we have man made heating elements it the oceans called " nemos " we have wind machines on cargo ships capable of producing over 300 mph winds, we know how powerful storms like hurricanes are made, and we have the technology to make them, we know how television and radios control people opinions and actions and we really understand how to kill people, what would you do with all this at your finger tips?
Originally posted by inner g
we have man made heating elements it the oceans called " nemos " we have wind machines on cargo ships capable of producing over 300 mph winds, we know how powerful storms like hurricanes are made, and we have the technology to make them, we know how television and radios control people opinions and actions and we really understand how to kill people, what would you do with all this at your finger tips?
you have been listening to art bell and george noory to much
Using air bubbles in Antartic and Greenland ice as a guide scientists can determine that during interglacial periods (periods when glaciers have receeded) such as is happening now, the normal CO2 content of the atmosphere is about 240PPM. The CO2 in the atmosphere today is about 360PPM or about a third higher than it should be naturally thus excaberating the natural period of global temperature increase. In other words, global warming as it's happening today, is due to human activity.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2That's no proof.
Using air bubbles in Antartic and Greenland ice as a guide scientists can determine that during interglacial periods (periods when glaciers have receeded) such as is happening now, the normal CO2 content of the atmosphere is about 240PPM. The CO2 in the atmosphere today is about 360PPM or about a third higher than it should be naturally thus excaberating the natural period of global temperature increase. In other words, global warming as it's happening today, is due to human activity.
Originally posted by BBC News
'No Sun link' to climate changeA new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity"
Dr Piers ForsterDr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
Warming trend
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.
Cosmic relief
The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.
But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.
Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.
During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.
Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.
He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.
"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."
Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
So, in addition to that:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
this is a link to the article posted by the Royal Society. (please tell me if the link works)
And the abstract:
Originally posted by LOCKWOOD & FROHLICH
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
Pretty much owns all the anti-global warming claims.
I'm embarassed to be so convinced by the global warming swindle.
Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610Pretty much owns all the anti-global warming claims.
I'm embarassed to be so convinced by the global warming swindle.
wait....
so you are embarrassed to have been convinced by a lame youtube video because of these other youtube videos?
Originally posted by inimalistGreat global warming swindle was a documentary, not a youtube vid.
wait....so you are embarrassed to have been convinced by a lame youtube video because of these other youtube videos?
This guy proved it wrong, and I believed the fallacies. Believing fallacies is embarassing.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Great global warming swindle was a documentary, not a youtube vid.This guy proved it wrong, and I believed the fallacies. Believing fallacies is embarassing.
very well, internet documentary found on youtube
my point was rather, why not trust the people who are most likely to know what is going on, and not some guy who is almost certainly not educated enough to.
Like, NASA was going on about greenhouse gasses and warming in the 80s. The Regan, Bush 1 & 2 and clinton whitehouses fought the information and did their best to prevent its release.
Was there valid scientific debate over the past 20 years? sure, very little of it was even related to what was shown in the swindle movie.
Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610Pretty much owns all the anti-global warming claims.
I'm embarassed to be so convinced by the global warming swindle.
I don't agree. He makes an argument and does attempt to use some science and facts but also leaves a LOT out. Why was there no mention of the shrinking polar ice cap and Antarctic, Alaskan, and Greenland glaciers? I have seen the satellite photos myself. What about changing weather patterns? (admittedly a lot more research needs to be done in this area)
As a lay peson It's still my feeling that global warming is real and human Accerelated. By that I acknowledge the natural cycles in the earth's climate but feel humanity is making the process happen much faster than it naturally should.
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I don't agree. He makes an argument and does attempt to use some science and facts but also leaves a LOT out. Why was there no mention of the shrinking polar ice cap and Antarctic, Alaskan, and Greenland glaciers? I have seen the satellite photos myself. What about changing weather patterns? (admittedly a lot more research needs to be done in this area)
Those weren't the subjects of his video. He was just pointing out huge holes in the documentary "The Global Warming Swindle".