Is Global Warming a Myth?

by Sirona 80 Replies latest jw friends

  • BrendaCloutier
    BrendaCloutier

    There is so much about earth's long-range natural cycles that scientists can only guess about. They've just learned about El Nino in the past 20 years after a devestating cycle in the 80's. And it cycles every 7-10 years!

    I personally believe that Global Warming is probably 2-fold: A natural cycle, and aggrivated by man. As so many other natural occurances that have been influenced by man, including species extinction.

    Are we going to suddenly see tidal waves or storm surges washing over and burying Manhattan? Not likely. The process is much slower than that.

    A couple years ago we did see the largest ice floe in recordable history break off of Antartica! World wide, glaciers are receding at an unprecidented rate (hence the discovery of the iceage man in Europe).

    Locally, here in Portland, we used to get a week or two of snowfall annually. 2-3 inches, a couple times during the winter. this has become more and more rare. We actually had 5" of snow that stayed around for a week this last winter. I loved it!

    Just because there is a "normal" and "natural" aspect to global warming, and other world issues, doesn't mean we shouldn't stop doing our best to treat the earth with respect. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Buy Recycled. Purchase fuel efficient vehicles. Plan and combine your errands so that you're not running to the store just because. And so on, ad nauseum.

    Hugs

    Bren

  • Mary
    Mary

    I'm no scientist, but I find it hard to believe that all the pollution that is spewed into the atmosphere every single day, isn't having somthing to do with the screwy weather. Our winters are getting longer........here in Southern Ontario, winter is lasting for 6 and 7 months out of the year. It used to get warm around here in April; now we're lucky if it starts warming up in June (or this year, it simply didn't warm up at all).

    The weather is becoming more intense. It seems we either have flooding or drought; either it's hotter than hell or it's freezing cold.........I'm no tree hugger either, but it's scary thinking about what we're doing to the planet.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    Global temperatures have gone up and down in cycles thats true. And those with pro-fossil fuel agendas can throw doubt on the adverse impact humans have had on the temperature. That's because a fair amount of research so far has shown an increase in temperature, but within the statistically expected norm. There's also the argument that the earth naturally can accomodate and buffer changes in amounts of carbon.

    But just like any of you who've taken chemistry knows, any buffer has a limited capacity. Once its overshot, then we'll see some real significant changes. Will we overshoot the buffering capacity? I don't know. But just because we're not obviously at that point doesn't mean we should carry on care free as the pro-fossil fuel advocates want us to.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    New Findings Show Earth is Not Getting Warmer; Studies Also Show Climate Models Break from Reality Says NCPA Scholar

    8/12/2004 10:18:00 AM


    To: National Desk, Science and Environment reporters

    Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 800-859-1154 or stuffnell@ncpa.org

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Contrary to popular myth the Earth is not warming significantly, according to new research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists with the universities of Rochester and Virginia.

    The reports note two important findings that run counter to the view that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

    "It's been known for some time that satellites and surface thermometers give different temperature trends," said one of the reports' co-authors Prof. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). "We now have independent confirmation that the satellite results are correct and that the climate is not warming." Prof. Singer, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is also a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

    Proponents of global warming theory have long pointed to thermometer measurements at the Earth's surface as proof that the Earth is warming. Other scientists have pointed to balloon and satellite readings of temperatures in the Earth's lower atmosphere that show no significant warming. The scientists from the universities of Rochester and Virginia employed a new, independent way of determining the temperature, using historic meteorological climate data to construct temperature values for each grid cell of the Earth at an equivalent height of two meters. This analysis agreed with the satellite and balloon measurements, establishing that the disparity is close to the surface and mainly in the tropics.

    In another report, the Rochester/Virginia scientists found that the computer climate models used to assert that the introduction of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm, and that the effect increases with altitude becoming twice as strong at about three miles up, are in stark contrast to the actual data of the past quarter-century. Comparing the results from the three commonly cited climate models with four independent observational data sets, the scientists found that the models all showed temperatures increasing with altitude, while the actual observations showed the opposite occurred.

    "If the global climate is not warming, why all the fuss?" asked Singer. "The whole issue of controlling CO2 emissions is moot."

    ------

    The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D.C., that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share its mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

    http://www.usnewswire.com/

  • Gretchen956
    Gretchen956

    I too subscribe to the combination theory. Why do Global Warming and Natural Climate Cycles have to be mutually exclusive? We are, without a doubt, aggrevating a natural cycle. And, when it's all said and done, it isn't going to matter. If the ocean raises two inches, as expected, the weather will change. It is already changing.

    What some people think is that global warming means that the weather will get warmer for everyone, sort of evenly or something. But I like to think of it this way. Take a glass jar of cold water. Pour into it some hot water which has some color food coloring added to it. Do not stir, watch it naturally mix. You'll notice swirls and eddies as the two mix together. Takes awhile for the ambient temperature to go up.

    Our weather is much like that. You'll first see colder weather where it doesn't belong, and warmer temperature where it doesn't belong. You'll see more storm activity, and more severe storm activity. You will see melting glaciers. You'll see more wear and flooding at the coastal areas. More rain in some areas, drier in other areas.

    But thats all the mixing and eddying of the warmer with the colder. Takes awhile for the ambient temperature to go up. It still happens though, just a matter of time.

    And that is happening right now, my friends. Doesn't matter, I still maintain, whether its natural or not. I believe as I said, that its a bit natural but aggrevated by our pollution. We need to take this serious.

    Sherry

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    I always thought it'd be pretty cool to live on Venus. I figure that if I can hang around long enough, we'll duplicate those conditions on earth, and bingo!....Venus at last.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!


    These are strong words, and particularly so given that they are written by Professor David Bellamy, beloved of all Greens everywhere.

    by Professor David Bellamy
    Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

    Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.

    But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

    Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

    They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

    As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.

    Dreaded

    To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.

    For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.

    That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

    Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.

    Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.

    They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'

    You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is

    At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.

    But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of is gradually sinking below the waves.

    And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of .

    Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.

    It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.

    Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.

    Melted

    The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the and we became an island.

    The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in , on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

    Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

    In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

    It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

    Ignored

    But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.

    The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

    If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

    Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.

    It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

    If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

    The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact. Copyright © 2004 Daily Mail

  • frenchbabyface
    frenchbabyface

    Re: Is Global Warming a Myth?

    Well check a pole north pic 10 years ago (even 5 years ago) and check on from now ... and you'll get your answer !!!

    Eddited to add : Now about the why's it's too important to just say "whatever" or "this is crap" everything have to be checked out for good !!!

  • BrendaCloutier
    BrendaCloutier
    ...plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

    Ok, now add the fact the the world is depleting it's forests at an alarming rate. The Rain Forests in S. America are being deforested at an estimated 1-1/2 acres per second for timber, mineral, metal, and big oil exploitation. Rain Forests in the congo, and elsewhere throughout the world are being raped equivellantly (sp).

    The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our Planet" because it provides the essential environmental world service of continuously recyling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest.

    http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

    So, what if our oxygen producing capacity is greatly depleted, then what happens to this excess CO2?

    All of this stuff ties together. Wild salmon runs, spotted owl, cheetahs, florida panther, Hawaiian crows, Global Warming, Rainforest deforestation. Each a symptom.

    Mom earth is very capable of recovering. Mt. St. Helens has shown scientists/biologists how the earth can recover from extreme devastation.

    Kevan (spousal unit) sez "the solution to polution is dilution". That's all fine and dandy, until we run out of the ability to dilute or convert.

    Ok. I'll step down off my soapbox (for now).

    Brenda

  • heathen
    heathen

    This is always an interesting debate . The scientific community has proposed theories to both extremes . Ice age is also something they consider, global warming became a popular theory in the 80"s . The scientists also say that most of the oxygen we breath is produced by the oceans by the algea the environmental consernes over deforestation is that it renders the land barren and unable to be used in farming . The rains wash away all the nutrients in the soil prohibiting the growth of crops . I personally subscribe to the global warming theories as being legit . Man has compounded the problems with the holes in the ozone as well as carbon monoxide .

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit