Not wishing to rant for or against these marches, nevertheless I believe in balance, so a little recent science might help some people to become thinkers rather than sheep. Please take a look at this link:
Whilst I agree the effect are cyclic as history has proven it's not just about Co2 and warming of the Oceans. Co2 is acidifying the oceans which causes a drop in the waters pH level. Fish and other creatures live in an environment that needs specif pH levels to be maintained (ask any fish owner) At the current rate it is reckoned that the sea life will begin to dye out by around 2050. Lots of possible reasons for this have been put forward but chemicals are a good place to start. In particular priority chemicals http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/wastemin/priority.htm
Watching GoldFinger too many times may have had an affect on your reasoning.
A few years ago lift was thought to be generated by the aerofoil shape, air moving faster over the top than the flat underside caused a pressure reduction and so lift. This was found to be untrue and it's due to vortex forces spiraling down the wing length. This was noted as the Pits special one of the most maneuverable planes having the curved shape on the top and bottom of the wings so in old theory it wouldn't create lift so would crash (obviously this is not the case)
Wings have therefore moved on with the times and are now made to generate better vortex forms see the flicked up tips of the wings on many planes (vortex generators)
Now why do we have clouds at all? It's only water vapour/droplets so why doesn't it just spread out like any other spray?
Clouds form around dirt and dust, we have been reducing what we put in the sky over the years so things change. Icelandic volcanoes excepted.
Your second article confuses a shifting of the axis on which the planet rotates for which I have never heard of, nor seen evidence and the flipping of the magnetic poles for which there is ample evidence from deep sea cores.The magnetic flux changes direction periodically but the effects on the planet and its population would not be significant
Ah yes Nick, here is my take on it. Blame China, fine China they have lots of money all good! We consume the product that they make at our want and request but we are clean, green and squeeky so we don't get fined.
It's why I don't like accountants, they shift the problem to someone elses balance sheet and there is no more problem...........Only it's still on the Worlds balance sheet.
Interesting point on the consuming nations. We do measure it to a point but only as a proportion of waste and disposal of things. A few years ago a number of scientists were advocating specialist places for all high technology, so computers, mobile phones, TVs, stereo systems and lots more which would be audited regularly and state funded recycling and full disposal programmes set up, their advisers were saying a single percent on prices in the form of VAT and equivalent taxes would pay for that with plenty to spare. That idea seems to have gone cold. India was up for it wishing to take on the recycling and disposal even and are getting very good at it with companies like Attero Recycling, Let's Recycle, Conserve India and many more. They are miles ahead of the west, but they are still producing and generating a lot of s***.
New generation silicon technology will apparently reduce energy use and waste, particularly things like cooling data storage terminals. Mind you, that is several years off so we have better not hold our breath.
I don't actually disagree at all and I am not firmly feet in the pro-climate change camp. But anthropogenic activity deniers in the scientific community are gradually being marginalised by all but their funders it seems. Scientists rarely work alone but in rather sizeable well trained teams (not the same area but I had Steve Hawking on the ground floor below me for some years because 'his' department was not accessible for his famous Dalek wheels) and know that even at least 90% of the theory accredited to him is actually out of work his considerable number of co-workers do. He writes the final paper which is then peer reviewed. All of the climate science people are subject to peer reviews too, which is not colleagues supporting each other as some people allege but always includes people who wish to bitch you out of existence. I have had more than my share of that over the years and hardly been the most amenable to mediocre work myself (I still do it). So, with all those forces part of the deal, there is no batty old man/woman reckoning that x = y therefore... It is science that can be pulled apart if it is at all flawed. Several sceptics/deniers have been pulled to pieces by peer reviewers including some who are not pro-climate change theory. So, from my point of view, the majority actually supporting it are more worth looking at until the other have better data. Certainly cyclical climate change is important and must be taken into account, no denying that, but the present acceleration and correlation with human generated phenomena cannot simply be dismissed. Anyway, who the heck wants nasty, sulphurous smog instead of breathable air? I remember London smogs when I arrived there as a child, some places are worse than that! Time to do something either way at least.
oh John, you are clearly so much more educated than the rest of us.
You ask about "any serious scientific evidence" to 'prove' what I and many others believe; - well, what constitutes 'serious scientific evidence' is a whole subject itself bringing with it its own bias and vested interest, and it is well outside the scope of this dialogue.
I am surprised that you seem unaware of the ongoing weather manipulation programmes which are well documented and have been going on for years. They are no secret anymore (although they also are not talked about much in the mainstream media). What I am saying is that these weather modification programes have ramped up over recent years and we are now witnessing the results.
Evidence ? - look up to the sky from time to time and see the trails from planes morph into dark cloud like structures and cover the sky within a few hours. It is quite rare nowadays to see the 'traditional' looking clouds that we used to draw in our schoolbooks as a child.
Re glaciers/ice fields. I assume that by referring to ice fields floating you are referring to ice shelves. These indeed float so their melting has no effect on sea levels. However they do have a braking affect on glaciers flowing to the ocean. Without them glaciers would flow faster contributing previously locked up water and raising sea level.
You are quite right Geoff the aircraft industry, the aircraft engine manufacturers, the airlines are all taking part in a world wide conspiracy together with dark and powerful forces (the lizards?)( the illuminati?)(Biederberg) to seed the atmosphere with some unidentified chemical which at some point in the future will be activated by some process unknown to destroy the human race. They're not chemtrails they're contrails and were not commonly seen until the 1940's because few aircraft flew at a height sufficient to produce them. High altitude bomber aircraft of the US Forces were the first large scale producers of contrail. With the development of long distance jet airliners the incidence of contrails gradually increased. Chemtrailers regularly produce lurid pictures usually taken beneath heavily trafficked flyways at sunset/sunrise. Completely barmy but then many people also believe in alien abduction.
What I find bizarre is that carbon emissions are measured in the producing country. So say a mobile phone is produced in China, the carbon emissions related to that production are attributed to China. It sort of skews the figures. I would have thought the carbon footprint should be in the country where the goods are consumed. So whereas us and the US are now saying look at how clean we are in reducing emissions and look at how dirty the BRICS countries are. The reality is that they are only producing because we are consuming.
Another point worth considering is that lots of companies try to promote a paperless environment to be green. Anyone ever built a data centre where all electronic messages pass? The energy they consume in cooling provision is enormous.
I am still working my way through Melvin's paper so can't comment too much. As you have studied the human psyche Brian, you'll sure be aware of the emperors new suit of clothes and the need for humans to form into groups agreeing with each other whilst a rival group are castigated for their beliefs. There is also a huge industry built up around the subject, all good for the economy.
One of your links stated the need to be seen to comply with the 97% or risk being an outcast and ending ones scientific career. Many years ago I attended the Christmas lectures by one Dr Eric Laithwaite on the invention of the linear motor (the pioneering tech behind the Maglev train, the fastest in the world). He was pilloried as he dared to look at the forces of a gyroscope and how they seemed to contradict known science, his career never recovered. That is the human child that forms the panels that run the scientific communities.
In essence from what I scanned 97% agree anthropogenic global warming is to blame but that statement in itself is so wide as to defining the cause, different ball game. I would look more carefully at those scientist who show the history of the worlds heating and cooling patterns than those showing just recent trends.
I will stand in either camp but I am still up for reducing our output of primary chemicals and pollution in general.
Whether sceptical or accepting the climate change issue, there is without any doubt a 97% consensus among climate scientists. That is to say, something like 84% are saying there is undoubtedly change with some of the scientists who are considered to be against climate change theory actually accepting that there has been human generated (anthropogenic) or influenced negative change. The few scientists opposing climate change science altogether include some employed or funded by such companies as Exxon, therefore we know they are influenced by the hand that feeds them although people should look at what they are saying.
On climate change, without mumbo-jumbo, propaganda or other sources that belong more in the realms of fantasy than fact there are plenty of sources of information. The ones below are examples, there are plenty more including from deniers if people wish to look for them. Either way, sitting on hands ignoring the debate or subscribing to ideas that are fantasias rather than proven phenomena is simply getting in the way of the real examination of the issue.
I have not had time to read all these post in depth but scanning them I am surprised not to have noticed any mention of the obvious changes we see around us being man made. By this I mean not made by you and I driving our cars, but made by governments and vested interests who have been altering our weather systems for over forty years - but stepping up their actions to more heightened levels over the last ten years. Look up at the sky from time to time. Look at the "clouds" - do they look like the clouds you used to draw in your books at school?. Not all the time of course; but the atmosphere is being sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals for many reasons.
One can read the newspapers and established journals in great depth and pontificate about what they conclude - or one can simply look around one's own living space and make up ones own mind. The skies constantly look wierd following the disbursing trails from aircraft, everyone around us knows someone who is affected by cancer, the weather we are experiencing right now here near Carcassonne is beyond strange. Something is wrong and I am convinced it certainly is man made but not by us - we are merely the scapegoats being convinced that it is our doing and being forced to pay additional so called carbon taxes.
anyone wishing to open their minds to this, do a search for "chemtrails"