|
U-Know! Forum » Record breaking heat |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 09, 2010, 02:32
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Let these people answer for themselves if they have an issue...they dont need the "wise old uncle" to wade in. Fine to make comment...but I am not sure you have the mandate to speak for others in the way you are.. I do hope the irony in this response was deliberate. Your first post on this thread is an insulting message commenting on something PMM said to jshell. You didn't add anything relevant to the debate; merely took it upon yourself to rebuke the tone of one participant in a manner that looks suspiciously like you're assuming a mandate to speak for the other. Personally, I have no desire to be anyone's wise old uncle (unless my sister ever has kids, of course). And I wasn't speaking for anyone, nor seeking a mandate to do so. I was once a regular on this message board and checked up on it after a long absence. I added my thoughts to the discussion by putting forward some, in my view compelling, evidence (though not absolute proof) for the global warming properties of CO2. I then commented upon your behaviour which I thought was rude. I was speaking for myself in both cases.
|
|||
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Aug 09, 2010, 02:54
|
||
whatever..it's over.. get back to your "retirement"..and "ENJOY"
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Aug 10, 2010, 18:50
Aug 10, 2010, 18:46
|
||
|
I suppose we're fortunate that CH4 (methane) emissions have dropped over the last few years, though I'm not sure why. Though that leaves water vapour, the biggest by far, of greenhouse gases. Water vapour gives a massive problem though, it's effects dwarf that of everything else and we can try to model it, but in reality it's far, far too complex to accurately model. Just look at sat pics of earth, it changes hugely randomly! So, CO2, that bad-boy. Is that the crux to all of this? The links you showed would suggest so. But, and this is going to be the problem with all of these arguments, the results shown here seem to say that CO2 absorbtion saturates. If that's true, then CO2 simply cannot be the culprit. http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html Bit of bugger, eh? Physical testing is shown at: http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm they talk of the absorbtion being up to 80-times LESS than climatologists think. Where does that leave us? Not sure yet, I cannot prove the links above are true, can you prove yours? I'm no scientist or climatologist, but I'm suspicious. We can get into, what comes first: CO2 or temperature? Records show that actually CO2 rises follow temperature rises and has done since time immemorial. That's a problem, until the IPCC say: Ah, but no, there's +ve feedback! Say what? Oh, that's a good one, seems to fit if they can prove it! I don't think they can. Why? When CO2 levels have risen in the past, why did the cycle not run away with itself and cook the planet? Did we achieve equilibrium and the planet recover? Looks like it, but then what about now? Parhaps the planet will heat up and recover as it has for millenia! Ah, but no, manmade CO2 is different, that's a game changer! wtf? However, to do that, man made CO2 has to hang around forever. It does, say the IPCC! Not so says this study, it hangs about for less than 20 years: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php They've tried to remove the Mediaeval Warming period from the records to cover it previous warming. But there's too much info and too many studies support the MWP, they're scratching. So, who's right? Simply I don't KNOW, but I'm suspicious, really bloody suspicious. See, it's a great scare. A gas that we cannot see, cannot really distinguish, cannot prove it's knock-on effects for many, many years and it's warming the planet and we're all doomed. But eh planet warms and cools in cycles, but this is DIFFERENT! So, we have to change our whole way of living. Not adapt to a few degC warmer, but change everything and our ways of government, our industry, taxation, the lot. And all along Al Gore makes his first $billion and buys seafront property for millions. He can't 'believe', or his house will be swept away... A lot of people are making shit-loads of cash out of this. Fcking shitloads. I've got a guy calls me on a weekly basis to sell me open-ended CC's. I may just buy some. Still no-one metions Antarctica. Why's it not melting? I'm rambling now. Yup, still suspicious. You should be too.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Aug 10, 2010, 21:01
Aug 10, 2010, 20:59
|
||
|
The British Antarctic Survey reckon that two different anthropogenic causes are cancelling each other out in the continent's interior, (global warming and the ozone hole) but that it's a different story around the edges. Here's what it says... The British Antarctic Survey wrote: It is widely accepted that climate change as a result of human activity, is real, happening now and will have an impact of everyone and everything on the Earth. Antarctica, and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, affects our whole planet through its influence on the Earth’s climate system. Understanding Antarctica’s role in climate change is not only a huge scientific challenge but also an urgent priority for society
What makes Antarctica so important? The vast, ice-covered Polar Regions are like a global thermostat that regulates the Earth’s climate system. The whiteness of the ice sheets help cool the atmosphere by reflecting heat from the Sun; the darkness of the polar oceans absorbs heat from the sun. Ice cold, salty water from the surface drops into the deep oceans to drive the ocean currents that carry heat around the globe. The Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica is a natural ‘sink’ that absorbs the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists know that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown and shrunk over geological history. Recent analysis of Antarctic ice cores reveal that during the last 800,000 years the Earth experienced eight glacial cycles (each with an ice age and warm period). Understanding this natural rhythm helps scientists get a better picture of what’s happening to the Earth’s climate today and what might happen in the future. So is Antarctica really melting? The majority of long-term measurements from Antarctic research stations show no significant warming or cooling trends, and temperatures over most of the continent have been relatively stable over the past few decades. The effects of the ozone hole have shielded much of the Antarctic continent from the impact of ‘global warming’. Does the Ozone Hole affect Antarctic climate? We now know that the Antarctic ozone hole has had a profound effect on the Antarctic climate that extends far beyond increasing the levels of ultra-violet radiation. As stratospheric ozone amounts have fallen, temperatures above the continent have also dropped. This creates a bigger temperature difference between the tropics and the Antarctic which affects global weather patterns. For example, since 1980 the strength of winds over the Southern Ocean has increased by about 15%. What about reports about Antarctica melting? It is a very different story on the Antarctic Peninsula — the long mountainous landmass that projects from the main continent. Climate records from the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula show that temperatures in this region have risen by nearly 3°C during the last 50 years — about five times the global average, and only matched in Alaska and Siberia. British Antarctic Survey research has shown also that near-surface sea temperatures to the west of the Peninsula have risen by over 1°C over a similar period. It is now accepted that the waters of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current are warming more rapidly than the global ocean as a whole. Is human activity warming Antarctica? Experiments with climate models suggest that human activity has contributed to temperature changes observed across Antarctica, including the rapid warming on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. However, these changes also reflect natural factors, such as variations in volcanic dust in the atmosphere and changes in the energy output of the Sun. But the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula is very sensitive to climate change. Stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, were responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the well-publicised retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf. In October 2006, the first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of northern Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves was reported in the Journal of Climate. What’s the evidence? The ozone hole and global warming have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2km-high mountain chain. On summer days when this happens temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5°C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002. What next? It is important that society and political leaders have access to the best scientific evidence and understanding of the likely scale and impact of global climate change. Attributing observed changes to either natural environmental events or to human activity requires reliable observations of past and present climate. A great deal of international effort is focused on using and improving sophisticated climate models that will analyse results of experiments and help determine future change. Factfile * Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by these natural events. * There is growing evidence that a large part of the recently observed rapid change is driven by human activity. * The lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was −89°C * The temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by almost 3°C in the last 50 years causing some of the smaller ice shelves to melt * Around 30 countries operate Antarctica research stations where scientists study global environmental issues like climate change, ozone depletion and sustainable management of marine life.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Aug 11, 2010, 01:28
|
||
|
And actually, this is both a cause for hope and a cause for concern. The Ozone hole happened because of the use of CFCs and other materials. Concerted action globally by national governments has made a significant impact on the level of such pollutants in the environment (although it may take quite a while for the ones already released to disapear). So such change is possible. The concern? As levels of CFCs diminish, and the ozone hole shrinks, it may exascerbate the effects of global warming, and given the amount of ice locked up down ther, the shit really could hit the fan.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Aug 11, 2010, 08:23
|
||
|
And all of it is: maybe, reckoned, could be, might be, contribute to. That's my point. It could also be a natural cycle as has happened before many, many, many times. Explain the MWP ... The IPCC are desperate to cover it over (that can be seen in the climategate e-mails) because temperatures were higher than today... But, THEY tell us it's different this time. Perhaps it is, they haven't proven it yet.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Aug 11, 2010, 11:47
Aug 11, 2010, 11:31
|
||
|
Why not go drive your car the wrong way up a motorway? It can't be proved absolutely conclusively that you'll have a high speed collision. The consequences of allowing climate change to reach a point where feedback mechanisms take matters beyond our control are potentially cataclysmic. From what I understand, the speed of change is critical to the survival and adaptation of many species, including our own. Natural change, excepting meteors and vulcanism, tends to happen over thousands of years, giving species time to adapt. We're like a supervolcano, constantly erupting now for over a century. As far as the Medieval Warm Period goes, the IPCC has mentioned the MWP in each of the reports it's published. The IPCC defines it as "An interval between AD 1000 and 1300 in which some Northern Hemisphere regions were warmer than during the Little Ice Age that followed." It was not a global phenomenon, and average global temperatures were not warmer than they are today.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Aug 11, 2010, 12:04
|
||
|
And according to this link: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php There are data published by 859 individual scientists from 511 separate research institutions in 43 different countries (and counting) to support the MWP being warmer than today. The IPCC is a political organisation who's stated purpose is to look at the effects of AGW. It's not there to look at 'if' there is AGW, it takes AGW as a given. There's no impartiality and they have been proven wrong, time and time again with many embarrasing retractions. Simply, the IPCC started off biased and will continue. I would prefer unbiased refrences... If yo only look at the IPCC, you'll only get one side of the story.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Aug 11, 2010, 18:20
|
||
|
jshell wrote: I know Merrick will give me 100 links to prove AGW I've done that, repeatedly, because authoritative sources of information validate a position. jshell wrote: but all that's been proven is that we are warming. More has been proven than that. We are warming faster than at any time for many millennia, that the global average temperature is higher than at any point for many millennia, and that this rise is exactly in line with what we'd expect given the consensus about the effect of greenhouse gases and the addition of them to the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuels. jshell wrote: The IPCC is a political organisation who's stated purpose is to look at the effects of AGW. It's not there to look at 'if' there is AGW, it takes AGW as a given. It's there to collate all the available reliable evidence so there can be a credible source of information. This is not the same as trying to enforce a perspective; where there is little evidence for an impact, or it is less than expected, they say so. Additionally, as it's a group process, it tends to dilute its conclusions in order to ensure consensus. jshell wrote: they have been proven wrong, time and time again with many embarrasing retractions. There have been numerous mistakes, which is not unlikely in documents thousands of pages long that, in turn, rely on thousands of inputs. the difference between the IPCC and the denialists is that the IPCC acknowledge mistakes and correct them. This is common in scientific endeavour. And here we come to the stuff that reveals you as a denier. You keep repeating stuff that has been disproven. In an exchange on this subject last year, you said it was unproven that CO2 affects global temperature. So I gave you a link that shows how to prove CO2's greenhouse properties, with stuff you can find in your kitchen, in terms understandable by under-10s http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm Unless you have some theory as to why CO2 behaves differently in the atmosphere, I'd have thought that showed you. This is, as Grufty Jim's explained on this thread, a piece of established uncontroversial climate science that pre-dates anyone's ideas about climate change. And yet now you're saying jshell wrote: there is no hard, proveable, repeatable evidence that Global Warming is caused by CO2. jshell wrote: I cannot prove the links above are true, can you prove yours? I'm no scientist or climatologist I'm not a scientist of climatologist either. But neither am I an engineer. If there were a hundred engineers saying a bridge was unsafe and one or two saying I should cross it, I'd not start walking. There is a vast swathe of reliable science out there - stuff that's been peer-reviewed, subjected to the scrutiny of those whose work reinforces or challenges it - and it all points one way. Thousands of published papers. Show me one that says anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. Just one. jshell wrote: A gas that we cannot see, cannot really distinguish No, you're just wrong. Once again. We can readily distinguish it, which is why you can buy it in canisters, and why we're able to give readings of its presence down to a single part per million. jshell wrote: cannot prove it's knock-on effects for many, many years Yes we can. We're already seeing changes, such as rainfall patterns changing in eastern Africa or flood frequency increasing in Bangladesh, that are exactly in line with what was predicted. jshell wrote: But eh planet warms and cools in cycles, but this is DIFFERENT! Yes it is. As I explained to you last year: The CO2 emitted from natural sources has been balanced by the amount absorbed (largely by plants and oceans). Thus, the amount in the atmosphere remained stable since the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago (between 260 and 280 parts per million). Since the beginning of industrial times 200 years ago we have burned a lot of fossil fuels (emitting CO2) and cut down a lot of forests (preventing emissions being absorbed). Now CO2 is at 387 parts per million - an increase of nearly 40% - and the rate of emission is rising fast. It's like overspending your income by 5 percent a month, and keeping upping it even as your overdraft level decreases. Now imagine your rate of overspend is increasing all the time. What would your bank account look like in 20 years? jshell wrote: Not adapt to a few degC warmer Do you understand what that's saying? At even 3 degrees increase - the middle of what's projected for this century - we're looking at massive crop failures, meaning mass starvation, tropical diseases spreading into new territories, glacier melt accelerating that dries the lands that feed huge swathes of humanity. How would you say we 'adapt' to that? and would it be easier than switching to a low-carbon society that is entirely possible? jshell wrote: the planet is warming as expected, been warmer before: MWP No, you're just wrong. The best we can tell from this remived point in time is that it was warm then but not as warm as now. jshell wrote: although the IPCC have tried to cover it over No, you're just wrong, again. The IPCC are very clear about the MWP and what we know about it. jshell wrote: They've tried to remove the Mediaeval Warming period from the records to cover it Where is there any credible suggestion that the IPCC (or whoever you mean by 'they') tried to remove the MWP from the records? jshell wrote: There are data published by 859 individual scientists from 511 separate research institutions in 43 different countries (and counting) to support the MWP being warmer than today. I can find you more that say there's no link between smoking and cancer, or between HIV and AIDS. The question is not whether we can find scientists who say something but how robust their evidence is. Where's the peer-reviewed papers that say MWP was warmer? jshell wrote: what comes first: CO2 or temperature? Records show that actually CO2 rises follow temperature rises and has done since time immemorial. You said this last year too, but in less equivocal terms then - - "CO2 follows temp, not temp following CO2", and I said: Temperature and CO2 levels rise in tandem; they tend to feed one another. Warmer temperatures lead to less sea ice, melting permafrost, forests drying out. Less sea ice means the matter on the ocean floor warms (releasing methane), permafrost melts (releasing methane), dead forests burn (releasing their carbon), this increases the greenhouse effect, leading to warmer temperatures, leading to greater emissions, etc. It's called 'positive feedback', and the tipping point for it to start feeding itself in a way we cannot stop is widely held at 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. This is why the carbon cuts made now are so important. jshell wrote: there's +ve feedback! Say what? Oh, that's a good one, seems to fit Yes, it seems to fit the evidence presented. It's a common trait among things that are happening. jshell wrote: if they can prove it! I don't think they can. You're simply wrong, and I suggest you read what the IPCC say before pronouncing on what they've proven. Are you really saying that less polar ice - replacing vast areas of white area with dark - won't affect the earth's reflective ability? (Again, the answer is provable with stuff you find at home to the under-10s). Are you really saying that heating permafrost peat bogs won't - as is already being observed - make them melt then dry? And that drying won't make them decay, releasing their carbon? (Again, ditto, with a lump of peat). The permafrost of the West Siberian peat bog, which began melting five years ago, contains carbon equivalent to over 70 years of human carbon emissions. Is it rally that hard to understand how that works? jshell wrote: When CO2 levels have risen in the past, why did the cycle not run away with itself and cook the planet? Some of the causes - solar activity, changes in the earth's orbit, etc - may have abated. Some of the feedbacks triggered run their course. This time we're continually adding to the CO2 on top of it all. jshell wrote: Did we achieve equilibrium and the planet recover? Yes, if you mean 'we' in the sense of the whole planet. But if you mean 'we' in the sense of humans (had we be around then) then the answer's no. The volcanic eruptions that ended the Permian period 250 million years ago were a massive outpouring of CO2 that caused a six degree increase in temperature. The vast majority of specied were wiped out, and the planet was uninhabitable to anything like humans for tens of millions of years. 'Save the planet' is the most ludicrous slogan ever conceived. The planet will survive us all perfectly well. It can change temperature and sea level wildly, and one form of life will give way to another. However, the species presently here - including us - are reliant on it staying within a pretty narrow set of parameters. So to go and fuck with that when we have other options is as stupid an idea as we could have.
|
|||
carlyclub 128 posts |
Aug 11, 2010, 18:54
|
||
Hmm, doesn't that site have some sort of alleged connection to the Greening Earth Society (Western Fuels Association)? And hasn't it taken money from Exxon Mobil?
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
