First, I will say this thread is meant to relieve man from any responsibility of "Global Warming", so if you can't handle someone smart and will bring facts to the table, I suggest you don't read on. In other words, I am disproving the ideas of man-made global warming. I would also like to say this entire thread is completely made of facts I have picked up during my study of this topic.
This idea of man-made global warming, and the dangers of carbon dioxide was brought about by a Swedish Scientist named Bert Bolin. He hypothesized that the release of more man produced carbon dioxide into our atmosphere may help the temperatures to rise. During this time, most scientists HARSHLY criticized his crazy hypothesis, which had no scientific backing at all.
This idea was widely spread as a result of the paranoia and need to procure a reliable energy source. Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of England from 1979-1990, did not trust the current energy production, coal. She strongly advocated nuclear energy, which was a relatively unknown topic to the public. When the news of Bert Bolin's hypothesis reached her, it was great news to her, as she would be able to further endorse nuclear energy, because of the lack of carbon dioxide emissions. This theory, with her name backed behind it, was proven when money flowed to the research, and was "proven" by scientists to whom the money flowed. It was at this time that the International Panel of Climate Change was set up by request of Margaret Thatcher, which was specifically meant to research temperature, with a clear focus on its relation to carbon dioxide.
The correlation between the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on the amount produced by humans; therefore, more carbon dioxide production would lead to higher temperatures.
This graph, showing the rising temperatures on earth for the past 120 years, points out when carbon dioxide production was low, and high. First off, you can see that the current rise in temperature started before cars and planes were even invented. The red area shows a period in time called the post-war economic boom, which was an industrial uproar of industry after WWII, when carbon dioxide levels skyrocketed. As you can see, during this time, when the levels of carbon dioxide increased greatly, the temperature inversely dropped. “Paradoxically, during the world economic depression in the 1970s, when carbon dioxide production levels dropped, that the temperature began to rise again”. Clearly, when carbon dioxide increases, and the temperature decreases, we can state that carbon dioxide is not to blame for the variations in temperatures.
The atmosphere is made up of many gases, some of which we refer to as greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide brings about the scare of increasing the greenhouse effect, which traps heat from the sun in the earth’s troposphere, and allows the planet to be warm enough to inhabit. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is a minor greenhouse gas, contributing to only about 4-6% of the greenhouse effect. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which contributes anywhere from 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. Other greenhouse gases include ozone and methane and so on. If the warming of the world is due to greenhouse warming, there would be a larger and more rapid increase in the rate of warming in the troposphere, where the greenhouse effect actually takes place. This is simply not true. The warming in the troposphere is less rapid than on the surface. This is also the prediction put into climate models, which inputs the rate of warming to be more rapid in the troposphere than on the surface of the earth, when this is completely false.
I’m sure all the people on this site have seen Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, and accept it as the definitive presentation of the theory of man-made global warming. His whole movie and basis for supporting this theory is based on one set of data, from ice core surveys.
That graph, taken directly from the movie, shows what appears to be a temperature driven by carbon dioxide. There is a correlation between the two, but it is incorrectly stated by Al Gore.
This graph, simply an excerpt from Al Gore’s, shows that there is an 800 year lag between the increase in temperature, and an increase in carbon dioxide. It clearly shows that the relationship between the two is the opposite way, and that temperature itself brings about the change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
To understand the graph, and the 800 year lag period you must understand that humans produce a miniscule amount of the carbon dioxide that is produced as a natural gas. Animals produce almost 25x the amount of carbon dioxide humans produce. Volcanoes alone also produce more carbon dioxide then ALL forms of man-made carbon dioxide put together (cars, planes, factories). The largest contributor of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is without doubt the oceans. The warmer the oceans are, the more carbon dioxide they produce, and the cooler they are, the more they can withhold. The 800 year “lag period” can be explained by the way the ocean reacts to temperature changes. The oceans are so large and vast that it takes hundreds of years for the deep ocean to respond to changes that are happening on the surface.
The one question that remains is what is actually driving changes in the earth’s climate then? The mere answer is to look into the sky, and look at the sun! Solar activity can be measured through the counting of sun spots, which show us the activity of the sun.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...nap-204034.png
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...nap-209006.png
^IMPORTANT GRAPHS, only allowed 4 images per post so click them to open.
These graph shows both on short scale and long scale and even on a decadal basis, that when solar activity goes up, the temperature also rises.
By now you are probably asking yourself how this can still be such a prevalent issue to this day with no scientific basis. Prior to George Bush Sr., funding for climate science was about 70$ million a year, it jumped up to 2$ billion a year, more than 10 times its previous payroll. Therefore, many scientists were attracted to the field, simply for the money, and their only concern was to make sure they agreed with global warming, in order to get fund money. Nigel Caulder said “If I wanted to do research on squirrels of Sussex, What I would do, I would write my grant application, saying I want to investigate the nut gathering variations of squirrels, with special reference to the effects of global warming. And that way I get my money, and if I forget to mention global warming, I might not get my money”. This being the case, scientists that publically oppose the theory of global warming, have a difficult time getting fund money from the government.
Money spent on computer models to predict long range temperature cannot predict the climate correctly. Simply turn on your favorite news station and get the 14 day, or even 7 day forecast. Compare it to how accurate it is and you will realize that the weather machine, is too complex for man to understand, at least at this point. Hundreds of assumptions go into these models, and all it takes is for ONE assumption to be wrong, to mess up the entire model. Also, media attention is only paid to models that would predict drastic changes, such as the world flooding. Conversely, a model that predicts no changes, except the temperature fluctuating and finally returning to normal, will not get published as front page news.
Today, the whole global warming idea is a massive basis for political campaigning and even advertising. What better way to convince someone to buy a hybrid car than to tell them they will be saving the world from a warming cycle which would create disastrous effects. So many jobs and even careers, such as environmental journalism, rely heavily on the theory of man-made global warming, and if it were to collapse, there would be many many people out of jobs.
I've written wayy more than I wanted to write, but here it is. PLEASE question it, ask questions, and I will be happy to provide answers.
The Facts
Linear Mode
