why global warming doesnt matter

global warming doesnt matter beacuse it is completley natural for earth to go through hot and cold cycles. right now we are comming out of a cold cycle and guess whats happening, its getting warmer. im sure in about 10-20 thousand years people are going to be talking about global cooling and how its our fault and how we can fix it. plus on top of that, it is another natural process for species to die out. what makes up think we are any different than the dinosaurs, things change and we have to adapt, and if we dont we die.

 

fuck u

 

wow. Well isn't that an intelligent answer??
Anyways, you do make some good points; the earth does go through cycles.
but at the same time, you have to think, are we making it worse than it has to be? We're part of what caused it; instead of merely saying its a natural cycle, see what we're causing, what's going wrong, and what we can do to fix it, if anything.
"Fuck you" doesn't solve anything, just shows the IQ level by number of words.

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007


An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

Now on the web at http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

Posted 12/10 at 09:52 AM Email (Permalink)

 

It's true that the earth's climate goes in cycles; but right now, everything is not following what's been the norm for millions of years. Not only that, but there are studies that show that warm climate periods coincide with a spike in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so there's evidence that CO2 affects climate (that's not the only evidence, but I'm not going to go into that right now). Now, I want you to go do a little research and see just how much man made CO2 emissions affects the total amount of CO2 in the air.

The truth is that humans add a pretty significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that wouldn't normally be there. That's a fact. And if there's strong evidence that more CO2 means warmer climate, then where are we. You can't just look at one piece of scientific evidence and ignore the rest, that's called a bias; and assuming global warming is a real problem and life as we know it could be significantly altered because of it, people who aren't going to open their minds to all evidence are just going to screw everybody over by slowing things up. And if global warming is really just part of a cycle, well then what have we lost?

I don't really know what you were getting at with the whole extinction thing.

 

how exactly is the pro global warming crowd not biased? they seem to bash people who are skeptical about the way global warming is presented by the mainstream media. money is the biggest motivator for the media and scientific community to throw global warming up in everyone's faces all the time. i'm not very convinced hat global warming equals extinction. i watched a special on the discovery channel that said global warming is highly influenced by the sun increasing in size as part of it's journey towards red giant phase. this special also stated that global warming does not equate to doomsday. let's not kid ourselves, if there wasn't such large amounts of money to be made from all this the big corporations who were responsible for live earth and the United Nations would not be hopping on the band wagon.

​

 

By no means am I some environmental extremist, and I'm sure that there's some politics involved in this whole issue (there always is); but I get so annoyed with people who look at one or two things and base their conclusion off of it. I also never said anything about extinction. I don't think global warming is gonna wipe the human race out; however I do think that it could seriously change the world as we know it. I don't think that something as important as that should be thought about like "well, I read this one thing that said that the earth's climate goes in cycles so that means that global warming doesn't exist, and this corporation might possible have an ulterior agenda so global warmings just a bunch of crap"


I can't say whether global warming is real or whether it's as devistating as it's made out to be, but I don't want to see the issue float indefinitely because of senseless onesidedness and ignorance when something might need to be done about it. That's all.

And yes, there are quite a few biased and extremist environmentalists too, but I didn't see an environmentalist on this forum going "global warming exists because Al Gore said so and I saw this show on TV once that had this thing about how CO2 is bad for the environment." I know there's people like that out there, but from personal experience, the person who decides to radically change his lifestyle for a cause is usually pretty educated on the matter.

 

It is completely natural for Earth's climate to vary, but it is very unusual for CO2 to rise substantially in just a couple of centuries and for the climate to warm several degrees C in the same span of time (which will happen with a business as usual approach). There are no data that suggest that the warming over the last 30 years can be attributed to natural phenomenon, and there are copious data that suggest we'll warm several degrees C this century with a business-as-usual emissions scenario.

We are coming out of a cold cycle? The Wisconsin glaciation ended about 20,000 years ago. We've had warm, interglacial temperatures (minus the Younger Dryas, which was mostly felt in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere) for the last 12,000 years. Based on previous glacial cycles, we should be cooling right now, not warming.

Most likely people will be talking about global cooling in 10 - 20,000 years and beyond. The climate should be slowly cooling between now and about 80,000 years from now, when we're due for another glacial maximum. If people alive 10 - 20,000 years from now know anything about the climate they'll know that cooling is expected and natural then, just as cooling WOULD be the natural course for climate now were it not for anthropogenic perterbation.

Yes, it is natural for species to go extinct, at a rate of about 1 per million species per year. Outside of mass extintion events, that rate seems to be about the background rate over the geologic record. We're currently several orders of magnitude over that. If the natural rate of extinction is a pea, the rate of extinction today is a pea the size of my car, and may rise to a pea the size of a bowing 747 by the end of the century. That's quite a large pea. Frankly, only serious ignorance of the fossil record and current changes in biodiversity and/or wishful thinking can lead a person to think that these changes are normal. Peas the size of my car are, to say the least, not normal.

It would be ridiculous for us not to realize we are very different from dinosaurs. Non-avian dinosaurs dominated Earth for over 150 million years and survived serious climatic variation on Earth. Avian dinosaurs (birds) have survived much more. Hominins have only been around for a few million years. Homo sapiens has only existed for a couple hundred thousand years at most. Indeed, dinosaurs were much more successful and adaptable than we have yet proven to be.

And yes, we must adapt to a changing environment if we expect to survive, but we are not required to create a problem and then adapt to it. We can just avoid problems in the first place.

Chris

 

You do realize that this study has been widely and openly discredited by the scientific community for several fatal flaws in their statistics, do you not?

These guys (minus Christy, he is new as of this publication) have been beating the same drum for years now and arguing essentially the same points. This is just a newer, cleaner version of the same faulty arguments. They greatly overestimate the accuracy of satellite measurments of atmospheric temperature and underestimate the margin of error of climate estimates. When one makes a series of faulty assumptions, it's easy to come to spurious results. This is nothing new--just the same mistakes in a new package.

Chris

 

So, several generations now of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric chemists, geologists, etc., etc. encompassing tens of thousands of people are all in cahoots? That is your argument--we're all just making it up? Be realistic now.

A couple of recent studies have demonstrated conclusively that there is indeed a link between rapid global warming and mass extinction (see Proceedings of the Royal Society). Rapid global warming has led to mass extinctions in the past, and there is every reason to think it will in the present as well.

The sun has had essentially constant output since 1985 (though output has decreased slightly over the last decade). How does constant solar output explain rapid climate warming?

Chris

 

1)The reason for the recurring trend of heat/cool is that the earth draws nearer and further away from the sun in it's orbit over the course of 50 000 years.

2)The last ice age ended, and the Neolithic revolution began, 11 000 years ago.

3)We are within one degree C of the hottest recorded golbal mean temperature.

4)THE NUMBERS DONT WORK OUT. The planet SHOULD NOT be so warm. Well, we must then ask ourselves why it is?

Could it have anything to do with that fact that there is the highest content of C02 in the atmosphere in the past 650 000 years (many, many cycles of warm/cool).

Someone mentioned that C02 was studied to not act as a greenhouse gas. This is partly true: it is an extremely weak greenhouse gas. Nothing compared to the effects of methane or N02. However, the quantities of it, along with it's long life span in the atmosphere, are staggering. It accounts for something like 91% of global warming greenhouse effect.

Also, greenhouse effect CANNOT be denied, as it is simple science. Take your car for example. Why does it heat up so much in the sun? Is it because the roof is made of metal and convection occurs and heats up the interior? NO NO NO.
Short wave radiation from the sun enters through the glass of your car, hits the seats/interior/whatever, and becomes longwave radiation, which cannot pass through the same glass from which it has entered. It is trapped, this exists, 99% of scientists agree, and you're either foolish or working for a wealthy corporation to deny it.

Last: for those who said that global warming wouldn't be the end of us:
I cannot say whether or not humans will be able to survive the maximum impact of global warming, but I can say the the earth's glaciers will not. I can say that there will be sea level rise to the extent that 300 million people will not have a home (including new york, they will all have to go somewhere). I can say that there WILL be longer growing seasons, higher demand for water, less snowfall in the winter, and therefore less water accumulation, as well as drier soil. It ensures WWIII, the war for water.

 

finally some intellegent ppeople to talk about global warming with, well execpt for that first responce i got. what i wrote in my post is just my thoughts on global warming, im not a doctor or a climate expert, just a normal person with a thought. just wanted to say thanks for the info, now i can refine my thoughts. peace people.