View Full Version : global warming, who's right?
This is coming to you from sunny, downtown Toronto where we are drinking lattes in open air cafes and considering going for a dip in the lake.
And if you believe that .... well, check out the awful reality..
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_20265.aspx.
That is funny
The city survived its latest blast from Old Man Winter, with as much as 10-15 centimetres of snow
Back in 1972, my Canadian relatives said that snowfalls of 2' were not unusual. It seems to me the frog in Al Gore's pan of water isn't feeling the heat yet....:D
Cinderella's Shoe
06-Mar-08, 00:04
There is no global warming - its all a plan by governments to tax us all more.
North America has just having it's coldest winter for 30 years. The latest on Antarctica is that it is unlikely it will be affected to anywhere near the degree previously predicted.
The tales of horror about Hurricanes, their frequency and their strength also need putting into perspective. It would appear that the rain produced by Hurricane conditions has a slightly different make up from normal rain because of the way it is created. The stronger the Hurricane, the greater the difference. Scientists have been checking trees, which apparently record the differences in the rain, along the east Coast of America. They have discovered that over three to four hundred years ago, before Europeans had arrived in large numbers, it was quite common for Hurricanes to regularly reach further north than New York.
Hurricanes are currently measured on a scale reaching Category Five. The indication from the tree samples is that if those conditions return, and there is no reason why they shouldn’t, a rethink of the Categories will probably have to be made. It seems that during that time Category five is a totally inadequate measure and the range will probably have to be increased to six or seven and may be possibly eight or even nine.
Two Thousand Years ago, when the Romans didn’t manage to stray into Scotland, southern England was warm enough to be noted as a wine growing area.
A Thousand Years ago, when the Norsemen went a Viking, Greenland was quite habitable for them because then climate was again a good bit warmer than now. Eventually the climate turned cool again and the colony there was wiped out as a result.
Going back even further, 200,000 years ago the climate in southern England was such that there were rhinos and elephants. Along with them there were snails which now are found only around the River Nile.
All I can think is that those early hunter gatherers who live in Britain at that time must have done an awful lot of flying round the world looking for juicy berries to eat. Their carbon Footprint must have been horrific!
The problem with computer predictions is that if you fiddle with the information you feed in for long enough you will end up with the result you wish to find.
The acronym is GIGO, Garbage in, Garbage out! And there is an awful lot of Garbage coming out at present.
The problem with computer predictions is that if you fiddle with the information you feed in for long enough you will end up with the result you wish to find.
The acronym is GIGO, Garbage in, Garbage out! And there is an awful lot of Garbage coming out at present.
Computer climate models don't need to be completely accurate to give decision makers the overall climate trends and effects. If there was a 1% chance that you would be involved in a car crash then you would wear a seatbelt. Since the IPCC are claiming a 90% certainty that global warming is mostly anthropogenic then why is it that climate sceptics are clinging on to that iffy 10%?:confused
Whitewater
06-Mar-08, 01:43
We have mini climate changes approx. every 600 years or so. 'Jaws' is correct. In Greenland the early Viking settlements were wiped out in approx 1400 with the coming of the mini Ice Age. This is now the 21st century, we are now due another change, and there is not much man can do about it. We can build as many windmills as we like, eleminate all carbon discharges and it will not make any difference. However, the Government has given us a cute phrase - 'Carbon footprint', I guess we should all applaud them for that, but big or small or none at all, the size of the footprint will make no difference.
It is well known that climate has changed in the past, as seen at the end of the last ice age and the warm spells in the medievel period. We don't need to tell palaeoclimatologists anything that they don't know already...:roll:
But the big question isn't 'Hasn't climate changed before?' Of course it has. The really big question is 'What is changing the climate today?'
Neil Howie
06-Mar-08, 20:21
What is going on? -
every time we get a really cold or really hot day someone will shout CLIMATE CHANGE at the top of their lungs.
It isn't about one off events, but an average of what's happening.
In any event, levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 430,000 year.
Take a deep breath.
That's an interesting stat - 430,000 years ago. I suppose it is either that, or for a second choice, 1932.
Seriously though where did you get that figure?
If perhaps you don't happen to agree with the 'millions of years old' theories of the earth, then the climate change happening today it neither surprising or unexpected.
Take any of the CO2 charts, knock off 500,000 years and you get a straight line increase which mates the increase in the human population.
Whether or not I agree with the supposed causes behind the climate change is totally irrelevant.
I just so happens to help me sell more micro wind turbines! MWhahahah![lol]
Whitewater
07-Mar-08, 16:50
[QUOTE=Neil Howie;353297
In any event, levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 430,000 year.
Take a deep breath.[/QUOTE]
Intresting figure, could be correct, I don't know, and I'm not in the mood for doing a web search at the moment.
The eruption which wiped Krakatoa of the face of the earth in the late 1800s must have left an awful lot of carbon in the air, and also the earlier eruption of Sumbawa in 1815 (I think) caused global cooling a year later, (1816 if my date for the eruption is correct)
I think this earlier eruption was bigger than Krakatoa, but I'm not sure. However, both of these explosions must have put a pretty good tonage af carbon into the atmosphere (both particle and gas).
I recall in my distant past reading an article on carbon in the atmosphere and the present time is fairly low compared to some of the levels traced, but at the moment I'm not too sure of the actual dates of the higher readings and as geological time makes us all feel so unimportant and insignificant it may have been hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.
Just interested in where you got your figures Neil.
Whitewater
07-Mar-08, 17:01
Burning of fossile fuels is the bad boy that gets all the blame. Unfortunately nobody shouts about the felling of the rain forest, which in my school days were known as the lungs of the earth. We are loosing millions of acres of rain forest every year, (It could be much more than that,) and this has been going on for many years.
The more CO2 we produce, our capacity for converting it back is being is being reduced daily. It is a vicious and deadly circle, is it not?
The eruption which wiped Krakatoa of the face of the earth in the late 1800s must have left an awful lot of carbon in the air.
Must? How did you come to that conclusion?:confused
And where is your certainty that the amounts of CO2 that you think were emitted by the eruption should have increased global temperatures?:confused
Penelope Pitstop
07-Mar-08, 17:06
That's an interesting stat - 430,000 years ago. I suppose it is either that, or for a second choice, 1932.
Seriously though where did you get that figure?
I seem to remember hearing something about this on breakfast telly this morning.
Whitewater
07-Mar-08, 17:13
Rhegers, I read an article in a book review magazine. The title I think is 'Lost Kingdom' not too sure of the author but 'Noble' or 'Wilford' rings a bell.
If you get a chance you can probably google that title and names and see what comes up.
Rhegers, I read an article in a book review magazine. The title I think is 'Lost Kingdom' not too sure of the author but 'Noble' or 'Wilford' rings a bell.
If you get a chance you can probably google that title and names and see what comes up.
That is interesting, however, no single volcanic reaction so far has had a discernable effect on carbon dioxide concentrations, hence, global temperatures due to the effects of global warming.
However, it is true that a single volcanic eruption can have a global effect on temperature due the totally different mechanism which is attributed to 'Global Cooling/Dimming'. This effect has only a short effect and is seen to last for just a few years depending on the composition of the ash etc.
Once the dust has cleared, the temperature-increases recover to their original trend.
Here's a good site which reports both sides in the increasingly insane exchanges between alarmists and deniers.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
Here's a good site which reports both sides in the increasingly insane exchanges between alarmists and deniers.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
That site is all well and good but scientific debates are conducted totally different to socio-political debates. Which perhaps explains why non-scientists fail to comprehend climate change data via open forums on the internet. I hasten to add that climate denying tactics rely heavily on socio-political debating rather than scientific debating, thus the ordinary layman is naturally drawn to that style of debate, irrespective of the underlying merits of the issue being debated.
Whitewater
09-Mar-08, 01:33
I have just arrived back home this evening after being at two brilliant meetings, one Friday evening and the other Saturday afternoon, two great dinners and copious quantities of red wine and malt whiskey. (I must add that the meetings had nothing to do with climate change) But perhaps the amount of wind spouted may contribute in a small way.
However, I've taken a look at this thread to see what has become of it. I am not going to say much more except go into a little local history.
My mother if she were alive today would be 102/3. She lived with her parents and brothers and sisters on a farm in the Gillock area. When she talked to us as children, she always told us about her adventures when she was a young girl. The most exciting event (to her ) always seemed to be taking a short cut to Watten with the pony for supplies. This short cut was across the loch which was frozen over. The ice must have been quite thick as they had no fear of either themselves or the pony going through it.
I can't ever, in my living memory recall loch watten being frozen to that extent. I have seen ice on it in my younger days, but nothing that would ever induce me to walk on it. I also recall when I was about 8 or 9 yrs old going to school in Miller Academy. I used to live in Grove lane, and we always walked by Mackenzies paper shop. (Maggie Malcolms as it was called in those days). There was a mercury thermometer mounted on the outside wall, this particular day, I think in November, the mercury had disappeared from sight, the lowest temperature recorded on it was 0o F (can't get that zero to superscript) It was very cold and was the lowest temperature I can remember.
All I'm trying to say with this is that it is obviously becoming warmer. The reason??? well I guess we can debate that until the cows come home.
The site that Rich refered us to is interesting but does not come to any conclusions either, just lets us know the debate can go on forever.
After my first few lines on this post you may perhaps think I have had one or two too many, but I'm just mellow, and at the moment unable to get to sleep.
Neil Howie
11-Mar-08, 20:16
Hello, info on
" In any event, levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 430,000 years"
can be found at the suspiciously official Met office...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
And yes I agree with Whitewater's comment that
Unfortunately nobody shouts about the felling of the rain forest, which in my school days were known as the lungs of the earth.
Presumably, things will get worse before they get better.
gillian17
11-Mar-08, 21:39
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide appear to follow any increase in temperature although there is not enough evidence to state that as fact.
However, I and possibly one or two out there will remember an immenent ice age circa 1973.
The most comprehensive temperature records are kept, and freely available from the Gossard Institute of Space Studies (Google GISS) and register no increase in temperature since (from memory) 1880.
The average world temperature dropped 0.75 degrees Celcius in January, (The largest year on year drop ever), it snowed in Saudi Arabia and on Greek beaches.
The Antarctic ice shelf is the largest, in January, since satellite records began in 1982.
The Pentagon, which at times is I know even more stupid than Gordon Brown, has plans for a five degree drop in temperture in the Northern Hemisphere. That may or may not be a consequence of global warming/cooling.
Anyone, and this includes me, who tells they have any idea is a liar.
Sapphire2803
11-Mar-08, 22:34
Here's an interesting link (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html) to a Michael Crichton speech on global warming.
Makes you think that's for sure.
I would highly recommend reading his book 'State of fear'
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide appear to follow any increase in temperature although there is not enough evidence to state that as fact.
Even so, this must be even more worrying from an anthropogenic global warming aspect, if true. Since carbon dioxide emissions are increasing global temperatures and it is increased global temperatures that turn carbon dioxide sinks into emitters then that is when the Earth has crossed a tipping point.
I would highly recommend reading his book 'State of fear'
I've read it and I had a lot of fun on another forum presenting his 'data' as facts to debunk the global warming debate. I knew the data in his book was misrepresented but I still had a few posters clambering for google and wiki et al.[lol]
Neil Howie
11-Mar-08, 22:57
However, I and possibly one or two out there will remember an immenent ice age circa 1973.
Do you think that claims of global cooling in the 70s are being exagerated (perish the thought) in the current *cough* climate by the *other* side?
In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Slightly under 10% of published scientific papers including climactic predictions predicted that this trend would continue, while most papers predicted future warming.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#_note-The_Myth_of_the_1970s_Global_Cooling_Scientific_Co nsensus)
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
skinnydog
16-Apr-08, 18:50
I'm beginning to think there may be something in this climate change after all. Four months ago it was very cold and now it's getting warmer.
What do you think!
I'm beginning to think there may be something in this climate change after all. Four months ago it was very cold and now it's getting warmer.
What do you think!
Getting warmer?!! I was down town today and met four brass monkeys. The north wind has been as cold this month as I have ever felt it in April.
lovely drying day though :D
A Thousand Years ago, when the Norsemen went a Viking, Greenland was quite habitable for them because then climate was again a good bit warmer than now. Eventually the climate turned cool again and the colony there was wiped out as a result.
Don't forget that a contributing factor to the colony's being wiped out was its inability to adapt. They Norse clung to their European diet, style of dress, etc., and wore fashionable Mediaeval clothes of thin loosely woven wool rather than live like the "savages" (the Inuit) who dressed in long trousers and parkas of sealskin and furs, and presumably ate lots of blubber. They also wore out very quickly what bit of arable land there was around their colony and didn't learn to hunt.
That's an interesting stat - 430,000 years ago. I suppose it is either that, or for a second choice, 1932.
Seriously though where did you get that figure?
I couldn't help but laugh at that. 1932 was the year my mother was born. She used to fart a lot. Maybe she was to blame for global warming!
We, (my sibling's and I), were worried about having her cremated when she died but in the event it all went okay.
Bill Fernie
22-Apr-08, 00:38
I have just arrived back home this evening after being at two brilliant meetings, one Friday evening and the other Saturday afternoon, two great dinners and copious quantities of red wine and malt whiskey. (I must add that the meetings had nothing to do with climate change) But perhaps the amount of wind spouted may contribute in a small way.
However, I've taken a look at this thread to see what has become of it. I am not going to say much more except go into a little local history.
My mother if she were alive today would be 102/3. She lived with her parents and brothers and sisters on a farm in the Gillock area. When she talked to us as children, she always told us about her adventures when she was a young girl. The most exciting event (to her ) always seemed to be taking a short cut to Watten with the pony for supplies. This short cut was across the loch which was frozen over. The ice must have been quite thick as they had no fear of either themselves or the pony going through it.
I can't ever, in my living memory recall loch watten being frozen to that extent. I have seen ice on it in my younger days, but nothing that would ever induce me to walk on it. I also recall when I was about 8 or 9 yrs old going to school in Miller Academy. I used to live in Grove lane, and we always walked by Mackenzies paper shop. (Maggie Malcolms as it was called in those days). There was a mercury thermometer mounted on the outside wall, this particular day, I think in November, the mercury had disappeared from sight, the lowest temperature recorded on it was 0o F (can't get that zero to superscript) It was very cold and was the lowest temperature I can remember.
All I'm trying to say with this is that it is obviously becoming warmer. The reason??? well I guess we can debate that until the cows come home.
The site that Rich refered us to is interesting but does not come to any conclusions either, just lets us know the debate can go on forever.
After my first few lines on this post you may perhaps think I have had one or two too many, but I'm just mellow, and at the moment unable to get to sleep.
Re Loch Watten frozen over comment. I have a photo on the web site http://www.caithness.org/atoz/watten/lochwatten.htm this was January 2001 and although the photo does not really show the ice that day it was quite thick although I would not like to have tested it in the middle. Howver it does show that Loch Watten does freeze over from time to time. I am not always there on very cold days so maybe it happens more often. Someone living nearby may comment.
Neil Howie
27-Apr-08, 22:54
Let me repeat, there is a difference between weather and climate.
I don't give two monkeys if it was jolly cold/warm last year at the end of my garden path and horribly cold/warm this year at the end of my garden path.
We are trying to measure global warming.
It is an incredibly difficult thing to forecast, but, we must come up with more accurate measurements in order to discern the state of things as they were and as they are. And maybe predict how they will be...
Let me repeat, there is a difference between weather and climate.
I don't give two monkeys if it was jolly cold/warm last year at the end of my garden path and horribly cold/warm this year at the end of my garden path.
We are trying to measure global warming.
It is an incredibly difficult thing to forecast, but, we must come up with more accurate measurements in order to discern the state of things as they were and as they are. And maybe predict how they will be...
It's quite simple to predict how bad/good things will be, just use the following equation.
A multiplied by B minus C divided by Y
A= The number of 'specialist's' with an agenda
B= The funds need by governments to continue with their lifestyle and pay for illegal immigrants to live here
C= The truth that isn't told to us
Y= You the tax payer
Come up with any answer you like 'cos you'll always be wrong and the 'specialist's' and Government will be right.
Here is my prediction:
For the next 200,000 years the weather will be change-able and we will be taxed more.
Here is my prediction:
For the next 200,000 years the weather will be change-able and we will be taxed more.
Nah, give 'em no reason to tax us more and the climate will be the same year in, year out.
the_count
28-Apr-08, 00:51
So if we want a warm summer and a cold winter we have to pay more/less taxes depending who's in power and if it rains it because we haven't paid for enough illegal immigrants to come into the country .......... EUREKA!!!!! And who says education doesn't pay lol :lol:
The earth will go through it's cycles without our help, generations will come and go and the earth will still be here. If we are to die out then it won't matter in the great scheme of things.
I quit smoking, I don't drink and I traded in my V8 Jaguar (how I miss it) for a 2ltr diesel Rover. I have a 7 mile journey to work but need the car because I start work at 5am.
The first bus is 6.45 which takes a circuitous trip to Reading, 12 miles away where I then change for a bus to Newbury, a further 5 mile trip and that has a stop 1 mile from work. So I have a trip of 18 miles, 1 1/2 hrs travelling and I'm very late for work.
So although I do care about global warming and don't know who to believe I still have to eat and this government, like the previous and the future will still tax me to death for the privilege of listening to their lies.[mad]
I quit smoking, I don't drink and I traded in my V8 Jaguar (how I miss it) for a 2ltr diesel Rover. I have a 7 mile journey to work but need the car because I start work at 5am.
The first bus is 6.45 which takes a circuitous trip to Reading, 12 miles away where I then change for a bus to Newbury, a further 5 mile trip and that has a stop 1 mile from work. So I have a trip of 18 miles, 1 1/2 hrs travelling and I'm very late for work.
So although I do care about global warming and don't know who to believe I still have to eat and this government, like the previous and the future will still tax me to death for the privilege of listening to their lies.[mad]Does it really matter? You are going to die having not had much influence on the earth. I think we as a people reckon we are way more important than we really are.
I'm under no illusion that I'm not important in the grand scheme of life on earth. I'm only here for a short time and trying to enjoy it the best I can. What get's my goat is being fed lies by government's and those with a vested interest in the environment.
The Government blames us all for the state of the planet and tax us more, telling us to use smaller cars etc. yet they continue to use gas guzzler's as official vehicles-double standards methinks. They are using the environment as an excuse to pay for their expensive lifestyle, second house's, furniture and generous pension's. Let's hit the taxpayer.
Those with a vested interest include university departments and the environmental lobbyist's that continue to carry out 'studies' of the environment-all things that require funding and the money has to come from somewhere. Let's hit the taxpayer
As soon as you mention certain buzzword's that seem to have crept into everyday language-green awareness, global warming, carbon footprint etc. then you can bet your last buck that we are going to be taxed more.
The earth is still coming out of an ice-age, that is why the planet and seas are warming up. With the seas warming they absorb less CO2, thereby causing a greenhouse effect. It takes eon's for that to happen but it's coincided with modern man being more aware of his surrounding's and his greed. Those in power don't look at both side's of the argument, they just listen to 'educated' people that want to keep their uni departments open or environmental focus groups who need funding. Treble's all round guy's!
So as much as I care about this beautiful planet, I care more about the short time I have on it and the fact I and many other's don't have a voice in parliament to say that maybe thing's aren't as bad as they are made out to be.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.