Global warming challenge

Those that pontificate about the humans race causing global warming have a slogan saying -- ‘We are destroying the planet by causing increased global warming through human involvement!’--

Firstly we need to isolate precisely what they say is causing the alleged human created global warming, and it would appear that carbon dioxide is the gas at the centre of the problem. They have a tendency to also bring other gases into the equation, as well as cloud cover, rain, deforestation, areas of snow reflecting surfaces, animal wind, population increases, etc., all alleged to be producing similar adverse effects on global warming. These are thrown into the discussion more as a distraction to take the concentration off the carbon dioxide blame when their arguments of the importance of human planet involvement are being eroded. So we need to concentrate on the possibility that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere may be a controlling influence on global warming, this effectively being what they are saying!

A considerable volume of research has been undertaken in the world on particular areas of the planet, and over specific time periods in its existence. All these time zones have been relatively recent in planet terms, but the thinking and conclusions deduced from these research periods have been extended to predict what the future holds for the planet. What you must not do, when graphing results, is to project a graph into the future without referencing to the behavioural pattern prior to the dates covering the graph time zone, or properly relating to what is happening within the graph itself, or have a very good justifiable reason for extending the graph line beyond its perimiter. Of course, the followers of human controlled global warming point to our way of life and our possible misuse of natural resources and that these are peculiar to this period on the planet, and they therefore claim it is acceptable to consider only a relative short period of global time for these research results to be relevant, and without such an approach they say there would be nothing to go on. Indeed they say this is the only way to deal with the problem.

Intentionally, or unintentionally, the human global warming concern has been combined with the ongoing reduction of natural resources through continuing demand for these materials, and the overall combined package is being treated as one problem, with the results of particularly specific research then being used to justify this combined approach, the parameters of the research having been chosen to concentrate on specific aspects that may be considered to be of benefit to the human race global warming thinking group. The policies that are then advocated are subsequently applied to the global thinking, with the result that everyone must contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide, whatever is the cost, at their own peril!

Let’s go to the core of the perceived problem, and concentrate on the historical evidence with regard to the relationship between the global temperature and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Research into this relationship over a time span of 600,000 years has produced information showing the relationship between the two, and the following graph is one of those that is available showing the effect of this research in graphical terms over a period of time of.400,000 years.

The figures resulting in this graph were deduced from Antarctic ice-core records. These have been peer reviewed and are therefore accepted by the professional community as being accurate, and they can therefore be relied upon.

The 400,000 years that this graph covers can be seen to be repetitive every 100,000 years or so. It can be seen that the temperature of the Earth reaches its maximum at nominally the same time as the concentration of the carbon dioxide also reaches its maximum, and similarly, both minimum temperature and minimum carbon dioxide happen at about the same time in each cycle. This is true until the last couple of centuries when the earth’s temperature reached it’s maximum and has gone no further, this being no more than the previous peaks, whereas the carbon dioxide has continued to soar, far more than at any other time in the last 400,000 years.

The lesson from this graph, which has data that has been peer reviewed, as already stated, is that the global temperature is controlled by other forces, which have been proved to be cyclical in nature, and they have not been, and are not being, controlled by the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. --'Therefore it can be stated quite clearly that the current man made increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing any similar related global warming, the temperature of this being no greater that that performed by the Earth, on its own, in the past.'-- Reducing the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is similarly not going to affect the global temperature by anything that could evenly remotely be considered to be of any importance whatsoever in the short time, regardless of what can seemingly be evaluated by supposedly relevant experiments.

The global temperature is at, or very close to, its peak in the cycles, and it is possible that a forced reduction in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere might cause the earth to go into an ice age more quickly than it would do otherwise, because there is a possibility that the current excess of the gas might be keeping the earth at its peak temperature for longer than intended. --'Now there’s a thought to ponder.'--

-------------------------------------------------

Dealing with unpleasant pollutants in the atmosphere for the benefit of mankind wellbeing, and dealing with over use of natural resources are both completely different problems and are not proved to be anything to do with global warming and they should therefore be dealt with completely separately.

Global warming not affected by mankind

Please go to updated site - Global warming challenge

Global warming - who's to blame

An extraordinary vast amount of money is being spent because it is put out in the media that we, the inhabitants of this planet, are the cause of global warming, and that we can do something about it if we cut down on our emissions, carbon dioxide being the allegedly main culprit. Since the start of this campaign other gases have been brought forward as being equally important, if not more so. Persons, many seemingly qualified to do so, have joined the bandwagon and have been recorded as undertaking research into their own particular theory and have come up with results that have reinforced their view that their thinking is right and that this should be seriously heeded in the overall campaign to reduce the effect that humanity allegedly has on ‘global warming’.

The Leaders have looked towards the alleged greatest pollution countries and have homed in on China with its vast programme of building coal fired power stations and have said we can’t have that going on, and if they can’t afford to do anything about it, we must help them out with finance so that they can go down a different route which produces fewer obnoxious gases. This financing, of course, comes out of our pockets! In our industrial expansion era, last century, we relied on coal fired power station and nobody stopped us. OK, so the downsides of such power generation were not realised at the time, but do we have the right to impose on other nations a regime of restricting coal fired stations with the additional expense that other forms of power production could generate when they don’t actually want to follow that route, especially as coal would appear to be easily available in that part of the world?

And what are we up to, building vast wind turbines that are unreliable in their power generation because of the vagaries of the wind, it many times not being available when the electricity is required. There is also the problem that the turbines themselves have not produced the power promised even when the wind is evident? We must have a reliable source of electricity power generation in the future! The most reliable source of power could be from the tidal range round the country, this not deviating from year to year.

There is no problem with the concept of finding alternatives to the use of fossil fuels, possibly with public funding, but please publically pursue this aim, rather than colouring it with the concept of partially or even greatly reducing ‘global warming’. There is a growing properly informed belief that man will make no difference to ‘global warming’.

In order to persuade the non believer that humans can influence ‘global warming’ would someone please come out of the woodwork and explain what is wrong with the information that has been derived from cores taken in the Antarctic ice field which show that planet Earth controls itself within a recurring repetitive cycle, without any influence from the inhabitants at the time. The following is a graph showing the results of such investigations, comparing the temperatures and carbon dioxide proportions over a considerable time frame. It will be noted that the temperature recorded now is no higher that it was in previously recorded peaks, even though the carbon dioxide content is considerably higher!

The graph shows changes in Carbon Dioxide content and Temperatures over a considerable time scale, the details being published by a reliable source.

It shows the fluctuations in temperature (blue line) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (red line) over the past 400,000 years. The vertical red bar at the end is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the two centuries prior to 2007, this happening without altering the global temperature.

Now will someone please show us where it proves that man has had any influence on 'global warming'? That's the blue line we are talking about. One needs to bear in mind that the information put into this graph has been 'peer reviewed', and is therefore accepted as being accurate by all the relevant specialists.