|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2009 23:46:40 GMT
I made a few answers.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2009 23:48:01 GMT
Zero contributions from man? Man is not producing ANY greenhouse gases? If you look closely there is a very thin blue line to the right of the green wedge Yes yes yes, I've already conceded this point despite my fears that it's the thin end of the wedge!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2009 23:49:26 GMT
I don't know what that chart means. It just says that CO2 and temperature are partnered. You are no Sandy. Yes, partnered for the past 100.000 years! A long and happy relationship that will not be destroyed by squawking MMGW alarmists and shiesters out to tax you until you bleed white. (and no, I'm no Sandy, lovely bloke he may be, but he's totally deluded with odd Gaiarist/tree molesting tendencies). AH I thought that CO2 and Temperatures being linked were making the argument FOR global warming.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2009 23:49:57 GMT
...and the pie never lies! AH Pie is very bad for you, I don't like pies anymore. Anyways, wiki says: so the pie still lies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasand that in the past, volcanic activity played a greater role in CO 2 and temperature balance but that now: and that: Which backs up what I was telling you about balance and the industrial revolution! (No, I haven't been sitting in wiki editing the entry all evening! ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 12, 2009 23:59:40 GMT
Yes, partnered for the past 100.000 years! A long and happy relationship that will not be destroyed by squawking MMGW alarmists and shiesters out to tax you until you bleed white. (and no, I'm no Sandy, lovely bloke he may be, but he's totally deluded with odd Gaiarist/tree molesting tendencies). AH I thought that CO2 and Temperatures being linked were making the argument FOR global warming. The fact is that they are NOT linked in a regular and unvarying way whereas solar activity and global temperature ARE. That's a pretty good argument IMHO for at least reserving judgement rather than rushing to it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 13, 2009 0:06:13 GMT
Who is rushing?
People have been talking about climate change, global warming and man's part in it for decades.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 13, 2009 0:11:16 GMT
I thought that CO2 and Temperatures being linked were making the argument FOR global warming. The fact is that they are NOT linked in a regular and unvarying way whereas solar activity and global temperature ARE. That's a pretty good argument IMHO for at least reserving judgement rather than rushing to it. Ok, and you said in the OP that "the correlation of CO2 with temperature is RANDOM and NOT invariant." so do we have charts that show a better match (solar-temp)than the one Alph stuck up (co2-temp)?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 8:28:54 GMT
The gases have been around for THOUSANDS of years and the temperatures have gone up and down throughout that time. 100,000 years ago we had massively hot periods; we had several Ice Ages (the most recent ended about 10,000 years ago); the temperature was hotter under the ancient Egyptians, the Roman times, around 500 AD, and between 1100-1500 AD. It's also a fact that the HOTTEST years in the 20th century (except for the El Nino aberration) coincided with the LOWEST periods of CO2 emissions. There IS an exact and unvarying relationship between solar activity and global temperatures; there is an inexact and variable relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. Those are scientific FACTS and I'm still waiting for answers to my questions. So far Skylark has only attempted to answer ONE of my points. I'm not some moron who doesn't think we should be ecologically minded and try to harvest and steward our resources rather than blindly exploit them. On the other hand, the same 'experts' who were CERTAIN in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s that we were heading for a new Ice Age were wrong. So too are the global warming 'experts.' Far too many of these claims have NOTHING to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with ideology. I did give a link that might help to answer some of the others in your earlier post... I just gave an answer to the "easy " one . Is there "an exact and unvarying relationship between solar activity and global temperatures; there is an inexact and variable relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures?" I can't find any site that says this. I'm actually interested in finding out more about temperatures in the past - say in Roman times - but again haven't been able to find any on line, or at least none that gives enough detail to assess whether temperature changes then were as great as they are now. I do know that Northern Europe in the 13th century (I think - might have been the 12th or 14th!) had terrible weather that badly affected human population, and have a vague idea that scientists have provided a reason for it . If you could give some sources I'd be interested, because it is difficult to answer "facts" without them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 8:34:55 GMT
My second link in post 41 says this about the cooling in the 1960s:
"During the 1960s, weather experts found that over the past couple of decades the trend had shifted to cooling. With a new awareness that climate could change in serious ways, many scientists predicted a continued cooling, perhaps a phase of a long natural cycle or perhaps caused by human pollution of the atmosphere with smog and dust. Others insisted that the effects of such pollution were temporary, and humanity's emission of greenhouse gases would bring warming over the long run. This group's views became predominant in the late 1970s. As global warming resumed it became clear that the cooling spell (mainly a Northern Hemisphere effect) had indeed been a temporary distraction. When the rise continued into the 21st century with unprecedented scope, scientists recognized that it signaled a profound change in the climate system. "
So (if you believe it!) ever since the 1970s the "predominant" view was that we were moving towards warming.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 13, 2009 11:44:35 GMT
Maybe it all comes down to the fact that the weather and climate have changed constantly over thousands if not millions of years and that trying to force the facts to fit any one theory is always going to turn out a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 13, 2009 21:56:50 GMT
so do we have charts that show a better match (solar-temp)than the one Alph stuck up (co2-temp)? My chart is "distinguished" and the best around - My pies are completely "upper crust". Wiki tamperer! AH
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 14, 2009 0:48:11 GMT
Well I agree that global warming exists and I disagree that it is some terrible thing that we are responsible for. James Lovelock - he of Gaia Hypthesis developed that hypothesis because looking for 'contamination' he found it to be entirely natural.
When 'we' say save the planet 'we' really mean prevent inconvenient change. I'm all for contrlling pollution like acid rain and weirdiities that would never be in the atmosphere or anywhere else edcept for us. But how many people know that without the Greenhouse Effect this planet would be in deep Ice Age and although when I was a kid they said Mars had too little gravity to hold an atmosphere, they now say that even though it is twice as far from the Sun as us, so should receive a quarter the heat, with an atmosphere stronger in greenhouse gasses it should have had the same temperature range as us. In fact it almost looks like no planet can maintain temperatures suitable to life without life there already to provide the greenhouse gasses suitable to life.
However, the most effective Greenhouse Gas is water vapour. How do we control that one on a planet whose name should be Water, not Earth?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 7:44:42 GMT
I've had a quick look at the climate change which apparently came on quite quickly in the fourteenth century and wrecked the agriculture, which had been geared to a warmer climate.
Around the same time came the Black Death, and some say this took such a devastating hold because people were malnourished. But one or two speculate on a quite opposite "cause and effect" saying that the climate change came on more quickly because there were fewer people and animals, the plague having destroyed so much of the population. Now, there's a thought!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 11:12:51 GMT
I've had a quick look at the climate change which apparently came on quite quickly in the fourteenth century and wrecked the agriculture, which had been geared to a warmer climate. Around the same time came the Black Death, and some say this took such a devastating hold because people were malnourished. But one or two speculate on a quite opposite "cause and effect" saying that the climate change came on more quickly because there were fewer people, the plague having destroyed so much of the population. Now, there's a thought!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 15, 2009 23:51:54 GMT
That climate drop set in before the Black Death and possibly could have caused it. It's not certain what the Black Death was. Common consensus says Plague, but Plague was already known by that name and usually spread from ports and stayed urban because that's where the rats were. However, because of the way it spread and some possible claims about cattle, there's another opinion that it may have been anthrax, which can spread on the wind.
A book called catastrophe asserts that towards the end of the West Roman Empire, Krakatoa blew up. Except that at the time it was where Java and Sumatra joined and made the 19th century explostion look like a fart. The resultant years of global cooling led to world crop failure and migration of both people and rats, resulting in an earlier plague on much the proportion of the Black Death that combined with peoples being pushed west to end the Western Empire. He has a good chart showing how this plague spread in time along the shipping routes and then up into Europe. The East was not hit as badly because it relied more on overland caravans. Remember that until rail, inland trade mostly went by water too.
So it is possible that the Black Death was plague spread by a similar rat migration caused by crop failure and spread by water. I have seen black rats in the country (not in England). We had them under a field opposite my mother's place and they ate all my damned maize! (and in earlier times the chicken's feed). It's possible that the Anthrax theorist had forgotten that a pre-modern town was just an overgrown village and that sewer rats have developed to exploit modern constructions that did not exist at the time. It's even possible that it was the other way round and the more built-up Mediterranean cities were hostile to black rats of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 8:04:32 GMT
Thanks for that, ratarsed - all interesting stuff
That's the lovely thing about history; we know a few facts, then have to fill in the gaps, and can hae a lot of fun speculating. I've heard the Krakatoa theory (or something similar) about the 14th century climate change too. It could equally have been a decrease in solar energy.
Climatologists will know all these facts, and more. It is not for me to cast doubt on what the majority of these scientists are now saying - that human activity is causing an imbalance and we need to take steps to stop it. I don't fully understand the science, and equally do not in any way shape or form believe that all these people are in the pay of manipulative politicians who want to lose votes by telling us to give up our cars and air conditioning.
Ratarsed mentions James Lovelock, who believes that we may now have missed our small window of opportunity to redress this balance. If so, I'll just book a few holidays abroad and hang the lot of 'em. I've got no kids to worry about so why should I care?
(Except of course that I do)
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 27, 2009 10:33:22 GMT
Significant Cooling at South Pole -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away By Greg Roberts The Australian April 18, 2009 11:52am ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast. Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month. However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia. East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades". Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said. The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland. Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise. Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said. Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years." Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,...01,00.html
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 11:22:29 GMT
The British Antarctic Survey have in fact published a press release, and as you will see, they are not quite so optimistic. Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009).
Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.
Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment – reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life. At both poles sea ice cover is at its minimum during summer. However, during the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.
The new research helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in both polar regions.
Lead author Professor John Turner of BAS says,
“Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice. Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.”
Using satellite images of sea ice and computer models the scientists discovered that the ozone hole has strengthened surface winds around Antarctica and deepened the storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. This resulted in greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea (West Antarctica) leading to more ice production in this region.
The satellite data reveal the variation in sea ice cover around the entire Antarctic continent. Whilst there has been a small increase of sea ice during the autumn around the coast of East Antarctica, the largest changes are observed in West Antarctica. Sea ice has been lost to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula – a region that has warmed by almost 3ºC in the past 50 years. Further west sea ice cover over the Ross Sea has increased.
Turner continues, “Understanding how polar sea ice responds to global change – whether human induced or as part of a natural process – is really important if we are to make accurate predictions about the Earth’s future climate. This new research helps us solve some of the puzzle of why sea-ice is shrinking is some areas and growing in others.”
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 27, 2009 12:51:57 GMT
The basic point is though that SOME parts of the world are warming up and SOME are getting cooler.
For the global warming hypothesis to be true, an invariant relationship would be needed and also it would have to be true that a purely human cause for it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since they can't do that, and in fact the temperatures overall are cooling, I'd say they're whistling in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 16:57:47 GMT
But temperatures aren't cooling overall, are they? All the sites I've seen says they are still rising globally, even though solar energy has decreased.
As RV said elsewhere, it is it too great a risk to take. Talking of which, why isn't this board open to guests?
|
|