What do you think of global warming?Is it all down to us?

Question

I don't think global warming is mainly caused by us.In the summers of 1236 and 1241 it was so hot and dry the cattle died of thirst.In 1237 were two hurricans that blew down houses and in 1238 twenty ships were sunk in portsmouth.Between 1315–1317 there was great Famine and Around 1650 there was a mini ice age.How did we cause that?

By the way yes I do know this was a very different time to ours

Answer 1

Global warming does not exist. The current change in weather patterns was forecast by the French in the early 1960's. All their predictions are happening as stated. In fact the Earth is cooling down and there is an equalisation of temperature around the Earth. Global warming as portrayed by both the governmment and the media does not exist, but is a red herring to create more revenue via taxation. There is ample scientific evidence to prove that the earth is cooling down, but this does not suit government policy (and G8 etc). Man's contribution to this so-called global warming is 2-3% at best, whereas much can be done to clean up industrial fumes polluting the atmosphere and especially the air we all breathe. As in global warming CFC's are also harmless and do not damage the ozone layer. CFC's are too heavy to reach the ozone layer even on the most windy of days. Ozone is all to easy to produce. Ozone is just an oxygen atom but instead of 2 electrons it has 3 electrons, therefore, we can produce all the ozone we need if desired. The ozone layer thins and thickens naturally with the seasons and will continue to do so.

If people would do their own research they would see that the government is lying about these things because it produces fear among the people and that gives the government a greater grip on the people. Someday this will all be exposed for the con it is, but how long will we have to wait, and so many people will feel so foolish that they believed in global warning so easily.

Answer 2

This is a matter of debate among scientists. Among the scientists that I know personally, there is much variation. Obviously, there is no one right answer.

Much of the science is based not on traditional science but on modeling. Modeling is a new phenomena which is mostly distrusted (they are only as good as the algorithms and are not used to formulate theory)in the fields of physics, math, and astronomy but has become an important part of the softer sciences. Modeling has taken off with the use of the personal computer.

There is a scientist who questions the validity of the algorithms used in Climate models:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Here's what he had to say -

XXXX

Are you saying the 15th century was warmer than the present?

No, we are saying that the hockey stick graph used by IPCC provides no statistically significant information about how the current climate compares to that of the 15th century (and earlier). And notwithstanding that, to the extent readers consider the results informative, if a correct PC method and the unedited version of the Gaspé series are used, the graph used by the IPCC to measure the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere shows values in the 15th century exceed those at the end of the 20th century.

Does your work disprove global warming?

We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.

Who paid for your research?

We have neither sought nor received funding for this work. For McKitrick, undertaking the project has required considerable time away from his own economics research. For McIntyre, undertaking this project has required an unpaid leave of absence from his career in mineral exploration financing, at the cost of over a year’s foregone earnings so far.

XXXX

If you notice, they don't claim they know the answer. They are not denying GW but they are not advocating it either. This is just like the data, it can be interpreted either way.

Answer 3

Global warming is partly a natural phenomena, which is in turn being greatly influenced by the activities of a modern industrilized world. In Nature there are swings from severe wet to dry, hot to cold and so on. Climate is the regulator system of this planent if you like, so what you mostly see is in essence, the planent trying to balance things out.

The problem with this is that this planent is a closed system - in that: the input and output ratio is way unequal. The system can only absorb so much pollution before it become saturated, and negative effects become apparent. For example the Ozone effect, the trapping of carbon in the atmosphere, the role that the global forests play in absorbing CO2 and consequently as land clearing esculates - so does the planent's natural ability to disperse, absorb and successfully deal with these emmissions.

Natural resources play a fundemental role in global climate. This modern capitalistic world has a hunger for resources regardless of the costs to current and future social and ecological well-being projections. Economics has major fault partly with this - Neo-classical economics revolves around a primary material harnessing outlook from the natural environment without taking into account the costs and benefits of such an action. The renewability of many of the natural resources we take for granted is in most cases significantly longer than our lifespans. Once your outputs are greater than the system's inputs, you are travelling down a path of unsustainability.

To sum-up a massive question - Global warming and indeed Global cooling are natural planent events. The little Ice-Age that happened relatively recently was only a drop of a couple of degrees but caused massive climate changes. Historically looking a soil profiles and geological formations you can see evidence of this.

However the greater out of balance the natural system is, the greater the reaction will be. The actions of the societies and their industries are like artificially enhancing and speeding up the processes of likely natural change. In essence, the inputs of this planent cannot currently even begin to match the outputs of the populus of this planent - leading to the mass unsustainability issues that you see everywhere - which in turn lead to environmental stresses that are not easily or quickly fixed.

Global warming is both natural and human influenced. In the race - humans are thousands of laps ahead of the nature runner....

Cheers

ps much more but would end up a rant thousands of pages long:)

Answer 4

The points you mentioned are interesting but all have rational explanations that are not related to global warming.

Presumably the data you're referring to is that complied by Matthew Parris, a Benedictine Monk from the Ulsinus Monastery in St Alban's. Having no instruments at his disposal the weather record is based on personal observations within his immediate vicinity and is sketchy at best.

Around the time of his writings some parts of the world were experiencing what is known as the Medieval Warm Period, a period of several hundred years when temperatures rose above the longer term average. The MWP was not caused by the same things that are causing the present global warming trend, it was the culmination of centuries of warming primarily brought about by natural cycles.

It's almost certain that there would have been droughts and cattle dying of thirst. This would not have been at all unusual and if it weren't for the implementation of modern agricultural practices it would still be happening to this day on a large scale. The droughts of last year would have killed huge numbers of cattle if it weren't for the fact that humans now provide for their dietary requirements. In areas where animals run wild there are many deaths every year from drought and starvation.

Back then hurricanes regularly blew down houses. They possessed none of the modern building techniques we use today and the majority of houses were hand-built using locally scavenged timber usually with a straw roof.

In some parts of the world such structures are still built and are regularly blown down, it doesn't have to be a hurricane as such buildings are susceptible to collapse even in a moderate gale.

Had a hurricane of the magnitude we witnessed in January hit in 1237 then at least half of the population would have been rendered homeless. Parris's journal indicates nothing of this magnitude and it's probable that what he witnessed was nothing more than a strong wind, the sort of wind that in today's society might bring down trees and cause minor structural damage but nothing more.

Similarly, ship building was far removed from the ships we have today and the loss of shipping due to bad weather was a common occurence. There was also a much greater number of ships and the loss of 20 in a single storm would not have been at all unusual.

The famine you refer to was also a common occurence and the 1315 famine is just one of many that ravaged the UK until the agricultural revolution and implementation of bulk transportation (primarily the canals). Food was locally grown and produced, there were no modern agricultural practices, no pesticides, no vets, no vaccinations, no way to bring food to an area that suffered crop blight, pestilence, infection etc. The events of 1315-17 were quite common and if we still relied on such technology to feed ourselves today then there would still be regular famines.

The Little Ice Age around 1650 was the culmination of several compounding factors. For example, it coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a period of almost no sun spot activity that lasted for approx 70 years and followed on the heels of the Black Death which decimated the population of Europe. Not surprisingly, the Little Ice Age was more pronounced in Europe than elsewhere.

Answer 5

It is not all down to us but we are a huge part of it. Mac said global warming isn't happening but we are getting hotter earlier summers and more hurricanes you can't argue with that and even if it were a political scam to cause fear why are our politicians doubting it and why am I not afraid? I am replacing light bulbs and doing things that SAVE MONEY and help the environment. So if you think you shouldn't try to help lower your carbon emissions you are wasting money. Also can you provide any proof that even if global warming was fake lowering carbon emissions would not help the environment? so even if you don't believe save money and the environment

Answer 6

the earth is temperature is rising, but there is nothing we can do about it. we are currently made to feel guilty about going on holiday, driving cars etc but does co2 emission have any effect on our climate temperature. perhap it is down to solar activity the cause in climate change. The process scientists suggest is that as earth moves through space, the atmosphere is constantly bombarded by ever-present cosmic rays. As these particles hit water vapour evaporating from the oceans, clouds form in the atmosphere. Clouds shield Earth from some of the sun's radiation and have a cooling effect.

When solar activity is high, there is an increase in solar wind and this has the effect of reducing the amount of cosmic radiation which reaches Earth.

When less cosmic radiation reaches Earth, fewer clouds form and the full effects of the sun's radiation heats the planet

Answer 7

No, it's not all down to us - we are just kind of helping it along, maybe making it go slightly faster. Global warming has been happening for millions and millions of years - if it wasn't for global warming we wouldn't have a planet to live on.

Answer 8

Record Blizzards shut down the Midwest - Sounds Like Global Warming instead of cycles repeating to - the Lib Sheep who want to be puppets and blindly follow their Messiah to the end.

Answer 9

The climate is not static. The planet is always cooling or warming. These are natural cycles.

However there will always be those who claim the Earth is going to come to an end. Remember the predictions before Y2K? Now that this is over, they have to find out where else to have their collective panic attack.

It's their way to make them feel better about themselves.

Answer 10

There have been natural climate changes in the climate before. But the scientific data proves the present warming is not natural.

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

Go to the website jackie recommends and click on the "Ask the Expert" link on the left, and read the expert's answers to people's questions, he says the movie is wrong:

"In the future, carbon dioxide concentrations will continue to increase and are likely to remain the main driver of climate change for the foreseeable future unless there are large reductions in emissions."

Swindle was just a piece of false propaganda. Even the channel that broadcast it admits that.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"