Global Warming. We already have the answer?

Question

Think back in time to the late 70’s and early 80’s. What was the big environmental hype at that time? It was the hole in the Ozone layer. If you believe today’s environmentalists this is how they explained away the huge hole in their argument about why between the 40’s and the early 80’s, CO2 was increasing, but global temperatures were falling. Falling so much that at the time they were predicting the next Ice Age. They dismiss the obvious and documented connection between global temperature and solar activity in favour of this being a result of our use of CFC gasses and claim victory for preventing the next Ice Age.

So, here is the point. If the over use of CFC gasses was going to take us to the next Ice Age a mere 20 years ago and now they are banned we are heading for catastrophe over Global Warming. Surely the most effective way to prevent the Global Warming catastrophe in the short to medium term is to do a controlled release of CFC’s over a period of time back into the atmosphere to restore the balance. Not enough to damage the Ozone layer but just enough to halt any rise in global temperature and maintain current levels.

Personally I think it is all complete nonsense and they should take another look at the comparative data between solar activity, CO2 and global temperatures.

Yadaboy - You clearly don’t have the intelligence to understand the point being made. Instead of wasting my time trying to explane it to you, just read your own responce a few times and see if you can find the problem there.

Answer 1

here's the second look your looking for
rising co2 is a consequence of rising heat due to solar activity

join the heresy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&hl=en

Answer 2

The supporters of the man made global warming hypothesis need to explain why the main body of Antarctica (97%) is cooling even though the CO2 concentration is about the same as elsewhere in the world. Only the Antarctic peninsular (3% of the area) is warming.
The reduction of SO2 in the mid 70's does not explain the change from cooling to warming because, while it keeps some of the sun's heat out, it also keeps the heat already here in, it is also a greenhouse gas, so it's effect on temperature is neutral. Solar activity is still the only credible explanation. The current rise in temperature is not unprecedented. In 1920's the rate of increase in temperature was greater than it is today, with much less fossil use. During the medieval warm period, the temperature was much higher than it is today, with vineyards in the north of England, and an agricultural community in Greenland, without any catastrophic melting of the ice cap or the polar bears dying out.
The claim that there is scientific consensus is simply propaganda. I worked all my life in environmental science and many of the people I worked with, geologists, meteorologists and ecologists are sceptical about the man made global warming hypothesis.
Science does not work by consensus. It works by formulating hypotheses which fit the data. In the time of Copernicus, the scientific consensus was that the sun orbited the earth, it didn't make it correct. The authorities at the time tried to suppress the scientists who claimed that the earth went around the sun. The current establishment is trying to do the same today to the AGW sceptics, who had their contributions to the IPCC report deleted by UN officials.

Answer 3

You seem to be confused about the different effects of polluting activities.

Thinning Ozone cover (whether human-caused or not) wouldn't affect global temperature measurably.

Human activities have had a lot of different effects on the 'biosphere'; the most evident of these are in the oceans, where there used to be many millions of whales. Although the seas are vast, human activity has reduced most species to a few thousand individuals; anything over ten thousand gets the whaling nations excited because they feel justified in 'harvesting' them. Fish were even more abundant, and many have been practically fished to extinction.

The more we learn about the ecosystem, the more finely-balanced we find it to be. It doesn't matter how large something is; if it's in a precarious position, then the smallest influence can overturn its stability.

We know that man-made 'local warming' is a reality. Snow falls less in large cities, because so much enegy is being released in a small area (other less-obvious effects can be measured throughout the year). Just like radiators arranged around a large room, lots of cities doing Local Warming all over the planet will affect the atmosphere globally.

I believe that this is much more likely to be the cause of Man-made Global Warming than the currently trendy CO2 theory. What is certain, is that human activities have done, and are still doing, massive damage to the planet we depend on for our survival.

Answer 4

The cooling in the mid 1900's was caused by atmospheric pollution, primarily sulphur dioxide emissions; power generation being the biggest contributor. SO2 reflects sunlight back into space, it's for this reason that the world cools after a major valcanic eruption.

CO2 levels were rising during this time but SO2 levels more than offset the warming of CO2. By the 1950's the world's atmosphere was so badly polluted and so many people were dying (e.g. approx 14,000 in London alone in 1952) that governments around the world passed Clean Air Acts that reduced pollution levels. Over the ensuing years the levels of pollution, most notably SO2, dissipated and the cooling effect was removed.

The prediction of the next ice age was nothing to do with pollution levels and everything to do with the natural variations in the Sun and Earth (Solar Variation and Milankovitch Cycles). No imminent ice age was ever predicted and I challenge you to find any evidence produced at the time that so much as hints at that. Scientists at the time quite correctly predicted that natural variations would ultimately lead to global cooling if there were no other mitigating factors. A very small number of publications picked up on this and ran short articles over-dramatising the real science (which they continue to do to this day in respect of global warming). The most notable publications were Time, Newsweek and National Geographic - the articles can be found online and you'll note that what the scientists said was correct and that no imminent ice age was predicted.

In recent years global warming skeptics have blown the issue of global cooling out of all proportion and grossly distorted the facts. The reality, and anyone who was around in the 70's will confirm this, is that global cooling was barely mentioned, there was no big fuss, no predictions of doom, and the whole thing blew over in a matter of weeks.

CFC's, along with their counterparts - HFC's and HCFC's are highly effective greenhouse gases. A controlled release, such as the one you propose, would cause increased warming of the planet. A typical CFC is between 1800 and 31500 times as effective at retaining heat as carbon dioxide (i.e. they have a 100 year global warming potential (GWP) of between 1800 and 31500).

Dichlorodiflouromethane (CF2Cl2) is one such CFC which has now been banned, although it exists in the atmosphere in minute amounts (145 parts per trillion by volume) it is the fourth largest contributor to anthropogenic global warming because it's so effective at retaining heat (it has a GWP of 8500). It's also entirely manmade.

Solar activity data is well documented, you may wish to do a search for 'Insolation Maxima' and 'Insolation Minima'. These are the terms applied to the maximum and minimum effects of the sun - the difference between the two is very small - a little under 0.1% (a variation of 1.3 against a mean of 1366 Watts per square metre per year).

When arriving at any conclusion solar activity, and all other known influencing factors, are taken into account. This is why those who study climate are so concerned - there are no unknown variables to which the current unprecedented rise in temperatures can be attributed.

Answer 5

I think it is arrogance to even think that man's puny activity can have a profound effect on the Earth's temp.
It is just a general naturally occurring upturn, before the plunge down to the next ice age in a few tens of thousands of years.
The politicians are just using it as an excuse to control the population further, and gain more revenue on the way. Notice how been "green" involves been taxed to the hilt, without the money going to environmental projects?

Answer 6

Here's the answer to how the sun and ozone affect this. Some effect, but nowhere near what we're doing by burning fossil fuels. Extensively verified and peer reviewed data.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Which is why:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 7

Solar scientists are predicting a drop in the suns activity over the next decade. If global warming levels out or begins to decline then we'll have the definitive answer.

Answer 8

a marvelous thought to bring up in our minds!!!

i to agree and am on your side of saying that we already have to answer. all of this information you have provided us with is very useful to give an answer for. i am right with you when u say that all of this is complete nonsense and that they indeedly should take another look at the comparative data between solar activity, CO2 and global temperatures!!!

Answer 9

Well with the minimal knowledge over CFC here we are certainly not going to get the right answer, that is something I am sure about

Answer 10

We've taken a look at solar variability in relation to the current warming. That's we we can say with a great deal of certainty that the current trend is in no way connected with an increase in solar irradiance.

If you wish to claim otherwise I'm afraid I'll have to see your evidence supporting this position.