So you think that your very casual quick look at the theory of AGW and the total evidence puts you in a better position to understand the science than the people who have made full time careers out of this study and who do their best to understand it. Also remember that all their work is open to checks and validation. [Peer review] You have not provided the details of your analysis of the data at all.
Yes the earth has undergone many climate changes in the long history of the planet. All are reasonably well understood and the reasons for those changes are fairly well understood. Things like changes in earth's orbit, changes in solar radiation etc.
None of those prior natural causes apply for the current observed warming. They have all been taken into account and found to NOT be sufficient to explain the current warming. What has been found to explain the current warming is the influence of human activity, primarily the release of GHGs into the atmosphere. This has been the subject of very careful research from very independent and multiple disciplines and they have all reached the same conclusion.
Your credibility is not improved by saying:
"Yes the Miocene lasted around 17 million years ranging back from 23 million years ago but some scientist believe that the last ice free period was around 15 million years ago some recon it was 40 million years ago it all just guesstimating really."
No it is not all guesstimating at all. Your lack of understanding of what you are reading is the problem.
The timing of prior ice ages is fairly well established.
I think the IPCC has far more credibility than you. They actually reference their work with the original research and data.
Global Warming is an old term. I believe the new hawtness is "Climate Change."
Climate change is cyclical. I believe we are currently on an up-tick. You can't really argue with this.
Are humans a big factor in climate change? This is the question, and my answer is no. The Earth does what it wants, and it changes throughout history. If glaciers were so awesome, Michican would still be covered with them. But the glaciers that carved out the Great Lakes receded, which I'm happy about since I live here.
I do not believe for a second that we are destroying the environment or causing "Global Warming" or having an impact on "Climate Change."
Love the Earth YES
But the IPCC is a crock of doo. It recruits the scientists that do the research and that write the reports - they actually said this in the press conference on TV this morning.
The IPCC have an agenda and something to prove.
If a group were trying to prove whether god exists and they only recruited 100% catholics or 100% atheists to do their research and reports would it be rational to believe the results? It would not.
The IPCC does NOT recruit any of the many thousands of scientists who are sceptical about the IPCC and their claims, they only recruit 'believers', so therefore as far as I'm concerned, no matter what they claim, it is biased BS for the brainwashed masses to swallow. I prefer to use my own brain and commonsense to find the truth - and the truth is not the IPCC - surely by now the depth of their fatal mistakes thus far have been enough to discredit their claims?
However, backed by the media and other sheep, of course most of the public will believe their tripe.
Funny how all this used to be called "global warming", then they changed their minds and so it's now called "climate change" and what a crock is that! Our planet changes it's climate constantly for various reasons and if it's changing again then humans have very little, if nothing, to do with that happening.
But, love the Earth YES we should all love our only home and care for it properly
I have a somewhat odd view on it. I think global warming is happening, I think it could be a problem, but I think there are bigger problems. It is a fact that standard of living correlates strongly with carbon use. The more carbon we use, the better off we are. In 1900, the global power consumption was 1 terawatt (TW), in 1950 it was about 4TW, today its about 15TW and by 2025 it will be about 25TW. Now think about how poor people in 1900, or even 1950, were compared to today. Look at it across countries right now, the countries that use more juice are wealthier and their people live better.
In 1900, the global annual average wage was 1000 dollars (2013 dollars) per year, today its 10,000 dollars, if we get to 2113 and the global average is 100,000 dollars per year, OK now we're making progress. The more energy, and therefore more carbon, we use the more GDP per capita has increased on average. Carbon use lifts people out of poverty.
The biggest threat to us isn't global warming it is POVERTY. 10,000 dollars is the global average, and half the people are below average. Do you want to live on 10,000 dollars a year? No, neither do I, and neither do the people who peddle this bullshit. This growth needs to continue. A hundred years from now if every household in the world enjoys a standard of living equivalent to a comfortable middle class family today, good that's progress. Now we're finally getting somewhere as a society.
I think there is something, if not racist, very Malthusian, about global warming alarmists. They're basically saying to starving Africans do not develop. Do not use your natural resources. Do not industrialise do not become wealthy like us, you stay where you are. You keep getting by on 100 dollars a year.
Even if we are doing some damage to the climate, surely in 300 years (which is the time scales most of these predictions are based on) we'll be able to fix it? Look at the scientific predictions in the 1700's of what they thought the world would look like in the year 2013. Its hilarious. Our 15 generations removed great grandchildren will look at us the same way. In the meantime, people are starving, and we're telling them to keep on starving because feeding themselves is bad for the environment.
They have hi-jacked simple intelligence and turned it into a Government run circus event. I would ask that you do better research on your idea that people are overpopulating the planet. The volume of the planet is still hundreds of billions times the size of humans and we have enough resources. It looks smaller simply due to our ease of communication. It's also easy to manipulate the truth through media outlets. They are hammering away at trying to tell us that we are causing the planet to warm exponentially, yet they still won't tell us what that exponent is.
If you take a fraction and multiply it by itself, you get a smaller fraction. This is the simple math of CO2. We are adding to the CO2 levels but the frequency level that actually does the warming is saturated and CO2 can not cause that much more warming. Nuclear physicists have been saying this for years and that's why our temperatures are not rising as fast as expected. Currently our Planet is 0.62C higher than the established global average temperature and dropped by 31% from last year (last year our global average temperature was 0.90C above the established normal temp).
Where do humans get credit when the Planet cools? It seems that any warming is blamed on humans and by simple reasoning we should also take credit for any cooling. Then again, if the Planet cools, we will get blamed for that also. It's the Government's power of negative thinking. That's what they do. Keeping us sad and uninspired will guarantee their continued strength over us.
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-tec...
The report that came out a few days ago is clear that long-term GW exists & we are mainly responsible.
I have answered this today multiple times, but here we go again. This is not my opinion, this is what scientists have discovered. It will answer your question in full.
http://www.solarinstallerdirectory.com/b...
Ah Klara to be a good skeptic and earn the accolade of denier, you need to check your facts 15million years ago was the middle Miocene and we had an ice age.
However our earth does go through cycles, and maybe we are heading into another ice age and global warming might be helping us.
Does anyone understand this, it's a bit over my head.
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdbXsU...
You have got it right. Man does not have enough power to throw an imbalance into the earth. And, yes, being a good steward does not mean that you automatically go along with their demented scheme.
I believe this whole global warming thing is cr*p and it inevitable. We may be speeding up the process but it's going to happen anyway that's the long cycle of the earth 15 million years ago the earth temp was around 5 degrees higher and there where no permanent ice caps plus the water level was around 80 feet higher than now... I don't think it was humans that made it happen, and then we wen't into an ice age and we're still in it, so maybe we're just coming out of it to start the cycle again?
I think that yes we should recycle and try and find renewable sources of energy not because of global warming but because we're going to run out of fuel and space for our rubbish.
