Onko muita, jotka eivät usko ilmastonmuutokseen?

äitini on aivan samanlainen.

Ei hänen tarvitse lajitella jätteitä tai vanhoja tavaroitaan kierrätykseen viedä .. ei hänen tekemisillään tai jätteillään mitään vaikutusta ole mihinkään >:(



Vaikka ilmastonmuutokseen ei ihmisen toimet vaikuttaisi pätkääkään niin mun mielestä pitäisi silti vähän rajoittaa jätteiden ja saasteiden puskemista luontoon.

he kieltätyvät näkemästä asiaa koska se on liian pelottava ja se koskee ihmisen itsekkääseen minään liikaa, " mekö olemme tehneet jotain väärin, kun lääketiede ja tekniikkakin ym. on niin kehittynyttä jne."

esim. jossain Intiassa että lopettaisivat sen tajuttoman lisääntymisen.

että on kylmä ja lämmin vaihdelleet ennenkin, kertokaas yks asia.

Ennen ei ole ollut tällaista saaste- ja paskakuormaa, eikö niillä teidän mielestänne ole mitään merkitystä.



Eri asia on, johtuuko muutos hiilidioksidista. Mitäs, jos tuo onkin aivan väärä olettamus, ja ihmiset tekevät sen eteen sitä sun tätä, vaikka ilmiön takana onkin jokin aivan muu asia? Sitä minä olen tässä miettinyt. Kukaan ei ole voinut millään tavoin todistaa, että juuri hiilidioksidi olisi kaiken takana, sen vain nyt jotkut ovat saaneet päähänsä.

Lisäksi näitä saasteita on tässä määrin ollut vain parisataa vuotta, mikä on äärimmäisen lyhyt aika maapallon kokonaisikään nähden.

olennaista varmaankin on auringon lämpeneminen. Aurinko on tänä vuonna lämpimimmillään, mitä se tiettävästi voi olla. Aurinko viilenee ja kuumenee 11 vuoden jaksoissa, nyt on jakson kuumin vuosi. Auringossa ei näy paljon ollenkaan auringonpilkkujakaan, jotka ovat tummia, viileämpiä kohtia auringon pinnassa.

Uskoakseni ihmisen aiheuttama kasvihuoneilmiö on lähinnä USAlaisten markkinapoliitikkojen rahankeräyskampanja.

Study clears sun of global warming

Ben Hirschler

Reuters

Wednesday, 11 July 2007







The latest study shows a gradual rise in the sun' s energy output is not to blame for recent climate change, as some climate sceptics say (Image: NASA)

The sun' s changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists say.



Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.



While solar variability has influenced the Earth' s climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, UK and Swiss researchers say it could not explain recent warming.



" Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth' s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they write today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.



Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.



A small group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun' s energy output.



To unpick that possible link, Professor Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Dr Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Centre in Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.



The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not affect the Earth' s surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.



They conclude that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism is invoked.



The UK' s Royal Society says the new research is an important rebuff to climate change sceptics.



" At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day," it says.

että auringon aktiivisuus olisi jo hiipumaan päin tms. ja itse asiassa ilmaston pitäis viiletä jos se olisi vain auringosta kiinni. Onko teillä ilmastoskeptikot joitain konkreettista todistetta esittää vai vaan mutua?

Eikö ilmastonmuutoksen väitetä johtuvan juuri lisääntyneestä auringon säteilyn pysymisestä ilmakehässä?

It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet¿s climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun¿s output and not carbon dioxide emissions.



But a new analysis of data on the sun¿s output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun¿s activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.



The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March by the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.



The programme has been heavily criticised for distorting scientific data to fit the sceptic argument and Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at MIT who featured in the programme, later said that he was ¿totally misled¿ by the film makers and that his comments were ¿completely misrepresented¿.



The new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming.



¿The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about,¿ said lead author Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.



¿They changed direction in 1985, the climate did not ¿ [the temperature] increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up.¿



Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.



One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun¿s magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun¿s energy back into space and cool the planet.



So if the sun¿s magnetic field is high, there should be a fall-off in cosmic rays, fewer clouds and more warming. But Prof Lockwood¿s data, published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun¿s magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.



James Hansen, a Nasa climate scientist who was once gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming, said the issue of whether the sun¿s activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago. ¿The reason [this paper] has value is that the proponents of the notion that the sun determines everything come up with various half-baked suggestions that the sun can somehow cause an indirect forcing that is not included in the measurements of radiation coming from the sun,¿ he said. ¿These half-baked notions are usually supported by empirical correlations of climate with some solar index in the past. Thus, by showing that these correlations are not consistent with recent climate change, the half-baked notions can be dispensed with.¿



Prof Lockwood said the study was ¿another nail¿ in the coffin of the notion that solar activity is responsible for global warming.

Autot prutkuttaa saasteita meikäläisten autoihin verrattuna tolkuttomasti ja lapsia syntyy ihan liikaa! Ja niitä on sentään miljardi! Paskavesikin työnnetään suoraan mereen, niin oma lajittelu alkaa tuntua ihan yhdentekevältä, ellei näitä maita saada kuriin!



Muuten kyllä uskon ihmisen aiheuttamiin muutoksiin ilmastossa ja toivon, että sitä pystyttäisiin torjumaan. Toisaalta luonto on vahvempi kuin ihminen ja se löytää tavan tai toisen näyttää kaapin paikka. Ajatellaan vaikka tsunamia. Mitä me tuollaisille voimme? Tai jos jäätiköt sulaa liikaa ja veden pinta nousee, niin ennen pitkään ollaan taas jääkaudessa.

News review 2007: Australia' s drought crisis

22 December 2007



With little water, and exposed to a searing sun, a nation cracked. Australia could tolerate its drought no more, and became arguably the first developed nation to feel the impact of climate change at a visceral level.



The 10-year drought, the worst in Australia' s recorded history, appeared to transform the social fabric. In the cities, Australian " mateship" and its companion, a relaxed disregard for authority, withered away as water restrictions hit home and neighbour informed on neighbour via special dob-in-a-water-cheat hotlines. Following an alleged attack during an argument about a water violation, a Sydney man was charged with murder. Plastic lawns became the latest garden accessory - implausibly lush-looking by comparison with the parched tracts elsewhere.



In the country, farmers, once proudly able to withstand everything the Australian climate could throw at them, were driven off the land as agricultural productivity plummeted.



Politicians panicked, and revived discredited ideas to shift agriculture to the remaining wet regions in Australia' s north. Plans to build desalination plants for cities that were fast running out of water were hastily drawn up - and unravelled just as fast. Melbourne' s site for a A$3 billion (US$2.6 billion) plant could threaten rocks containing 115-million-year-old dinosaur fossils.



The rain that did fall often came in short, sharp torrents, damaging trees and buildings, bringing down power lines and triggering flash floods. Australia' s rainfall is notoriously variable, and some climate experts argue that the drought' s severity wasn' t necessarily due to climate change. Yet all agree that with climate change similar parched conditions will become the norm in southern regions of Australia where most people live, and that the water crisis will only deepen.



By year' s end, alarm about the drought had helped unseat erstwhile climate-change sceptic John Howard as prime minister in one of the country' s most decisive general election results. Days after the defeat, his successor, Kevin Rudd, leader of the Australian Labor Party, had taken steps to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Rocketing CO2 prompts criticisms of IPCC

24 October 2007

Colin Barras

Magazine issue 2627

No sooner is the Nobel prize in the bag than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is coming under fire for not being quick enough on its feet. Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are rising faster than any climate models predict, and this has prompted some climate scientists to call for an urgent overhaul of the IPCC.



Key conclusions in the final part of the IPCC' s Fourth Assessment Report on climate change, which it publishes next month, are based on research that is several years old, says Inez Fung at the Berkeley Institute of the Environment, California. For her research to be considered in this year' s report, she had to complete it by 2004. " There is an awful lag in the IPCC process," she says.

PLANET-wide heating and cooling of the atmosphere during the 11-year sunspot cycle has been measured for the first time. Climate-change sceptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun' s variability can explain global warming - but mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true.



Tung and colleague Charles Camp, both of the University of Washington in Seattle, analysed satellite data on solar radiation and surface temperatures over the past 50 years, covering four-and-a-half solar cycles. They found that global average temperatures oscillated by almost 0.2 °C between high and low points in the cycle, nearly twice the amplitude of previous estimates (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2007GL030207).



The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming, Tung says. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models.

04 August 2007



WITH climate change poised to create havoc, plants may not be the first victims that spring to mind. But many are completely dependent on subtle aspects of the weather to survive, so changes in climate will be crucial.



Take reproduction. In order to flower at the right time, many plants must experience a period of cold to trigger a process called vernalisation. The word comes from the Latin vernus for " of the spring" . If it doesn' t get cold enough, flowering is much delayed or may not happen at all. What' s more, some of the plants that need to be vernalised are important food species such as sugar beet and wheat, which feed millions and provide much-needed income globally.

Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.



The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth' s climate to warm.



" If you change the output of the Sun you will undoubtedly change the climate it' s just a matter of how much," says Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, part of the Science and Technology Facilities Council in the UK.



Sceptics commonly point to climate research' s reliance on computer models as a reason for doubting the link between global warming and human greenhouse gas emissions.



" We decided to do a simple and direct analysis of the potential role of the Sun in recent climate change without using any model output," says Lockwood.



Lockwood and colleague Claus Fröhlich, at the World Radiation Center in Switzerland, used direct measurements only for their study. As Lockwood puts it: " This is just what the spacecraft have seen."



U-turn

Looking at data from the past 40 years, the two researchers noticed that solar activity did what Lockwood describes as a " U-turn in every possible way" in the mid-1980s.



" The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now," Lockwood told New Scientist. He adds that he wishes he knew why the Sun' s activity had changed in this way.



The number of sunspots peaked twice during the 20th century, once in 1960 and then again in 1985 (see graphs, right), but have been dropping since.



Sunspots are used as indicators of solar activity, and people have tried to link the growing number of sunspots during the 20th century with rising global temperatures (see Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?).



Others have suggested that cosmic rays help generate clouds, which would cool the atmosphere. But Lockwood and Fröhlich' s results show that cosmic rays reached a minimum around 1985 and have risen since.



Correspondingly, the magnetic field that shields Earth from cosmic rays also reached a maximum at about the same time, in 1987.



Negligible role

Measurements of the Sun' s brightness ¿ which indicates of the amount of energy coming from the sun ¿ only began in 1977. Yet here too the data suggests solar activity is playing a negligible role in current global warming: irradiance rose between 1977 and 1985, but has been dropping since.



Lookwood says the only way of reconciling the data with the idea that solar activity is causing global warming is to propose that there is a time lag between the Sun' s activity changing and those changes affecting the Earth' s climate. But even with a lag, climatologists would have noticed a slow-down in the rate at which temperatures are rising around the globe, says Lockwood.



" We have had 20 years of the cosmic rays and the irradiance going in the wrong direction, and yet we' ve not yet seen any effect on temperatures," says Lockwood. " It would have to be an extremely long lag ¿ at least 50 years ¿ which would invalidate a lot of the previous sun-climate proposals."



Lockwood and Fröhlich' s results suggest that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has overestimated the Sun' s influence on the Earth' s climate. In February, the IPCC published a report stating that the Sun had roughly 10% of the warming effect of human activities.

nopeuttaa seuraavan jääkauden syntyä.



En tajua miten ihmiset voivat olla niin idiootteja, etteivät tajua, että tällä menolla ihmislaji on kadonnut tältä planeetalta hyvin äkkiä.



Se nyt on ihan selvä, että ilmasto muuttuu normaalisti sykleissä auringon toiminnan ym. mukaan, mutta nykyinen muutos ei ole todellakaan normaalia. Golf-virta tulee luultavasti muuttamaan reittiään tai katoamaan, mikä tekee Pohjois-Euroopasta elinkelvotonta seutua.