Is global warming a load of crap?


I used to believe that global warming was real until recently. I’ve heard some things and have been reading that global warming is real but is not caused by people but by an either increase or decrease in sunspots or solar activity. This makes a lot of sense to me. Also I hear that politicians are now pushing for a carbon tax which makes sense to me now why they would support such a thing. It seems to me like politicians wont support a damn thing unless there is a buck to be made from it.

&lt:&lt:I used to believe that global warming was real until recently.&gt:&gt:

frankly, i doubt it.
AGW deniers often make this claim.
but if you go back into their history, it’s never true.
your history isn’t long enough, but you use the same arguments.
&quot:I don’t want to pay the tax, so the science isn’t true.&quot:
&quot:or maybe it’s a sunspot and solar activity issue.&quot: It’s not.

http://www.physorg.com/news151609044.htm…

&lt:&lt:climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.&gt:&gt:

the people who really honestly study climate say AGW is a problem.

BTW, these are 2 of your questions:
5 days ago:

&lt:&lt:Are there any girls that want to go to the green river festival with me? There are no good girls where I live I figured any girl going to this fest might be cool. I guess it is kinda weird tryin’ to meet someone over the internet thought huh…&gt:&gt:

5 days ago:

&lt:&lt:Why is my girlfriend so obsessed with giving me head? I swear it’s like all she ever wants to do. Just sit around and do that all day. She’s a very nice girl but jeez.&gt:&gt:

seriously lacking attention, we see.

Edit: as for poptech’s post, youtube is not reliable science.
no matter how many of ’em you post.
lindzen is paid by the energy industry.
i recently looked at the &quot:700 peer reviewed papers&quot: and they’re not.
the sun’s gotten cooler while the world has gotten warmer – that’s not it.
cosmic rays are pretty consistent over time. they’ve not gotten worse.

really, it’s the CO2, from burning coal and oil.

No, it’s not crap, it’s science.

It’s not the Sun. Solar activity hasn’t increased on average in over 50 years.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/su…

And we’re currently in the midst of the longest solar cycle minimum in a century, and the hottest 12-month period in thousands of years.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/10/na…

And no scientific study has attributed more than a very small amount of the recent warming to solar activity.
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activi…

You have to separate the science from the politics. The science is what it is and has nothing to do with politics or politicians. If carbon emissions are causing global warming (which they are), then the solution is obviously to reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax is one way to accomplish that. Though actually Congress is considering a carbon cap and trade system, not a carbon tax.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index:_ylt=ArJH1IxiZn5apNdWYk56oALsy6IX:_ylv=3?qid=20100616092350AA8gNaj

So you suppose polluting the earth is a well factor: you must discover out matters for your self, seem on the mutations in animals from air pollution, the fish kills that occur from chemical substances being dumped, do a little study. Use your common sense, how can the earth live to tell the tale with all of the poisonous chemical substances and gases which might be positioned into the air and water. Have you ever been in the back of a polluting automobile that chokes your breath, how do you suppose this influences anybody with bronchial asthma. Think for your self, if they are correct, may not you wish some thing performed. If they are improper, you have not misplaced some thing, on the grounds that the sector may have higher power assets and be extra effective. Keep on asking.

No it’s not a load of crap. You will see that most sources telling you it is are newspapers or blogs who, frankly, have almost no clue about science.

Patterns of warming are what you’d expect from CO2:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fi…
When heat changed in the past by the amount you get for a doubling of CO2, temperatures increased by 2-4.5 C, which is what climate models give:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-…

The sunspot theory is looking pretty dead as a way of explaining recent climate change. Here’s a page with links to over a dozen papers discussing solar effect on climate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-ac…

The other day I went and spoke to a Professor who works on cosmic rays/sunspots and climate. The theory is that more sunpots mean more magnetic field which means fewer cosmic rays get through that ‘shield’ to hit Earth. Fewer cosmic rays = less cloud cover = warmer. So more sunspots means warmer.

The professor I spoke to said that his work has failed to find any strong support for the idea this is important in recent climate. First off, mean sunspot activity is flat for about 50 years (actually, it’s going down a bit, this theory predicts cooling for the past 50yrs – e.g. Lockwood &amp: Frohlich, 2007).

Next up, they looked at nuclear bomb tests and the Chernobyl disaster, and found negligible change in cloud cover (far too small for cosmic rays to be a major effect).

After that, they found that clouds start changing BEFORE cosmic rays do. And the cosmic ray theory should predict that more cosmic rays = more cloud cover, so you expect a bigger change at the poles. This isn’t seen – it makes predictions and these predictions don’t happen, which is usually pretty terminal for a theory. In their latest study they conclude that &lt:1% of clouds are linked to cosmic ryas.

The reason Svensmark etc observed a correlation between cosmic rays and low clouds is probably not because cosmic rays caused clouds, but the two are affected by a third thing: solar activity. As the Sun heats up you get more sunspots and fewer cosmic rays. This causes warming, and the clouds rise on average by about 40m. Any previously ‘low’ clouds that were 40m below the boundary get pushed up to being ‘medium’ clouds. The professor believed that this helps explain why, when the Sun is more active, low clouds go down but medium clouds go up.

&quot:It seems to me like politicians wont support a damn thing unless there is a buck to be made from it.&quot:

Most often that is true, yet that does not mean the scientific rationale is false.

To address the sunspot theory:

Within recent decades, solar activity has not increased. However, global temperatures continue to do so.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-ac…
http://www.edf.org/documents/5544_SolarA…

While there is a strong correlation between solar output and global climate, there is also one between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. While solar output has not risen, CO2 levels have (with temperature). Current levels of CO2 are unprecedented within the past several hundred thousand years:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends…
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0217-co2.html
http://co2now.org/
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
http://www.ess.washington.edu/~steig/images/epicagore.gif

On a more humorous note, apparently global cooling is a load of crap:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index:_ylt=AmoYg8yVmBIhKuaroh9leEv_5nNG:_ylv=3?qid=20100615193539AAtsSxV

The sun has been in a severe minimum and yet the warming has continued. Solar activity does have an effect on global climate but that effect is now overwhelmed by greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately global warming is real. How do we know? Fill a room with oxygen and take it’s temperature. Fill a room with carbon dioxide and take it’s temperature. What did you find out? The co2 filled room is hotter than the o2 filled room.

Now on a global scale the human race dumps millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere every year. Now, the world is big and so is our atmosphere and some of the co2 gets changed into other elements like o2 from plants. But only some. Every year that co2 level just keeps on going up and up. It’s going up gradually so you won’t noticed a big change in the weather until something very drastic happens because your on the inside looking out…..&quot:If you put a frog in hot water he’ll jump straight out, but if you put him in cold water and slowly turn up the heat he’ll boil to death.&quot:..if you were on the outside looking in you would know how much trouble the world really is in.

Global Warming is real. The Earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling due to Milankovitch Cycles (the changes in the earth’s distance and angle from the sun as it travels through its orbit) and they normally last hundreds of thousands of years. However, there is a difference between global warming and Anthropogenic Climate Change which is the increased change in climate (and especially carbon levels) as a result of man’s activities. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is generally excepted among the academic society nowadays but is still debated because of the political implications of accepting such a theory. Global warming is different however, and very real and unchangeable. In a capitalistic society such as ours, a carbon tax is the most favorable way to achieve results by taxing unfavorable behavior such as polluting and emitting excess greenhouse gases.

A mild temperature increase of tenths of a degree since the little ice age is real but their is still extensive debate over if and how much is caused by man,

Give Me a Break: Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCJ-UhZFT4

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of &quot:Man-Made&quot: Global Warming Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Those pushing carbon taxes or cap and trade do not want to own up to the truth, that based on the belief man is to blame, their &quot:solution&quot: will not have any effect,

What You Can(‘t) Do About Global Warming (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/

As for the Sun,

Unstoppable Solar Cycles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4Pz1mwBao

Recent peer-reviewed publications have shown that the Sun directly can still be responsible for up to 65% of the current tenths of a degree &quot:warming&quot:

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issues 17-18, pp. 1916-1923, December 2009)
– Nicola Scafetta

The rest can be explained through the cosmic ray theory,

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/svensmark_2007cosmoClimatology.pdf
(Astronomy &amp: Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
– Henrik Svensmark

YES!! I am glad to see you’ve seen the light, that global warming is nothing more than a political agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *