Are we doomed by our own destruction?

I have watched it in installments too.

More on these matters...

"CO2 emissions threaten ocean crisis"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33369024

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as “nonsense”, dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as “an unsubstantiated hypothesis” and saying that it is “absolutely stupid” to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is “no reproducible evidence” that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/04/26/former-nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

But then again...

"So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 .... "

http://www.newscientist.com/article...st-important-greenhouse-gas.html#.VZaV-Mu9KSM

More and more scientists are arguing, however, that this is still just a theory - one that is being used by media, politicians and other organisations to manipulate an unsuspecting public. Further debate may uncover the truth…


http://debatewise.org/debates/455-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming/

The carbon dioxide greenhouse effect provides a scientifically valid mechanism. CO2 produces a warming effect not by soaking up the radiation in its immediate vicinity, like a sponge, but by raising the effective radiating level of the atmosphere to a colder layer.

• The atmosphere doesn't act as a single unit, but is made up of hundred of different layers. Some of the energy radiated from Earth is stopped in each of these layers. The energy is then re-radiated in a random direction, but on average the energy is moving either "up" or "down." The atmosphere gets thinner as altitude increases, so eventually the radiation will reach a layer high enough and thin enough to escape to space.

• If you increase the concentrations of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the thin upper layers will become more opaque and thus absorb more of the IR; therefore the place where the majority of the energy finally escapes moves to a higher level. These higher levels are much colder (until you reach the stratosphere, but as most infrared photons escaping to space are emitted by the troposphere, this can be ignored), and so they do not radiate heat very well. Thus the rate that radiation escapes to space is lower, and the planet will take in more than it radiates. As the higher levels emit some of the excess downwards, the lower levels will warm all the way down to the surface.

• The imbalance will remain until the higher levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

• 19th century physicist John Tyndall described the effect neatly like so:

"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at Earth's surface."

http://debatewise.org/debates/455-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming/#yes1

Yes because..
"A small change in cloudiness over the rest of the Earth's surface can be far more important than major changes in the area of the ice caps. It is important to keep such things in perspective. Climate modelers have a distinct tendency to focus on a sensational minor topic while neglecting the major topics of climate. Clouds and cloudiness are the major factors in the Earth's climate. Clouds rule the Earth's climate. Everything else, including the atmospheric greenhouse gases, is marginal."

Please remember that "consensus" among scientist is when they leave the building still speaking to each other. What entity/individual has determined the current 360 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere vs roughly 250 ppm pre-industrial revolution is the optimum level for life on earth (both mammal and vegitation) ??? Some data indicates that at about 160 ppm plant life on earth would wither and die. Climate models do not include the effect of cloud formation because it is almost impossible to model their effect on earth's climate.

If it were possible for man to control CO2 in the atmosphere and return it to pre industrial levels and that descision proved to be wrong would it be easy to return to the optimum levels ?? Remember the earth's climate/weather is a dynamic, always changing and the so-called MMGW is more of a political ploy for more control over peoples lives than anything else. Model input data in some cases has been tweeked to arrive at a predetermind conclusion because the reuslt wasn't what the researcher wanted !!!

Global cooling?

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

In other words.... They dont really know do they!!
I think I`ll just remain positive and stay a skeptic!

I think you have to look at this from many perspectives. The condition of the oceans, the burning of fossil fuels in vast quantities and sticking it back into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 which is bound to have an impact. The diminshing amount of trees on the planet that consume CO2, again bound to have an impact. We cant poo in our own backyard forever and not suffer the consequences eventually.

It has always been obvious to me that conditions on the planet have changed naturally over millions of years. That includes temperatures, sea levels, ice at the poles, distribution of seas and temperatures, the lot. Most scientists do agree on that. The extra bit at the end, when the industrial revolution kicks in and fossil fuel consumption kicks in is the debateable bit, maybe, well for me it is. I used to think like the Prof above, but now my take on it is that the additional CO2 added by man and that which will be added in the future will have an impact if it isnt already.

I guess when places get hit by rising sea levels in our own back yard, the whole issue becomes closer to home for each of us and we stand up and take notice.

See what Oss says. He is a bit of a CO2 specialist.

Here is what Nasa has to say:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

A pretty graph that tells a story:



http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

(NaturalNews) When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraphnow reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.


http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

So what is it the result of?

I suppose these guys are in on the scam too?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists

"In only 150 years we’ve released CO2 that took 20 million years to accumulate. Put another way, the duration of release is a mere 0.000008% of the duration of accumulation. The evidence for “excess” CO2 input to the system is the measured increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (i.e., not all of it is being cycled back into sinks). In other words, from the geological perspective, the current rate of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is extremely rapid. Does this imbalance in cycling of Earth materials significantly perturb the system? My petroleum geological perspective leads me to answer “yes indeed”."

I like this perspective.

http://clasticdetritus.com/2007/10/27/global-warming-and-petroleum-geology/

Conspiracy theories are a good excuse for not taking care of the planet.