It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming- Fact or Myth?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Hello

Headline on the BBC today is concerning the 'fact' that we are reaching a tipping point wrt co2 emissions and that we risk serious/catastrophic climate changes as a result.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Look around on the web and you'll see apparently rational and qualified scientists who strongly disagree with the climate change theory.

www.friendsofscience.org...

Who's right here? Do you go with the consensus, or do you agree with the dissenters?

I'm still not clear why there have been significant changes in the ice caps over millions of years, and large fluctuations in co2 levels apparently *after* global warming happened.

Confused? I am.

TD




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I would say its more of a theory than either fact or myth, because we honestly dont have the capability to understand the weather to the extent that the fear-mongers ranting and raving about the climate change seem to think we do. Its profitable to keep people scared, because frightend people do whatever they are told will remove the fear, so ask yourself this: who will proft from this fear?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I'm really not sure who will profit - I can't see any reason for anyone making this up. It would cost a fortune for governments and industry to change their polluting ways, and probably cost a lot of jobs (just look at the Canadians and Kyoto - isn't Harper going to withdraw?)

People like Blair seem to believe it, but again, I'm just slightly unsure about how good the evidence is.

Who do you think would profit from a global warming myth 'conspiracy'?

TD



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
It's a fact that CO2 levels are steadily rising and that this is primarily - or entirely - a consequence of human activity.

It's a fact that measurements show that global tmeperatures are rising.

Beyond that it's mostly theory and conjecture.

However, ask yourself this: is polluting the land and sqaundering resources really something I'm proud of doing? Curbing carbon emissions and other things aimed at reducing global warming are all things we should logically be doing anyway



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Yes, but the big thing I keep reading from sceptic pages is that the CO2 fluctuations have happened *pre* industrialisation, and that they seem to *follow* global warming rather than cause it.

Is there anything in that, or is it just nonsense?

I'm not in a camp that says 'There's always more, let's all drive SUVs', but I am interested to hear what the basis for the greenhouse effect is.

TD



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I believe there is no denying the "fact" that co2 levels are increasing but I am not convinced that is is entirely from human activity. I think TD has something in that fluctuations have occurred in the past - preindustrialization - so how can it be solely from human activity?

Discovery news just ran an article referencing yesterdays BBC article:
dsc.discovery.com...

(this is my first post, please excuse errors and direct me to the proper way of posting if I have done something wrong, thanks!)



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Hello and welcome Archerette!

This is always an interesting place, if nothing else - I've only been here since December and there's always something going on!

I don't know about the phrase 90% perspiraton and 10% inspiration, but around here it's probably a bit more like 90% obfuscation and 10% illumination - you'll certainly get lots of different perspectives if nothing else!


And I'm still none the wiser about this CO2 and global warming thing - hopefully someone with a bit more meteorological expertise can give me an answer.

Regards

TD



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Okay, can somebody tell me how the climate has changed so many times prior to man? Change is going to occur with or without us. The real question is what are we to do about it? We should be good stewards and leave the rest to the Creator.

Okay, you don't want to take that position, then let's say we have another major impact from above. Do you think the CO2 levels are going to make a difference? I think not. My point is nothing is static about our planet. Why do you think that is?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by duncanidaho
Okay, can somebody tell me how the climate has changed so many times prior to man? Change is going to occur with or without us. The real question is what are we to do about it? We should be good stewards and leave the rest to the Creator.

Okay, you don't want to take that position, then let's say we have another major impact from above. Do you think the CO2 levels are going to make a difference? I think not. My point is nothing is static about our planet. Why do you think that is?


That's my point. There have been temperature and co2 fluctuations prior to industrialisation, and one of the links I posted seems to say the whole 'global warming thing' is poor science, and even the co2 issue is red herring because it follows warming rather than causes it.

SO, in that case, why is there an apparent consensus amongst governments (no doubt advised by scientists) that global warming is a man-made thing and linked to CO2 emissions?

I really have to go and do some work now.

TD



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
All you have to do is look at the suns spot history over the past 100 years and compare this to the earths recorded temps and you will see how much the suns spot activity has on the earths temps.

I think the suns spot cycle runs a 11 year course and right now we are in a high sun spot cycle.

When the sun has spots, this means more heat for the earth.

When the sun has less sun spot activity, this mean less heat for the earth.

Sure, humanity has an limited effect on GW, but you also need to look at Volcanic activity over the past couple of decades, in addition to the high sun spot activity and you get a warmer earth.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
The way I myself see it is as follows, we are pumping co2 into the atmosphere,this will have an effect.We can talk about volcanoes and other sources of co2, natural fluctuations in the climate past and past ice ages, but it does not change the fact we deliver millions of tonnes of this into the atmosphere per annum.This has to have an adverse effect, co2 is natural its part of earth but, over loading of it in the atmosphere will lead to problems.

The natural co2 cycle of earth is maintained by volcanos ,rocks , water plants and animals, its a feedback system much like a govener on a steam engine and has been in operation for billions of years without our interference. The co2 we produce is not part of this natural cycle and the sheer amount of co2 we pump out will have an effect on the cycle disrupting it or disabling the earths ability to regulate its atmosphereic content.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
I think the suns spot cycle runs a 11 year course and right now we are in a high sun spot cycle.


According to the following article, this is actually supposed to be a calm time in the 11 year cycle.

dsc.discovery.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
The way I myself see it is as follows, we are pumping co2 into the atmosphere,this will have an effect.We can talk about volcanoes and other sources of co2, natural fluctuations in the climate past and past ice ages, but it does not change the fact we deliver millions of tonnes of this into the atmosphere per annum.This has to have an adverse effect, co2 is natural its part of earth but, over loading of it in the atmosphere will lead to problems.

The natural co2 cycle of earth is maintained by volcanos ,rocks , water plants and animals, its a feedback system much like a govener on a steam engine and has been in operation for billions of years without our interference. The co2 we produce is not part of this natural cycle and the sheer amount of co2 we pump out will have an effect on the cycle disrupting it or disabling the earths ability to regulate its atmosphereic content.


So you are saying that CO2 levels *causes* warming rather than seems to follow warming? That's sort of my point! Which camp is right? Who do we believe?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Im not really in a position to say that global warming is caused by co2, the jury is still out so to speak,but I know for a fact excessive amounts of co2 released into the atmosphere will have some effect on the earth global warming or not.
If this is a natural cycle should we really be helping it along?

We know co2 is a greenhouse gas and that other gases we release like CFC's have an effect on the ozone layer which is our front line defense so to speak,after that its up to the ice-caps to deflect harmful uv-rays.We've recored holes in the o-zone and its pretty much common knowledge the ice caps are receding so there is something going on.

What I'm really trying to say is if the house is burning should we really be feeding the fire,regardless of it cause?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Yup. Wasn't arguing about the ozone layer and CFC's - just really a bit confused about whether or not I should agree with Bush and Harper over Kyoto - are they:

1 Evil Oil Barons who don't care about Global Warming

or

2 Rational people who don't like making decisions based on dubious 'science'.

If CO2 doesn't *cause* global warming it's a lot of time and energy we are wasting tilting at windmills.

Here's a link about glaciers shrinking. Or not.

glaciers

So that's got me even more confused about shrinking ice caps.

Especially when some of the glaciers are getting bigger:

calving glaciers


Is it just a human failing that we can't think properly about temperature changes over geological time? Or we make big decisions based on incomplete understanding?

TD



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   


If CO2 doesn't *cause* global warming it's a lot of time and energy we are wasting tilting at windmills.


Co2 is a green house gas, it has a warming effect we cant get away from that, also in higher concentrations its a pollutant..windmills are worth while for clean air alone.





just really a bit confused about whether or not I should agree with Bush and Harper over Kyoto


Its really up to you to make your own decisions,not me or anyone else on the boards, do some research and draw you own conclusions.




So that's got me even more confused about shrinking ice caps.
Especially when some of the glaciers are getting bigger


Given there are one or two localised case's of glaciers growing this does not represent the the rest of the polar regions which are receding without a shadow of a doubt.Not only are they receding ice is forming later and later every year.

Sure the earths climate has changed in the past but does that really make a difference, if its happening now we have to deal with it , man-made or not.
Theres mountains of evidence to suggest co2 plays a key role global climate change.

One thing is for sure though the more co2 in the atmosphere the more heat it will trap, its an inherant property of co2 and cannot be denied.

Take a look at Venus, it once had oceans but look at it now. Thats the effect a runaway greenhouse effect can have.

In the mean time have a look at this Global Dimming



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Archerette
I believe there is no denying the "fact" that co2 levels are increasing but I am not convinced that is is entirely from human activity. I think TD has something in that fluctuations have occurred in the past - preindustrialization - so how can it be solely from human activity?


IMO previous changes to CO2 levels have followed temperature change, not preceeded it. However, we have to use informations gleaned form the various ice cores - particularly Vostok - to work this out, and the accuracy is not sufficent to say with certainty one way or the other.




However, I understand that isotopic studies of the atmosphere have shown that CO2 amounts equal to the recent rise have been found to have originated from the burning of fossil fuels.... So there doesn't seem to be much question that the current increase in CO2 levels is down to us.

Whether this will actually cause catastrophic global warming or not is another matter. Especially since the best analogy we have is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago.... I rather suspect that there are several more pieces to the jigsaw which we've yet to find.

It's worth adding that in addition to CO2, methane is a big worry - it's a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't remain in the atmosphere so long. Much of the northern tundra contains huge amounts of frozen vegetation - which as it defrosts release methane.


On another note that - climate change isn't just caused by carbon emissions. Deforestation is arguable an even bigger factor on a local basis - the more we cut down Amazonia, for example, he less it will rain there (rain forests generate their own precipitation in a feedback cycle involving transpiration) - the whole of Brazil could end up a desert! This in turn impacts on other regions.... However, in the headlong rush to curb co2 emissions, things like this tend to get conveniently forgotten.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Is there global warming? Yes it is a fact not fictional. What is fictional is what people expect to happen. Nothing like the movie "Day After Tomorrow". Well maybe like that but the time frame wouldnt be weeks, months, years or even decades but centuries. SO, is global warming a real issue, certainly, and it is impacting the polar regions and ecosystems right now. There is glacial meltdown all over the planet, in the Andes, Greenland, the poles, ect. The main problem here is that nobody wants to take action and reduce emissions and reduce fossil fuel consumption.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Hello Essan

Thanks for taking the time to post - very interesting. *SO*, if you were made 'Enviroment Tsar', would your first priority be to cut CO2 emissions, or do you think there are other, more worthwhile things you could do for the enviroment?

Embarrassingly enough, I was reading the 'Farmer's Almanac' over here in Canada (excellent bathroom reading), and they had a big article on global warming - the sun is apparently at 8,000 year 'warm', according to the Max Planck Institute, and has been very active in the past 60.



Originally posted by cp43
Is there global warming? Yes it is a fact not fictional. What is fictional is what people expect to happen. Nothing like the movie "Day After Tomorrow". Well maybe like that but the time frame wouldnt be weeks, months, years or even decades but centuries. SO, is global warming a real issue, certainly, and it is impacting the polar regions and ecosystems right now. There is glacial meltdown all over the planet, in the Andes, Greenland, the poles, ect. The main problem here is that nobody wants to take action and reduce emissions and reduce fossil fuel consumption.


Yes - *but*, that was the point of the original post. I'm completely unsure as to which scientists are right - there are some that claim co2 emissions are the cause (probably majority), and others that claim that co2 follows warming and does not cause it. See Essan's cool graph above.

To quote the points raised in The Farmer's Almanac (oh the shame!
)

1 general agreement about warming, esp since 80s

2 Sun Cycles - little ice age of 1645-1745 by the sunspot cycle being 'quiet'. More active at moment and more active over past 60 years

3 Ash (including man made pollution) aerosols reflects heat (cooling??)

4 More flow from Ocean Heat conveyors (Gulf Stream etc) carrying heat to Northern Hemisphere

The more I read about this, the more confused I am.

The BBC has been presenting this as 'Cut Back on CO2 or We'll all Cook'; they've also painted Bush as an idiot for not signing to Kyoto.

Looks like this makes for better headlines than 'we don't really understand Planetary cycles'.

TD



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Global Warming is a fact. The earth goes through cycles of global warming and global cooling (ice-age). What is controversial is the extent in which man contributes to Global Warming. IMO only the ignorant think mankind contributes nothing to it. Even the animals contribute a little by means of flatulence. That said I don't think mankind is the cause of it, as it has happened many times in the past. I think we are speeding it up.

As far as what causes Global Warming we don't know for sure, that's why it's still controversial, but there is mountains of evidence that the increase in c02 is a primary contributor. You're asking if it is the first cause though? Well something has to cause it each time Earth goes through a global warming cycle. If not the greenhouse gases then what else do you think it could be? I'm not saying it couldn't be something else, I am just curious.

And yeah...I think Bush is an idiot for not signing Kyoto. I think we are all idiots for letting him make that decision.


[edit on 092828p://1u39 by Lucid Lunacy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join