Global Warming

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
OSLO said:
Whoever reckons the "brainboxes don't agree" really haven't looked at the evidence. The vast (i.e. > 90%) of the entire science base (that is: climatologists, oceanographers, cosmologists, environmentalists, etc) affirms that the acceleration in the pace of climate change is man made. There is not doubt. It is there for all to see.
Yes it is there for all to see: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
It's an interesting read, don't bother with the shortened report for policymakers, that's nothing but soundbites for politicians, now read the real report! If 32 scientists is 90% of the scientific community we have a problem! Climatologists can't even agree that they are using an accurate mathematical model for current world weather so how you came to think that 90% of them agree on anything is beyond me. I've done some work on one of the world climate models used and can assure you it is built on assumption after assumption. It is called a model for good reason it is constantly being adjusted, as the Earth reacts to changes the model is tweaked to mirror those changes, it's not even reactive it reacts to our interpretation of the reaction, (it's subjective hence my cryptic addition of that famous poem most scientists know only too well). The temperature extrapolation from ice core CO2 content is also, surprisingly, an assumption.

Whilst the work all of these scientists are putting into predicting climate change is interesting, groundbreaking in some cases and important; by believing they are certain is as naive as believing they are wrong. The truth falls somewhere in the middle. I stand by my comment about the diaries of farmers and monks incidentally, this link may help you comprehend the difficulty in measuring world temperature today, let alone accurately extrapolating what it was a thousand or more years ago.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm
 

neaters

Midshipman
The climate of Earth has been changing since it was first created, and will continue to change I believe regardless of man puny efforts to stop it.
If CO2 emmisions are causing climate change then the problem will solve itself.
The oil reserves on the planet are finite and we are currently beyond what is known as Peak Oil, that is we are using the stuff faster than we are finding it, and the rate of consumption is increasing. It's likely that crunch will come before the end of the century.
 

The_Wonderer

War Hero
neaters said:
The climate of Earth has been changing since it was first created, and will continue to change I believe regardless of man puny efforts to stop it.
If CO2 emmisions are causing climate change then the problem will solve itself.
The oil reserves on the planet are finite and we are currently beyond what is known as Peak Oil, that is we are using the stuff faster than we are finding it, and the rate of consumption is increasing. It's likely that crunch will come before the end of the century.
:whew:

What will the Yanks do then ?
 

PINCH

War Hero
So Here is the solution.... We all stop work, plant just enough food to feed you the missus and rug rats, you level the house you're living in and move into a cave. You do not go anywhere unless I can walk, and you kill one of the animals you have to make clothing. You paint your body in blue paint made from mud...... For god sake folks, we would have to kill 80% of the world population to ensure sustainability, on the macro level, and I am sure that we will be able to uninvent all the stuff we now take for granted.

Or .... we take the nuclear route, and work on ways of getting shot of the bad stuff.

Upset the tree huggers for a short while, but we could treat them as we do smokers, give then a fecking good ignoring too!!

Man is inventive and will find solutions which will ensure he has not to give up what he currently has.
 

Blood

MIA
Just found out that over 17,000 scientists and engineers have signed a petition calling for rejection of the Kyoto treaty. This overshadows any collection of scientists that have endorsed the treaty.

This worth a read, apparently its the sun and f*ck all todo with CO2.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
Funny how the BBC, the High Priests of the new 'Man Made Global Warming' religion forgot this one…





Tuesday, 6 July 2004, 16:07 GMT 17:07 UK

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor


Sunspots are plentiful nowadays
A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

The warming is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

'Little Ice Age'

Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity.

The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes.

In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.

This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it.


Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements
It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.

Over the past few thousand years there is evidence of earlier Maunder-like coolings in the Earth's climate - indicated by tree-ring measurements that show slow growth due to prolonged cold.

In an attempt to determine what happened to sunspots during these other cold periods, Dr Sami Solanki and colleagues have looked at concentrations of a form, or isotope, of beryllium in ice cores from Greenland.

The isotope is created by cosmic rays - high-energy particles from the depths of the galaxy.

The flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface is modulated by the strength of the solar wind, the charged particles that stream away from the Sun's surface.

And since the strength of the solar wind varies over the sunspot cycle, the amount of beryllium in the ice at a time in the past can therefore be used to infer the state of the Sun and, roughly, the number of sunspots.

Latest warming

Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg, Germany.

He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
 

Blood

MIA
seems to support what Gary Novak in my last link. Bloody Sun...BAN THE SUN......its gonna kill us....
 

AfterSSE

War Hero
Your headline forgot to include this, which is part of what you pasted.


Oil_Slick said:
Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.
 

PeterPan

Midshipman
Mankind is probably having some affect, but no one is tackling the real big issues such as deforrestation and marine polution, it easier to throw rocks at people who drive range rovers (I don't have one by the way). Don't like whale killing Jap bastards either.
 

The_Wonderer

War Hero
AfterSSE said:
Your headline forgot to include this, which is part of what you pasted.


Oil_Slick said:
Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

OK bud; fair one.
But what is the solution?
Should we stop burning all fossil fuels in case the sun suddenly gets a bit angry, or if the earths core suddenly heats beyond our control or comprehension ?
 

Allnightin

Lantern Swinger
I'm with OSLO on this.

Carbon Dioxide causes global warming - the average global surface temperature would be something like -18C without it.
More Carbon Dioxide causes more warming.
We are burning more fossil fuel than ever before - so much so that oil production may have already peaked but, at the current rate of increase in demand, oil will in any event run out this century.

How do those that say it is all a con know, to the same level of certainty they expect of those promoting climate change, that man made emissions can't have an effect?
Or are you saying that you are happy to support a gigantic experiment to prove the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change wrong? And of course you have a new planet to go to if in fact it was right? Is it just possible that you are latching on to the few items that provide contrary indications and disregarding the far larger body of accumulating evidence that says there is a problem looming? Certainly climate science doesn't offer absolute certainties but surely, for something with such horrendous possible outcomes,it is better to be safe than sorry?

How is it that the UN, EU, Westminster and local government all have Climate Change and sustainable development policies in place? Have they all been taken in by this "conspiracy"? Or are people just trying to avoid some inconvenient home truths about our current lifestyle?

Personally I reckon it be better if we made use of all the cheap energy we now enjoy to put in place sustainable systems that we can hand over to future generations. The alternative if we do nothing could well be as in A Letter from the Future at http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/110

Think about it!
 

AfterSSE

War Hero
What people should be worrying about is this:

In sum, coal burning in China is having a significant impact on the
physical environment, as well as the population in China, and the
overall world atmosphere. Scientists have predicted by the year
2025, China will emit more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, two
products from coal burning, than the United States, Japan, and
Canada combined.

China is one of the world's largest coal producers. There is no
known figure on the amount of coal resources in China, but some
estimates have been as high as 1 million tons. China leads as a
coal-rich country with the Soviet Union and the United States in
second and third place respectively. China's coal consists of the
majority being bituminous coal. About 20% is anthracite coal, and
lignite coal makes up the smallest portion.
http://www.american.edu/TED/chincoal.htm

Coal is making a comeback in a big way in China, have you ever heard of "black lung", I have relatives who used to work the mines up North (Newcastle area) and of course in this Province coal has a history and is set to make a comeback, well all these little particles that get breathed in by the miners, also become airborne and travel...

China and Coal

Scary....

Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego.
Thing is we have had our kick at the cat and now come to understand the implications and are scurrying to correct them, however, India and China are emerging as industrial giants and will not be so easy to convince to go "green", all I can say is make sure your athletes, bring plenty of oxygen when they go to the Olympics next summer... :thumright:
 

OSLO

War Hero
PeterPan said:
Mankind is probably having some affect, but no one is tackling the real big issues such as deforrestation and marine polution, it easier to throw rocks at people who drive range rovers (I don't have one by the way). Don't like whale killing Jap bastards either.
Bad as marine pollution is, it isn't going to change ocean current. But it is an important area to be tackled.

As for deforestation, there are many initiatives to reduce the areas affected, but that would be nothing compared to a climate-driven desertification. Again, it is important, but it is not of the highest priority.
 

OSLO

War Hero
Blood said:
Just found out that over 17,000 scientists and engineers have signed a petition calling for rejection of the Kyoto treaty. This overshadows any collection of scientists that have endorsed the treaty.

This worth a read, apparently its the sun and f*ck all todo with CO2.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Personally, I make it a point of not believing a word from an advocate of the "intelligent design" school of science.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
OSLO said:
PeterPan said:
Mankind is probably having some affect, but no one is tackling the real big issues such as deforrestation and marine polution, it easier to throw rocks at people who drive range rovers (I don't have one by the way). Don't like whale killing Jap bastards either.
Bad as marine pollution is, it isn't going to change ocean current. But it is an important area to be tackled.

As for deforestation, there are many initiatives to reduce the areas affected, but that would be nothing compared to a climate-driven desertification. Again, it is important, but it is not of the highest priority.
Actually this is probably the crux of the issue, not so much deforestation that's just blatant vandalism and has been identified as an issue which is being reversed. The mean global rise in temperature does cause currents to change but more importantly it reduces the amount of CO2 which can be contained in sea water it may also effect the interaction between carbon dioxide and calcium; formation of calcium carbonate is the net carbon sink contained within the oceans all the rest is just cycled in and out of the atmosphere.

A question then: has the recent mean rise in our planets atmospheric temperature (indisputable) caused an increase in atmospheric carbon by reducing the ability of the seas to store it or has mans infatuation with burning fossil fuels released so much CO2 as to create a greenhouse effect and cause that temperature rise?

My problem with all this is that by subscribing to one theory you dismiss the other, dismissing either is irresponsible and arrogant which is why I would describe any scientist who proclaims to know the answer as a fraud and no scientist at all. Science is about rigour, considering all the possibilities, truly undertanding how they interact and adjusting your perspective to be as objective as possible, then releasing your findings when they are indisputable. It is not about subscribing to one theory over another because the concensus subscribe, or about distorting your data in favour of an opposing view for personal gratification, fame or funding. The problem with science is that people expect scientists to know the exact answer, they rarely do and global warming is a good example of this...... as Einstein said "Nature only shows us the tail..........."
 
chieftiff said:
OSLO said:
Sorry, lads and lasses, but anyone who reckons that climate change is not changing, and changing more rapidly over the last 150 years, is walking around like the Pinball Wizard - deaf, dumb and blind.
The Earth is (probably) around 4.54 Billion Years old, that's 4540000000 years, dinosaurs first existed 250 million years ago, that's 250000000, man has been around for about 300 thousand years, that's 300000. We have kept accurate weather records since 1950, that's 57 years ago!!!! we have vague weather records since aboutt 1880 and everything before that is complete guesswork based on the diaries and weather records of farmers and monks. How typically arrogant of modern man to assume we know what's going on!!!

That being said I agree, I see no point in vandalising the planet with no true concept of consequence.
Bang on! How do we take on such arrogance to assume we have so much power over mother earth?
Your last paragraph is apt.
 
TattooDog said:
Well, if anyone is worried that they may be contributing to climate change and is feeling guilty, then help is at hand:

Fart Neutral
Ah! but is the presence of countless billions of farting animals contributing to the whole thing?
I eat beans but never curry, which do you think is worse?
Could my 50cc motorbike I use to get around town be fuelled by my evacuations. Would the resultant pipe have a soft end? Will my fat dog every stop farting? He didn't do it so much when he was younger and hasn't been overfed, so is it any age thing?
Tee Hee! Shall we ever find the answer and in any case should we worry?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
buffer01 Petitions 52
Oil_Slick Diamond Lil's 18
Bergen Diamond Lil's 2

Similar threads


Top