I find it amazing

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

I find it amazing that people will believe anything a scientist will say without proof, for example being told global warming is caused by increase levels of co2, when you ask them how they come to this conclusion they say that it is only a theory because the only thing they can find is co2 level have increased, the theory has not been proved or disproved now NASA has evidence that global climate change is caused by solar activity not co2 increase, the amount of co2 in our atmosphere is % .0387 the Preindustrial Level 1750 was % .0280, not much co2 in our atmosphere, a flower farmer in Canada had 2 identical green houses with the same amount of foliage he decider to put extra co2 into one green house to see if the plants would do better, they did but the tempture in both green house remained the same the green houses were not temptured controlled and the amount of co2 added was about %4 of total volume
I think NASA is right and the we are not contributing to global warming
They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

[Baddad (Marty)]

Hi Vars,

I would like to get some figures to compare differences in solar activity.
From prior to 1930 would be a little difficult. In the short term, yes, but its inadequate and I assume scientists have already accounted for that already. Otherwise they could not have the credibility to be called scientists.

We, in SE Qld are having 30deg+ C in Aug and Sep. If there was increased solar activity causing this it would at least be in the scientific journals you would think.

I may move to NZ.

Cheers Marty

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I thought we were going through a period of record low Solar Activity

[BerrieK]

Interesting theory Vars.

My understanding was that at present we were in the midst of an unusually long solar minimum at present, with likewise unusually low solar magnetic field, solar wind speed and temperature. So the decrease in solar activity must be 'causing' global warming...or perhaps the hypothesis needs to be reversed ....is global warming causing a decrease in solar activity? Have we stuffed the sun too?

Kerrie

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by BerrieK

Interesting theory Vars.

My understanding was that at present we were in the midst of an unusually long solar minimum at present, with likewise unusually low solar magnetic field, solar wind speed and temperature. So the decrease in solar activity must be 'causing' global warming...or perhaps the hypothesis needs to be reversed ....is global warming causing a decrease in solar activity? Have we stuffed the sun too?

Kerrie

They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

What the heck, let's keep pumping crap into the atmosphere, allow ddt to be used by third world countries ( and we then eat this food, why not, its cheaper), dump pollutants into the ocean, denude forests, relocate polluting industries & technologies to more accomodating buerocracies, consume, consume, consume.

I'm tired, I'd better have a lie down & a Bex.

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I thought we were going through a period of record low Solar Activity

They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

We made it through the last ice-age with only our brains and some pointy sticks!
If, indeed the global climate is changing - SO WHAT? I think we'll adjust.
I was a true-blue member of greenpeace from 1974 - 1995.
But they and other enironmental fellow-travellers, increasingly let politics and polemic replace scientific evidence. Also any hardships that had to be borne always seemed to have to apply to somebody else and not them.
This is a long debate so I'll leave it for another day and leave you with this:
As any chemist or bio-chemist knows CO2 is not some lethal toxic agent, but the one of best natural fertilizers around. Oxygen is far more toxic.
An increase of 2% CO2 would be virtually inconsequential. An increase of 2-3% O would be catastrophic.
I know my chemistry. It took me 3 goes to pass the course!

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

We made it through the last ice-age with only our brains and some pointy sticks!
If, indeed the global climate is changing - SO WHAT? I think we'll adjust.
I was a true-blue member of greenpeace from 1974 - 1995.
But they and other enironmental fellow-travellers, increasingly let politics and polemic replace scientific evidence. Also any hardships that had to be borne always seemed to have to apply to somebody else and not them.
This is a long debate so I'll leave it for another day and leave you with this:
As any chemist or bio-chemist knows CO2 is not some lethal toxic agent, but the one of best natural fertilizers around. Oxygen is far more toxic.
An increase of 2% CO2 would be virtually inconsequential. An increase of 2-3% O would be catastrophic.
I know my chemistry. It took me 3 goes to pass the course!

You got that right

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Just to add when there is an ice age, northern hemisphere is covered in ice and snow but in the southern hemisphere it becomes dry and hot

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Vars191

I find it amazing that people will believe anything a scientist will say without proof, for example being told global warming is caused by increase levels of co2, when you ask them how they come to this conclusion they say that it is only a theory because the only thing they can find is co2 level have increased, the theory has not been proved or disproved now NASA has evidence that global climate change is caused by solar activity not co2 increase, the amount of co2 in our atmosphere is % .000387 the Preindustrial Level 1750 was % .000280, not much co2 in our atmosphere, a flower farmer in Canada had 2 identical green houses with the same amount of foliage he decider to put extra co2 into one green house to see if the plants would do better, they did but the tempture in both green house remained the same the green houses were not temptured controlled and the amount of co2 added was about %4 of total volume
I think NASA is right and the we are not contributing to global warming
They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

Good one Vars. Funny joke. You're a card you are.

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

If any body has more information to the contra please post

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by Vars191

I find it amazing that people will believe anything a scientist will say without proof, for example being told global warming is caused by increase levels of co2, when you ask them how they come to this conclusion they say that it is only a theory because the only thing they can find is co2 level have increased, the theory has not been proved or disproved now NASA has evidence that global climate change is caused by solar activity not co2 increase, the amount of co2 in our atmosphere is % .000387 the Preindustrial Level 1750 was % .000280, not much co2 in our atmosphere, a flower farmer in Canada had 2 identical green houses with the same amount of foliage he decider to put extra co2 into one green house to see if the plants would do better, they did but the tempture in both green house remained the same the green houses were not temptured controlled and the amount of co2 added was about %4 of total volume
I think NASA is right and the we are not contributing to global warming
They are saying we are in global cooling mode at the moment

I have been saying this for years. However you are a bit out in your % it was .028% in 1750, .03% when I was at school and is now around .04%. Still quite insignificant. Our whole existance is based on the carbon cycle. As fast as we pump it into the air the more the plants lap it up and re-cycle it as wood and O2. It is a pity our illustrious leader does not make his own investigations instead of listening to his toadies.

Further we are getting some man made climate change. It is caused by the air currents being changed by massive land clearance in the tropical regions. But it is not making the world hotter or colder, just making some areas hotter and drier and others colder or wetter.

Barry

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I have been saying this for years. However you are a bit out in your % it was .028% in 1750, .03% when I was at school and is now around .04%. Still quite insignificant. Our whole existance is based on the carbon cycle. As fast as we pump it into the air the more the plants lap it up and re-cycle it as wood and O2. It is a pity our illustrious leader does not make his own investigations instead of listening to his toadies.

Further we are getting some man made climate change. It is caused by the air currents being changed by massive land clearance in the tropical regions. But it is not making the world hotter or colder, just making some areas hotter and drier and others colder or wetter.

Barry

I totally agree with you, sorry put decimal point in wrong place

[astroron (Ron)]

I am sorry ,but I find it incredible that all the scientists who believe in human induced global warming are classed as cheats charlatans and down right Frauds who have another agenda,BUT all the global warming doubters are all fine upstanding scientist who are being shouted down by the United nations and governments around the world.
There was not Six Billion people on the earth when we had the last Global Warming crisis.
Please tell me why the global warming scientist want to make us believe there is a problem when there isn't?
What do they have to gain?

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by astroron

i am sorry ,but i find it incredible that all the scientists who believe in human induced global warming are classed as cheats charlatans and down right frauds who have another agenda,but all the global warming doubters are all fine upstanding scientist who are being shouted down by the united nations and governments around the world.
There was not six billion people on the earth when we had the last global warming crisis.
Please tell me why the global warming scientist want to make us believe there is a problem when there isn't?
What do they have to gain?

MONEY
They are being given large sums of money for there investigations
It would not be the first time (year 2000 bug)

[astroron (Ron)]

And so the Oil Companies, Coal Companies and all the other businesses that are holding the world to ransom are as pure as driven snow and have no financial interest in keeping the status quoe
What do people like Dr Tim Flannery , David Attenborough and a legion of eminent scientist have to gain?
You did not answer the point of the Six Billion and more people on this planet pumping vast amounts of crap into our atmosphere, wiether it be CO2 or other pollutants, which did not happen in the last global warming time.
I would rather we try do do something now than wait to see who is right or wrong
It maybe not effect you and me but I think in all probability it will effect generations to come.
End Of my involvement in this post

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I have been saying this for years. However you are a bit out in your % it was .028% in 1750, .03% when I was at school and is now around .04%. Still quite insignificant. Our whole existance is based on the carbon cycle. As fast as we pump it into the air the more the plants lap it up and re-cycle it as wood and O2. It is a pity our illustrious leader does not make his own investigations instead of listening to his toadies.

Barry

This argument is fallacious. Your implication is that small changes produce negligible effects. In fact, there is a mathematical theory around small changes in initial conditions producing enormous long term variations in conditions (chaos theory and "the butterfly effect").
You say that as fast as we pump CO2 into the air the more the plants lap it up. Then why is the increase in atmospheric CO2 accelerating?
Unfortunately the problem is not just CO2. As temperature seems to be increasing, ice sheets receding, we will also have the beginnings of problems with increasing atmospheric water vapour and methane. Under the worst-case scenario, if we managed to initiate a runaway greenhouse problem we could end up like Venus.

I agree with Ron. If the increasing consensus among scientists is that we have a global warming problem related to human induced emissions then we should take notice. The scientific community is its own harshest critic. Any scientist who attempts to produce misguided or non-rigorous conclusions to their research would be stripped of their credulity. If you don't think science works this way then who or what can you trust?

Regards, Rob

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

The May/June Edition of Australian S&T discussed the relationship between Solar activity and global temperatures. At solar maximum, when there are lots of sunspots, the sun emits more raiation due to the bright areas surrounding the spots. Research indicates that the cycle causes flucyuations in global temperatures of between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees. So the extended solar minimum we have been seeing is probably mitigating temperature increases.
As to human induced climate change, when I was at school, the idea of the greenhouse effect was simply commonly accepted science. The atmosphere traps heat and acts to stabilise temperatures on the earth. It has only become controversial once the possibility that we humans could affect it become known.
Climate is delicate, we know this because the climate has changed many times in the past, and we are not really sure why. I think conducting a huge uncontrolled experiment on our atmosphere (remember we have only one!) is dangerous. Over the years we havew managed to reduce the amount of pollutants that we pump out into the environment without our lifestyle or growth being affected, CO2 is simply another output that should be controlled or reduced.
Personally I would love it if we could cut our reliance on fossil fuels, regardless of the effects on climate.
Lastly, from my reading, it seems the majority of climate scientists agree that there is risk involved in pumping out more CO2. If money is their motivation, surely the one scientist who can disprove the warming effects of human activity could make a poultice from the oil, coal etc companies?
Anyway thats my 2 cents worth!

[joe_smith]

A good report about global warming is this one from the UNEP/GRID its a 7 meg PDF just click the PDF download button. Its set out very good and has lots of info and facts from the United Nations, and is very readable to the average person.

Climate in Peril - A popular guide to the latest IPCC reports

This book presents the substance of the Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in simplified language and structure.

Climate in Peril: A Popular Guide to the Latest IPCC Reports presents the substance of the Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in simplified language and structure. The guide, intended for lay readers, is a joint publication of GRID-Arendal and SMI Books, with the generous support of the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.