By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
God,there's a lot of moolah swilling about in this "debate",and you don't have to prove a goddam thing.Where do I sign up?I've got me own thermometer(slightly soiled)and an old bucket......
global warming kicking in on 14:06 - Jan 2 by TheBlob
Isn't it funny how these revelations kick in at a time in the future when everybody here is long dead?And they still can't tell me for sure if it's going to piss down next week?
How was your walk with the dog Krop?You didn't miss anything second half
The "revelations" don't kick in once everyone alive now is dead. The catastrophic effects of climate change are already with us.
I got back in time for Charlie's winner!!
‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’
0
global warming kicking in on 14:53 - Jan 2 with 971 views
Just read about where the money comes from for the denial campaign.
As far as vested interests I don't see the relevance as far as the proof of ACC is concerned.
1. The Greenhouse effect is long established science fact 2. Atmospheric CO2 has been measured for decades 3. It is only the most basic science that if you put or retain a lot more energy in a system the behaviour of that system is very likely to change
If it weren't for the well orchestrated campaign of the deniers I would find it extraordinary that this is still debated at all. There is widespread misunderstanding about what Anthropogenic Climate Change is, for example the common confusion of climate with weather and the common blurring of "warming" with climate change. Nonetheless, it is nothing short of wilful ignorance to deny that a massive surge in atmospheric greenhouse gases (not just CO2) will inevitably affect the Earth's climate, it has happened before, only this time its cause is the planet's dominant species that found a way to release massive amounts of energy by burning fossil fuels. You'd have to have trillions of dollars sunk in the fossil fuel industry to deny it............ oh, or to be one of the people they've conned.
‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’
0
global warming kicking in on 17:11 - Jan 2 with 940 views
PS (I haven't read all the thread and so this has probably been mentioned)
The climate models aren't perfect, and yes the atmosphere hasn't heated up as much as may have been predicted. But the oceans have heated up more than predicted (also not good at the current rate)
It's got to be Yarg
0
global warming kicking in on 18:04 - Jan 2 with 923 views
global warming kicking in on 14:08 - Jan 2 by R_from_afar
Ah, Tony Abbott: Bachelor of Economics (BEc), Bachelor of Laws (LLB), Master of Arts (MA) in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE). Great! He'll be an expert on climate, then - not! Should we also refer to him for advice on dentistry?
I don't see how the IPCC is "exploiting" anyone or “extracting more money” from them. It is a group of academics and, you may recall, I posted this link to the list of people who wrote the latest IPCC report. I couldn't find Greenpeace or FoE on it. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf
As for talk of tumbling temperatures, messrs Newman and Abbott should take a trip to the University of New South Wales and have a chat with Professor Steven Sherwood, a fellow Aussie whose recent research indicates that the warming is likely to be twice what we had hoped this century. The prof says: "Rises in global average temperatures of [at least 4C by 2100] will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don't urgently start to curb our emissions."
RFA
As said before, the IPCC models were wrong. At no point did they predict a drop in temperature and yet we've seen a mean temperature drop over the past 10 years. In stead of recognising these errors the IPCC drags in other "experts" that suit their agenda.
The IPCC has run its course. It's proved to have non-credible data. How can you accept temperatures will go up by 4c in the next 100 years when they can't even predict what the temperatures will be over a 20 year period?
0
global warming kicking in on 18:52 - Jan 2 with 900 views
global warming kicking in on 15:26 - Jan 2 by kropotkin41
Just read about where the money comes from for the denial campaign.
As far as vested interests I don't see the relevance as far as the proof of ACC is concerned.
1. The Greenhouse effect is long established science fact 2. Atmospheric CO2 has been measured for decades 3. It is only the most basic science that if you put or retain a lot more energy in a system the behaviour of that system is very likely to change
If it weren't for the well orchestrated campaign of the deniers I would find it extraordinary that this is still debated at all. There is widespread misunderstanding about what Anthropogenic Climate Change is, for example the common confusion of climate with weather and the common blurring of "warming" with climate change. Nonetheless, it is nothing short of wilful ignorance to deny that a massive surge in atmospheric greenhouse gases (not just CO2) will inevitably affect the Earth's climate, it has happened before, only this time its cause is the planet's dominant species that found a way to release massive amounts of energy by burning fossil fuels. You'd have to have trillions of dollars sunk in the fossil fuel industry to deny it............ oh, or to be one of the people they've conned.
Krop My Old Mucker,I wish you wouldn't keep using that word "fact" otherwise we wouldn't be getting threads like this. And that awful word "deniers",well it's redolent of Ducking Stools,Thumbscrews,The Rack and other measures of religious intolerance.(although I'd love to be six inches taller) Yes,religious.The more or less human face that is painted on a blank canvas in order to rationalise the mysteries of the universe.Well if it makes people feel more secure then go ahead,but rationally speaking "Anthropogenic Climate Change" is a label that has no referent.I prefer the blank canvas,I don't wish to paint my ego,my hopes and fears on it.I'll probably wait for the musical to come out.
Rescuers in Antarctica have safely transferred all 52 passengers stranded on the ice-bound research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy. The Shokalskiy has been trapped since Christmas Eve. Its 22 crew are expected to remain on board to wait until the vessel becomes free. The ice-bound research vessel has been trapped since Christmas Eve. One of the aims is to track how quickly the Antarctic's sea ice is disappearing. --BBC News, 2 January 2014
global warming kicking in on 19:05 - Jan 2 by GloryHunter
Rescuers in Antarctica have safely transferred all 52 passengers stranded on the ice-bound research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy. The Shokalskiy has been trapped since Christmas Eve. Its 22 crew are expected to remain on board to wait until the vessel becomes free. The ice-bound research vessel has been trapped since Christmas Eve. One of the aims is to track how quickly the Antarctic's sea ice is disappearing. --BBC News, 2 January 2014
Climate is not weather. Again.
‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’
0
global warming kicking in on 22:20 - Jan 2 with 849 views
There are a number of natural events that could make man's effect on our planet irrelevant:- A major meteor strike A major earthquake A major volcanic eruption.
Any of these could lead to a heavy ash cloud blocking out the sun and reducing temperatures far more than anything done by man and it is considered one or more of these events led to the last ice age and we have no control over any of them. For the earthquake there is a site in an American park that could have been the cause of a past severe temperature drop and there are many volcanos that could go large any time. As for the meteor strike possibility is concerned, the recent minor one in Russia hitting with no warning was surely a wake-up call.
I'm not saying climate change is not being caused by man's actions, but that any one of these events would make it irrelevant.
Who's Next?
0
global warming kicking in on 22:35 - Jan 2 with 843 views
global warming kicking in on 22:20 - Jan 2 by SomersetHoops
There are a number of natural events that could make man's effect on our planet irrelevant:- A major meteor strike A major earthquake A major volcanic eruption.
Any of these could lead to a heavy ash cloud blocking out the sun and reducing temperatures far more than anything done by man and it is considered one or more of these events led to the last ice age and we have no control over any of them. For the earthquake there is a site in an American park that could have been the cause of a past severe temperature drop and there are many volcanos that could go large any time. As for the meteor strike possibility is concerned, the recent minor one in Russia hitting with no warning was surely a wake-up call.
I'm not saying climate change is not being caused by man's actions, but that any one of these events would make it irrelevant.
And your advice to humanity would be?
It's got to be Yarg
0
global warming kicking in on 23:02 - Jan 2 with 836 views
On ice-ages, I thought that they had been proven through several sources (geology and ice drilling sampling) to be every 50,000 years or so. Which, by coincidence, is the time it takes for the galaxy to revolve 360 degrees. Theory goes that our galaxy passes through a dust cloud of sorts that "might" lower temperatures.
Doesn't add much to the "are humans fecking things up" debate, just my two-penneth.
Thinking about it though, if there were any "dust cloud" would it not also be revolving with the rest if the galaxy? One for the Newtonian experts out there.
Edit - scrap that, just done some googling and the period of revolution of the solar system round the galaxy is about 200 million years. No idea where I got 50,000 from.
[Post edited 2 Jan 2014 23:08]
0
global warming kicking in on 23:05 - Jan 2 with 833 views
global warming kicking in on 23:05 - Jan 2 by loftboy
Get the swimming trunks on a bit of factor 50 and enjoy without having to fly to Spain.
Some theorists say it might not be as simple as that and that climate change could re-direct the gulf stream and make Britain colder. Other countries at similar distance from the north pole are much colder than us, but the gulf stream warms us considerably.
My advice is be as moderate as practical in energy usage and encourage others to do the same, but don't go overboard as we aren't as much in control as we like to think we are.
Who's Next?
0
global warming kicking in on 12:29 - Jan 3 with 1493 views
global warming kicking in on 18:04 - Jan 2 by TW_R
As said before, the IPCC models were wrong. At no point did they predict a drop in temperature and yet we've seen a mean temperature drop over the past 10 years. In stead of recognising these errors the IPCC drags in other "experts" that suit their agenda.
The IPCC has run its course. It's proved to have non-credible data. How can you accept temperatures will go up by 4c in the next 100 years when they can't even predict what the temperatures will be over a 20 year period?
Sorry but we have not "seen a mean temperature drop over the past 10 years". Some of the media and certain political parties siezed upon data which, at first glance, indicated *a slow down in the warming* (that is, the global average temperature was still rising, but apparently more slowly).
Further (fairly simple) analysis revealed that the "slowing" was the result of only taking into account land based temperature readings (most of the warming has actually been in the oceans) and using 1998 - at the time, a record year for heat - as a starting point for the period of analysis. Here is the actual temperature record from 1979 to 2010, without trend lines. See what you think is happening.
This link shows that the IPCC have tended to underestimate temperature and sea level rise. In fact, when the latest IPCC report came out, last year, the Daily Telegraph lambasted them (yes, really) for having understated the problems we face in their previous reports:
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
0
global warming kicking in on 13:20 - Jan 3 with 1465 views
global warming kicking in on 12:29 - Jan 3 by R_from_afar
Sorry but we have not "seen a mean temperature drop over the past 10 years". Some of the media and certain political parties siezed upon data which, at first glance, indicated *a slow down in the warming* (that is, the global average temperature was still rising, but apparently more slowly).
Further (fairly simple) analysis revealed that the "slowing" was the result of only taking into account land based temperature readings (most of the warming has actually been in the oceans) and using 1998 - at the time, a record year for heat - as a starting point for the period of analysis. Here is the actual temperature record from 1979 to 2010, without trend lines. See what you think is happening.
This link shows that the IPCC have tended to underestimate temperature and sea level rise. In fact, when the latest IPCC report came out, last year, the Daily Telegraph lambasted them (yes, really) for having understated the problems we face in their previous reports:
Nope. I notice you're now changing the goal posts of the time frame you want to measure climate change over. Pretty consistent in the way so called climate experts like to prove something.
As per your initial 100 year measurement, this graph shows a clear mean temperature decline over the past 10 years for both land and oceans.
Prof Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London:
"I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system - as well as the consequences for humans.
90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value. The continuing rise in sea level demonstrates ongoing energy accumulation in the ocean (as well as a contribution from melting land ice).
Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment."
This cuts precisely to the problem. The convinced deniers ( please see recent research into funding of ACC denial), otherwise known as dupes of the fossil fuel industry which has $21 trillion sunk in continuing to speed up the carbon economy, don't even have a rudimentary grasp of climate science.
It's about energy in the system and the only way to deny that human GGEs have had and will continue to have a massive effect on the Earth system is to ignore the basic science of the Greenhouse Effect and decades of measuring atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Here's an even more serious problem in the deniers' position - even if we were to accept that there is some doubt about the immediate and long term effects of GGEs (and I don't for one minute doubt the very straightforward proposition that GGEs will affect climate) that remains only doubt, and doubt should not be any sort of excuse for rushing on burning more fossil fuels and taking an ever greater risk with the climate. The position of the deniers is basically "Oh f*ck it! We don't believe it! Pass me the keys to the Hummer and get the f*ck in!"
The position of climate science is that some very bad things are happening (increasing climate extremes; break down of long-standing homeostatic elements in the Earth system; acidification and heating of the oceans; warming at the poles; increasing methane releases from the permafrost etc etc) and it seems very likely (95%+ which is the gold standard level for scientific proof) that this has to do with GGEs, that is to say that it is Anthropogenic Climate Change and we should do something about it right now.
In other words, on one side we have people happy to gamble recklessly with the world their grandchildren will inherit (now all you lot exercised by the abhorrent excesses of a few nonces pay some attention to that!), and on the other side people who are saying that actually a very different economy is possible, cleaner, much less risky and perfectly compatible with prosperity and happiness. An economy and a society that could be compatible with the ancient wisdom of thinking decisions through to seven generations in the future......... instead of about seven minutes which is what Exxon-Mobil would prefer us to do.
‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’
0
global warming kicking in on 14:19 - Jan 3 with 1439 views
global warming kicking in on 14:12 - Jan 3 by kropotkin41
Prof Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London:
"I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system - as well as the consequences for humans.
90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value. The continuing rise in sea level demonstrates ongoing energy accumulation in the ocean (as well as a contribution from melting land ice).
Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment."
This cuts precisely to the problem. The convinced deniers ( please see recent research into funding of ACC denial), otherwise known as dupes of the fossil fuel industry which has $21 trillion sunk in continuing to speed up the carbon economy, don't even have a rudimentary grasp of climate science.
It's about energy in the system and the only way to deny that human GGEs have had and will continue to have a massive effect on the Earth system is to ignore the basic science of the Greenhouse Effect and decades of measuring atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Here's an even more serious problem in the deniers' position - even if we were to accept that there is some doubt about the immediate and long term effects of GGEs (and I don't for one minute doubt the very straightforward proposition that GGEs will affect climate) that remains only doubt, and doubt should not be any sort of excuse for rushing on burning more fossil fuels and taking an ever greater risk with the climate. The position of the deniers is basically "Oh f*ck it! We don't believe it! Pass me the keys to the Hummer and get the f*ck in!"
The position of climate science is that some very bad things are happening (increasing climate extremes; break down of long-standing homeostatic elements in the Earth system; acidification and heating of the oceans; warming at the poles; increasing methane releases from the permafrost etc etc) and it seems very likely (95%+ which is the gold standard level for scientific proof) that this has to do with GGEs, that is to say that it is Anthropogenic Climate Change and we should do something about it right now.
In other words, on one side we have people happy to gamble recklessly with the world their grandchildren will inherit (now all you lot exercised by the abhorrent excesses of a few nonces pay some attention to that!), and on the other side people who are saying that actually a very different economy is possible, cleaner, much less risky and perfectly compatible with prosperity and happiness. An economy and a society that could be compatible with the ancient wisdom of thinking decisions through to seven generations in the future......... instead of about seven minutes which is what Exxon-Mobil would prefer us to do.
"I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue."
Isn't that the same data that climate experts had been using to say temperatures (both land and sea) have been, and are going to continue to, rise though? It appears that as soon as one model is proven to be wrong, someone else goes "oh shit, we need to come up with something else".
0
global warming kicking in on 14:22 - Jan 3 with 1433 views
global warming is just another excuse to tax the poor.
What I'd like to see is climate scientists and all you believers put your hands in your own fcking pockets and fund your own beliefs for a change. Bet you wouldn't be so keen then ?
0
global warming kicking in on 15:13 - Jan 3 with 1404 views
global warming kicking in on 12:29 - Jan 3 by R_from_afar
Sorry but we have not "seen a mean temperature drop over the past 10 years". Some of the media and certain political parties siezed upon data which, at first glance, indicated *a slow down in the warming* (that is, the global average temperature was still rising, but apparently more slowly).
Further (fairly simple) analysis revealed that the "slowing" was the result of only taking into account land based temperature readings (most of the warming has actually been in the oceans) and using 1998 - at the time, a record year for heat - as a starting point for the period of analysis. Here is the actual temperature record from 1979 to 2010, without trend lines. See what you think is happening.
This link shows that the IPCC have tended to underestimate temperature and sea level rise. In fact, when the latest IPCC report came out, last year, the Daily Telegraph lambasted them (yes, really) for having understated the problems we face in their previous reports:
The data shows the two most significant factors in temperature change were not man-made and the events recorded have a lesser effect than any of the major issues I mentioned earlier. The time scale chosen is far too short to identify a trend and should go back to the start of the industrial revolution to show a real long term impact which would still be dwarfed by natural events.
Do we really think what we go in GB will change the effects of man's actions on climate change compared to what happens in America, China, India and emerging nations who always start their development with low cost, high polluting industrial processes and we and our competitors buy them because they are cheap..
Lets face it our pollution levels are low because our heavy industries such as steel-making have declined and effectively we have exported our pollution to the places where these processes are carried out. We buy the cheapest products from these processes irrespective of the pollution they generate because that is what everybody else does. Unless the pollution generated carries a cost penalty that will continue. That is why what we do is irrelevant unless and until we use high technology to re-introduce clean heavy industry and pay the cost that would go with it.
Who's Next?
0
global warming kicking in on 15:28 - Jan 3 with 1397 views
Precautionary principle trumps all your half-baked nonsense and even if it didn't your brains are so utterly "owned" (as my kids might put it) by Big Oil I might as well be talking to the CEO of Exxon Mobil.
There are two reasons this discussion is pointless: 1. Climate change deniers maintain a pseudo-religious position 2. In all probability crucial tipping points have already been passed and catastrophic climate change cannot now be avoided.
I'd be very happy to see this thread vanish off the bottom of the forum never to return. This is sterile ground for debate, but it keeps floating to the top, revived by deniers: the ill-informed, the half-informed or the totally owned. I tell you all what, why don't we just say that you all won, totally destroyed the argument that ACC is a serious threat to us all and life on Earth? Move along, nothing to see here.......... everything is fine. Shiny.
Now we can all shut the f*ck up and get back to discussing 4-4-2 versus 4-5-1 instead.
‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’
0
global warming kicking in on 15:34 - Jan 3 with 1392 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
