Jump to content

Climate change


TopGun

Recommended Posts

I can speak as a voice of "ITK"...

 

have any of you been to the north pole/Arctic regions..?

 

I have and can tell you that man made climate chamge is a lie....I have seen all the ice and stuff

 

What did you measure the 'ice and stuff' with exactly? And over how many decades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, now. Measurement of ice at the poles does not tell us if the world is heating up or not, only what has happened at the poles.

 

Not true Grandad. And if TDD can spout about being there so can I. Only my presence was less than helpful. Back in the late eighties, I was at a research station that had been continuously recording ice temperatures for about 30 years. I had an electrician with me (from Portsmouth, as it happens), who plugged in a light and blew all the fuses.

 

So there's this Norwegian research station in Svalbard with a continuous record of ice...except for half an hour twenty years ago.

 

Still trust their results than the observations of the ice and stuff that TDD bumped into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true Grandad. And if TDD can spout about being there so can I. Only my presence was less than helpful. Back in the late eighties, I was at a research station that had been continuously recording ice temperatures for about 30 years. I had an electrician with me (from Portsmouth, as it happens), who plugged in a light and blew all the fuses.

 

So there's this Norwegian research station in Svalbard with a continuous record of ice...except for half an hour twenty years ago.

 

Still trust their results than the observations of the ice and stuff that TDD bumped into.

Ice at the poles will not say anything much about conditions in the tropics. It's all part of the overall picture from which we can infer what has probably/possibly/conceivably happened in the past.

 

The world has got a bit warmer in the last couple of decades until about 10 years ago, but that does not a greenhouse make. There are two separate issues here:

 

Is the world getting warmer? - probably. It has been lately but it isn't at the moment.

Is this caused by mankind burning fossil fuels? - some groups think that it might be and say that we ought to stop in case it is.

 

The current 'climate' is reminiscent of the religious witchhunts and crusades. The talk is of 'denial' instead of 'disagreement' and anyone who dares to raise a question is howled down and called a retard. The scientific community is full of opinionated people who will manipulate figures to get the results they want and this goes back to lord Kelvin and beyond.

 

Where were you in Svalbard? I was at Ny Ǻlesund in June and I got the impression that we weren't really welcome. This was their research station and they didn't want a load of tourists tramping around it. Lots of talk about 'delicate plants' and staying on the main pathways yet you could see where they had all been joyriding on their skidoos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disputing you've been there, TDD, as you well know I'm not. But you weren't there 40 years ago, when there was more recorded ice, at the same time of the year. If you don't believe the scientists, you only have to ask the locals.

What locals might they be at the North Pole? Are you ITK with Santa??? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What locals might they be at the North Pole? Are you ITK with Santa??? :o

 

Please, that's unworthy of you. Remember this is the lounge, not TMS. And TDD still hasn't answered the question. Was he there 40 years ago when there was more recorded ice at the same time of the year..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current 'climate' is reminiscent of the religious witchhunts and crusades. The talk is of 'denial' instead of 'disagreement' and anyone who dares to raise a question is howled down and called a retard. The scientific community is full of opinionated people who will manipulate figures to get the results they want and this goes back to lord Kelvin and beyond.

 

I think you will find that the scientific community is very open to alternative theories as long as they have some basis in science and not born through some political agenda. Whilst the world's scientists generally agree with the man made climate change theory there is massive disagreement when it comes to the severity of it and the time-scales involved and there is always a chance that the world's climate will adapt to the increased CO2 and regulate itself.

 

The facts are:

 

CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb more heat from the sun.

 

CO2 and other greenhouse gases are being pumped out in millions of tons a year by us.

 

There has been a sharp increase in temperature in the last half a century which SOMETHING has caused.

 

The recent sharp increase does not tie in with natural variations like solar activity, volcanic activity and changes in earths orbit.

 

The last half a century has seen a massive increase in CO2 due to man.

 

There is a link between CO2 and temperature of the planet.

 

Now if you're a scientist and you can come up with an alternative theory to man made climate change you will win a nobel prize and save every government around the world a fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you will find that the scientific community is very open to alternative theories as long as they have some basis in science and not born through some political agenda. Whilst the world's scientists generally agree with the man made climate change theory there is massive disagreement when it comes to the severity of it and the time-scales involved and there is always a chance that the world's climate will adapt to the increased CO2 and regulate itself.

 

The facts are:

 

CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb more heat from the sun.

 

CO2 and other greenhouse gases are being pumped out in millions of tons a year by us.

 

There has been a sharp increase in temperature in the last half a century which SOMETHING has caused.

 

The recent sharp increase does not tie in with natural variations like solar activity, volcanic activity and changes in earths orbit.

 

The last half a century has seen a massive increase in CO2 due to man.

 

There is a link between CO2 and temperature of the planet.

 

Now if you're a scientist and you can come up with an alternative theory to man made climate change you will win a nobel prize and save every government around the world a fortune.

Sharp rise in temperature??? How sharp?? I want figures, believe me it ain't that sharp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aintforever the earth has cooled and warmed over eternity; sea levels have dropped and risen as well, this is fact. What many of us want is rational debate not being called 'flat earthers' or deniers. Lets face it scientists generally change their minds every ten years anyway. There are many that are financially benefiting from the global warming panic.

 

I am not an expert but I think it is more likely that a disease will get us first - look at swine flu; just think of something more potent. We have a population problem and if you live in the sticks and understand nature you will know that mother nature has a great habit of throwing up a disease to address over population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aintforever the earth has cooled and warmed over eternity; sea levels have dropped and risen as well, this is fact.

 

Of course that is fact, it's also a fact that something caused those things in the past (changes in solar activity, volcanic activity and changes in the Earths orbit).

 

Whilst these things are a mystery to you and me, they are things scientists understand and measure yet not one national body of scientists in the World have come up with a theory to explain the rise other than an increase in CO2.

 

There is always a chance they are wrong but it would be foolish to ignore them considering the possible outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aintforever the earth has cooled and warmed over eternity; sea levels have dropped and risen as well, this is fact. What many of us want is rational debate not being called 'flat earthers' or deniers. Lets face it scientists generally change their minds every ten years anyway. There are many that are financially benefiting from the global warming panic.

 

I am not an expert but I think it is more likely that a disease will get us first - look at swine flu; just think of something more potent. We have a population problem and if you live in the sticks and understand nature you will know that mother nature has a great habit of throwing up a disease to address over population.

 

Nobody with any respect for opinion is calling disputers of HICC retards, or flat earthers. Fact is, look back through this thread and you'll see it's quite the other way, although people are beginning to lose patience. There is plenty to debate, and that debate is about extent of human influence. Nobody is 100% sure, but if precautions are not taken, the Earth will not kindly wait while we catch up. However, if we are cautious, and scientists are wrong, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

 

And loads of people can enjoy themselves by saying told you so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that is fact, it's also a fact that something caused those things in the past (changes in solar activity, volcanic activity and changes in the Earths orbit).

 

Whilst these things are a mystery to you and me, they are things scientists understand and measure yet not one national body of scientists in the World have come up with a theory to explain the rise other than an increase in CO2.

 

There is always a chance they are wrong but it would be foolish to ignore them considering the possible outcome.

Thank you for a more balanced answer. There is considerable debate as to whether CO2 is a leading or lagging indicator, but there are a number of alternative hypotheses which are impossible to evaluate because we can only work with the paramters that we are given. It is not possible, or desirable, to perform experiments on a global scale (although some would say that is exactly what we are doing).

 

In my book solar activity is the more likely culprit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, that's unworthy of you. Remember this is the lounge, not TMS. And TDD still hasn't answered the question. Was he there 40 years ago when there was more recorded ice at the same time of the year..?

Point taken. I think that Greenland samples will be more indicative than the North Pole which is too transitory. The Greenland icecap goes back way further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken. I think that Greenland samples will be more indicative than the North Pole which is too transitory. The Greenland icecap goes back way further.

 

Well the Arctic region is more than just the North Pole. It includes most of Greenland. And thanks for taking the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So in the last 60 odd years the temparature has risen by a massive 0.3 degrees and has leveled off in the last 5. Sea ice has gone up in the last 5 years but scientisits insist the earths temperature will rise by 3,4, 5 degrees in the next 50 years and sea ice will be non-exsistent in the summer, absolute ******.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for a more balanced answer. There is considerable debate as to whether CO2 is a leading or lagging indicator, but there are a number of alternative hypotheses which are impossible to evaluate because we can only work with the paramters that we are given. It is not possible, or desirable, to perform experiments on a global scale (although some would say that is exactly what we are doing).

 

In my book solar activity is the more likely culprit.

 

Solar activity is probably the main influence on the earth's temperature but during the recent warming, the sun has actually decreased in strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what caused the so called "mini ice age" during the medievil times..?

Possibly related to the Maunder Minimum, a period of relatively quiet solar activity. We are coming to the end of an interglacial period which has lasted for about 10,000 years and they tend to last about that long so we may need the CO2 to delay the next ice age. Interesting bit from the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml

 

'in the context of the history of the planet, this is not a normal period... ...more average conditions would be significantly warmer'

'Throughout the history of the Earth it has been unusual to have one polar ice-cap; it is unique for us now to have two of them.'

 

My sympathies are with Bjorn Lomborg. Whatever the possibilities or causes of global warming, we should be spending the money on dealing with it rather than trying to fight it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solar activity is probably the main influence on the earth's temperature but during the recent warming, the sun has actually decreased in strength.

It is remarkably quiet at the moment. We should be building up for lots of sunspots in 2010 and 2011 but they are late arriving.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/15/sunspot-lapse-exceeds-95-of-normal/

 

Not quite unusual yet but it is at the extreme of expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget apogee [furthest] and perigree.

There are all sorts of wobbles. Precession of the axis, nutation, variations in eccentricity. It's only the presence of the moon that keeps it relativley stable. Without a big satellite like the moon and a giant planet to hoover up the asteroids, life on earth would never have evolved because we would have been frozen, fried or squashed long before now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are all sorts of wobbles. Precession of the axis, nutation, variations in eccentricity. It's only the presence of the moon that keeps it relativley stable. Without a big satellite like the moon and a giant planet to hoover up the asteroids, life on earth would never have evolved because we would have been frozen, fried or squashed long before now.

 

That's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice at the poles will not say anything much about conditions in the tropics. It's all part of the overall picture from which we can infer what has probably/possibly/conceivably happened in the past.

 

The world has got a bit warmer in the last couple of decades until about 10 years ago, but that does not a greenhouse make. There are two separate issues here:

 

Is the world getting warmer? - probably. It has been lately but it isn't at the moment.

Is this caused by mankind burning fossil fuels? - some groups think that it might be and say that we ought to stop in case it is.

 

The current 'climate' is reminiscent of the religious witchhunts and crusades. The talk is of 'denial' instead of 'disagreement' and anyone who dares to raise a question is howled down and called a retard. The scientific community is full of opinionated people who will manipulate figures to get the results they want and this goes back to lord Kelvin and beyond.

 

Where were you in Svalbard? I was at Ny Ǻlesund in June and I got the impression that we weren't really welcome. This was their research station and they didn't want a load of tourists tramping around it. Lots of talk about 'delicate plants' and staying on the main pathways yet you could see where they had all been joyriding on their skidoos.

 

No, the ice cores collected at the poles really do tell us interesting things about happened in the tropics, and other parts of the globe - and over several hundred millennia. That's why scientists who study the cores are so interested in them.

 

I was in Svalbard in 1989, I think. I wasn't there as a tourist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been to South America and I've never been to India and the Far East, except Singapore. I have been to Oceania. But do I believe the other bits of the world are there even if I've never been there..? No, I don't. I know they are there, because I respect experts like Captain Cook, Lord Everest, and other notable geographers. The thing is... I don't have to go there to know whether something is true. I can respect the opinion of someone else who is expert enough, so that I don't have to go myself, even if it were possible, or not.

 

And so I can see from collected data that certain things are happening to the Earth, and certain things are not. I don't need to go to the Arctic Circle to realise there is less ice, in extent, thickness and age. Data, I can respect is quite enough.

 

And in any case, It's bloody cold, and I like warm weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember not so many years ago at all we were told that winters were going to be more mild than before due to climate change

 

I look outside and everything is frosted over and it is bloody freezing..

 

hmmmm

 

Well that's the end of it then. Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GREEN TAX WARNING FOR BRITAIN

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147488/Green-tax-warning-for-Britain

 

It's becoming crystal clear that we cannot afford to allow the clueless Socialist Brown another term in government. We are already the sick man of Europe and it is only Browns continuing reliance on adding to our debt mountain that is hiding the reality of our plight. Browns scorched earth policy is clearly designed to give the Tories a difficult time and is a calculated move by that one eyed mong.

 

The Tories need to ditch the political brinkmanship of trying to appeal to the bone idle leftie environmental comrades. Thatcher only jumped on the MMGW bandwagon to wrong foot the lefties over clean nuclear power, now Cameron needs to say what he really thinks and ditch the Socialist instigated climate crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what caused the so called "mini ice age" during the medievil times..?

 

Linked to some major eruptions out in the Far East? Ash in the atmosphere etc.......Maybe ******s but I'm sure I read that somewhere.

 

No doubt that nature dictates the true changes on our planet but you'd have to be very, very thick not to acknowledge that "us" pumping billions of tonnes of sh it into the atmosphere is hardly a good idea, same as poisoning the seas and being reliant on oil and gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Tories need to ditch the political brinkmanship of trying to appeal to the bone idle leftie environmental comrades. Thatcher only jumped on the MMGW bandwagon to wrong foot the lefties over clean nuclear power, now Cameron needs to say what he really thinks and ditch the Socialist instigated climate crusade.

 

LOL at the mong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linked to some major eruptions out in the Far East? Ash in the atmosphere etc.......Maybe ******s but I'm sure I read that somewhere.

 

No doubt that nature dictates the true changes on our planet but you'd have to be very, very thick not to acknowledge that "us" pumping billions of tonnes of sh it into the atmosphere is hardly a good idea, same as poisoning the seas and being reliant on oil and gas.

This one is the more more likely culprit, but volcanic activity also plays a big part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...