphere gets colder and another ice age starts,thats a fact.So no matter what you do regarding climate change the nothern hemisphere will freeze over again at some point.Its the way the orbit works and were stuck with it.
It doesnt take much of a distance change to alter the temperature,when the wobble pushes the northern hemisphere nearer the sun by a few hundred miles it will have a significant effect.So everyone in the north experiences much warmer climate,the person in the south of england experiences temperatures you would expect on the med,etc,etc.

The rate of climate change can certainly be slowed by pumping less greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere,there really is no argument to suggest otherwise,the only argument is how much it is changing the climate by but eventually,regardless of which side of the fence you're on the ice will march south once again in another 10 000 years? 15 000years?
Who knows for sure bit it will happen.

[Serenity]

The earth wobbles on its axis which takes 26,000 years to complete one rotation of the wobble so the for a few thousand years the Artic ice is nearer the sun so it melts,as the rotation continues the other extreme happens ,the Northern Hemisphere gets colder and another ice age starts,thats a fact.

It is a bit more complicated than that. I won't try explaining here and I'm sure you know but there are three main components of the earth's position that affect climate etc. They all operate on different timescales too.
Anyway I just find it really interesting and wanted to share:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles