Org Mobile Site
Thread: Global warming
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
"most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"
Interesting. Isn't this that report where they wrote the conclusion 1 year before the report? But by all means, I'd like to review the report for myself. Do you have a link?"most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"
In a couple of years, some volcano is going to blow it's top, spew tons of ash into the atmosphere, and cool down the planet by a degree for a year or so. This event will or will not solve global warming, but it will screw up everyone's data and agendas. 
Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct. You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move. We cant put a thermostat on the earth. It will always fluctuate . Always has always will. Look at it this way. Enjoy the summer while you can because thats all this is in the greater scheme of things. Winter will return someday and they will be longing for such a wonderful and warm climate as we enjoy today.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Interesting. Isn't this that report where they wrote the conclusion 1 year before the report? But by all means, I'd like to review the report for myself. Do you have a link?
yeah sureInteresting. Isn't this that report where they wrote the conclusion 1 year before the report? But by all means, I'd like to review the report for myself. Do you have a link?
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
the qoute is from page 10
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct. You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move. We cant put a thermostat on the earth. It will always fluctuate . Always has always will. Look at it this way. Enjoy the summer while you can because thats all this is in the greater scheme of things. Winter will return someday and they will be longing for such a wonderful and warm climate as we enjoy today.
only the most alarmist are saying that the whole human species will be wiped out, its very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuatesDo any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct. You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move. We cant put a thermostat on the earth. It will always fluctuate . Always has always will. Look at it this way. Enjoy the summer while you can because thats all this is in the greater scheme of things. Winter will return someday and they will be longing for such a wonderful and warm climate as we enjoy today.
this isnt like you have a greenhouse thats just getting a bit warmer yeah sure some plants might like warmer conditions if they are adapted for them but other plants would prefer it was colder or wetter, the fact is that most plants have themselves sorted perfectly for the condidtons they are in, so any fluctuation they are not adapted for is likely to be harmful, no-one is talking about stopping natural paterns but reducing our Co2 emmissions isnt stopping natural patterns the accepted theory (the gaia hypothosis) is that earths temperature is kept relatively stable normally and so does not fluctuate like it is now, naturally
a bit of info on the gaia hypothosis
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_jim.html
Originally Posted by :
ts very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuates
Very unlikely is being generous. Its highly doubtful in my book.ts very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuates
Listen ask and botanist and they will tell you the earth is producing more food now than at any time in history. Much of this is because of global warming. Again enjoy summer while it lasts because winter shall return with a vengance.
One funny thing: you know how windows task bar sometimes cuts off half the title of a window? Well in my setup, the text for this window says "global war...". I think that's quite fitting. Did you know that American and EU defense expert analysts both agree that global warming is the most dangerous threat to society in the future, ranked far ahead of terrorism, communism, fascism or anything else?
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
No picture there.
Heres some examples of recent global warming. laugh.gif
Are you, with this cut and paste job from some right wing extremist page, trying to say that global warming is incorrect because you've found 100 places and times where temperature has been lower than average? If so, you've misunderstood global warming. The theory doesn't claim temperature increase everywhere, but an average temperature increase over the world. 100 places and times with lower temperature doesn't outweigh 1,000,000 places and times where temperatures are increasing. Here's a beginner's tutorial to calculating average:No picture there.
Heres some examples of recent global warming. laugh.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
Originally Posted by :
(especially if the gulf stream fails)
That's a myth. The gulf stream is only a minor contributor to Europe's warm climate. You can read about it here or in any other number of places.(especially if the gulf stream fails)
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
Are you, with this cut and paste job from some right wing extremist page, trying to say that global warming is incorrect because you've found 100 places and times where temperature has been lower than average? If so, you've misunderstood global warming. The theory doesn't claim temperature increase everywhere, but an average temperature increase over the world. 100 places and times with lower temperature doesn't outweigh 1,000,000 places and times where temperatures are increasing. Here's a beginner's tutorial to calculating average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
Ah-ha!Are you, with this cut and paste job from some right wing extremist page, trying to say that global warming is incorrect because you've found 100 places and times where temperature has been lower than average? If so, you've misunderstood global warming. The theory doesn't claim temperature increase everywhere, but an average temperature increase over the world. 100 places and times with lower temperature doesn't outweigh 1,000,000 places and times where temperatures are increasing. Here's a beginner's tutorial to calculating average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
And did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? What is the global average temperature, really? And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul:
So, you dispute the idea of Global Dimming or why do you think I've not understood?
No, I'm not disputing global dimming. I'm pointing out the importance of the fact that incoming light has different wavelengths from the outgoing light. We need to stop emission of particles that slow down long wavelengths (outgoing light), and prevent atmosphere decrease in particles that stop short wavelengths (incoming light). For instance we need the ozone layer to reflect some UV light and lower the energy in the light that passes through, but we don't need heavy dosage of CH4, SF6, CO2 and similar that pushes the temperature equilibrium towards higher temperatures.So, you dispute the idea of Global Dimming or why do you think I've not understood?
Many people who don't understand the concept of atmospheric scattering and excitation of particles in the atmosphere incorrectly believe that the outgoing light has the same wavelength as the incoming light. If that had been the case, naturally global dimming would compensate global warming. Such is however not the case.
Which of these parts is it you disagree with/don't understand?
1. incoming and outgoing light have different wavelengths
2. different particles have different abilities at reflecting different wavelengths of light
3. other, please specify
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
And did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? [...] And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...l_OrganizationAnd did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? [...] And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."
Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct.
Human population growth is related to cultural attitudes, and short term fluctuations in resource availability. As scientists have predicted, the short term effect of global warming is increased crop yields, followed by extreme decline in the long term. We're increasing the population significantly at a time when we're passing the turning point in crop yields.Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move.
We currently have a 20 times faster climate change than ever before in the history of earth. Man hardly managed to adapt itself to the ice age, even though it came over a period of 300 years. Today, we have a climate change about 20 times faster, and the rate of change also seems to be increasing. It's not a matter of "next generations" any more, it's a matter of your life when you're older.You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move.
Maybe you've heard of the problems the third world has with getting clean water? Such problems are now spreading to the temperate regions of earth as well. Maybe within 5 years you will hear some regions in the USA having to transport waters from neighboring areas because their water becomes poisonous, algae-infested, or other euthrophication problems disrupt water supply. In 10-15 years, this may be a problem for entire states in the USA.
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...l_Organization
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."
Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.
I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...l_Organization
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."
Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.
I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.
Originally Posted by :
The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.
What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.
As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years.
This shows you don't hold these scientists in high regard. There are measurement in which current ice core data is compared with old ice core data. There are other measurements using paleontological data. There are other measurements using different methods. All combinations are used, compared and evalutated. This is unlike pollution supporters, who keep quoting only single, unconfirmed and unchecked sources. I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.
This may be valid for some previous scenarios, but the current CO2 increase is caused by pollution.I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?
We can do everything we do today without polluting, yet you insist on keeping the pollution. I don't think global warming denier is an adequate title for someone who insists on keeping the very pollution. What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.
No, you must argue why it's harmless to continue a pollution which is known to be causing global warming, when we can do everything we do with pollution without it if we just impose laws for it now. The only damage it can do is to increase expenses for some industries by some percent, whereas continued pollution, according to all sources except a small minority (which are so few that they might be considered within the measurement error margin), is likely to cause massive death through direct effects such as impaired supply situation, as well as through indirect effects, by making the resource competition more intense, and increasing political tensions all over the world.As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.
Global warming is, on balance, happening. It may or may not be influenced by mankind.
Thats about it.
The only real argument is that since we can't tell whether we are influencing it should we (a) stick our heads in the sand and take whatever happens as it comes or (b) take expensive action to limit our impact, a course which may well be futile anyway.
Thats about it.
The only real argument is that since we can't tell whether we are influencing it should we (a) stick our heads in the sand and take whatever happens as it comes or (b) take expensive action to limit our impact, a course which may well be futile anyway.
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
We currently have a 20 times faster climate change than ever before in the history of earth. Man hardly managed to adapt itself to the ice age, even though it came over a period of 300 years. Today, we have a climate change about 20 times faster, and the rate of change also seems to be increasing. It's not a matter of "next generations" any more, it's a matter of your life when you're older.
rubbish.We currently have a 20 times faster climate change than ever before in the history of earth. Man hardly managed to adapt itself to the ice age, even though it came over a period of 300 years. Today, we have a climate change about 20 times faster, and the rate of change also seems to be increasing. It's not a matter of "next generations" any more, it's a matter of your life when you're older.
geological history is littered with catastrophic climate change.
"20 times faster climate change than ever before"
like to tell that to the people who witnessed:
Toba -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba
3-3.5 degree temperature drop (C)
Mount Tambora -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora
0.5 degrees C drop (the year with no summer) (C)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Kumae -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwae
0.5 degree temperature drop (C)
Huaynaputina -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina
0.8 degrees temperature drop (C)
Krakatoa -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatau
0.5 degree temperature drop (C)
Mount Katmai -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Katmai
0.4 degree temperature drop (C)
Pinatubo -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo
0.5 degree temerpature drop (C)
Deccan Traps -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Potential cause of the KT extinction
Siberian Traps -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps
Potential cause of the PT extinction
somehow i think things have been plenty worse in times past, quite with mankind's intervention.
Originally Posted by :
This is unlike pollution supporters
One more time there are no pollution supporters.This is unlike pollution supporters
Originally Posted by :
This may be valid for some previous scenarios, but the current CO2 increase is caused by pollution.
What pollution are you speaking of exactly? And that is not a fact now is it? This may be valid for some previous scenarios, but the current CO2 increase is caused by pollution.
Originally Posted by :
We can do everything we do today without polluting,
For heavens sake if we go by with what SCOTUS and you guys are now calling pollution even breathing causes pollution. So the solution is that we all stop.We can do everything we do today without polluting,
The earth goes through natural changes, but I do think human activity has had a very negative impact on the atmosphere.
Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.
Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.
Originally Posted by :
Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.
Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.
I do believe it was written by the scientists. Why do you say otherwise? Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.
Originally Posted by :
Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?
Ive seen it and its a fact. I mean f your talking about the IPPC report.Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?
Heres just one link
Originally Posted by :
IPPC: Fraud
The recent IPPC report on climate change is a fraud. The recent report was just a "Summary for Policymakers" document, written by politicians for politicians. The real science will follow shortly - some 3 months after the summary document. This is not using sound methodology, as one should not publish conclusions before their justification. Nonetheless, this in itself is not fraud. However, it is when combined with the scientific report guidlines:
Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
Source (Page 4)
In other words, the politicians have made their assertions independent of the evidence, and will doct the scientific case to suit their own means. For those interested, the draft report has been published (without permission) here, so that it can be compared to the edited version due to be published soon.
As a research scientist, I find this behaviour abhorant. Only way to stop such fraud is to raise awareness - only then might the IPPC be forced into changing its policy of doctoring science for its own political agenda.
LINKIPPC: Fraud
The recent IPPC report on climate change is a fraud. The recent report was just a "Summary for Policymakers" document, written by politicians for politicians. The real science will follow shortly - some 3 months after the summary document. This is not using sound methodology, as one should not publish conclusions before their justification. Nonetheless, this in itself is not fraud. However, it is when combined with the scientific report guidlines:
Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
Source (Page 4)
In other words, the politicians have made their assertions independent of the evidence, and will doct the scientific case to suit their own means. For those interested, the draft report has been published (without permission) here, so that it can be compared to the edited version due to be published soon.
As a research scientist, I find this behaviour abhorant. Only way to stop such fraud is to raise awareness - only then might the IPPC be forced into changing its policy of doctoring science for its own political agenda.
Thank you. I still believe CFC's are harmful to our atmosphere and it is a fact we're letting off plenty into the air.
What have Chlorofluorocarbons got to do with global warming. Thats the ozone scare thing. They already banned those. Cost us a few astronaut's.
Originally Posted by Furunculu5:
geological history is littered with catastrophic climate change.
You seem to forget that your examples are merely temporary discontinuities, lasting for one or two years, then things return to normal again.geological history is littered with catastrophic climate change.
Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
One more time there are no pollution supporters.
Then why do you keep supporting continued excessive pollution if we can, at a very low cost, reduce pollution significantly?One more time there are no pollution supporters.
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
3. other, please specify
Legio, I'm puzzled as to where we disagree. 3. other, please specify
I'd be the first to agree that I'm no expert on this topic but I thought I'd understood the basics.
I mentioned "Global Dimming" because part of the general public opinion is that we just need to stop certain emmissions and we're good.
That's not true. One of the effects, if we were to reduce all emmisions to zero, would be that certain aerosols which now reflect a certain amount of light and heat off the earth would be missing. This would result in an increase of temperature on the earth. The effect of Global Dimming today is not that it compensates global warming but it weakens it to a certain amount. (This was measured during the flight ban after 9/11)
At least that's how I understand the idea. Please tell me if this is correct.
Now, assuming that this is correct, one could cynically point out that we only need to pollute the air with the right stuff to counter the global warming. Of course I wouldn't advocate that. I'm not a supporter of pollution.
Originally Posted by :
Then why do you keep supporting continued excessive pollution if we can, at a very low cost, reduce pollution significantly?
This is like calling pro choice people pro murderers. Im not in favor f pollution Im in favor of common sense.Then why do you keep supporting continued excessive pollution if we can, at a very low cost, reduce pollution significantly?
Originally Posted by :
Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.
Oh please what BS. Prove it. If you can your smarter than all the scientiists. Neither you nor they have any way of proving it with out a time machine and hanging out for a few million years.Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.
Originally Posted by :
A recent newspaper item was headed 'Hottest since 900 AD' and included the text:
A panel of experts has found that the past few decades were warmer than any comparable period in the past 400 years. And there is evidence that temperatures were higher in the past 25 years than at any other quarter-century since the year 900. The report by the National Academy of Sciences was congressionally mandated after another study showed unprecedented warming in the northern hemisphere towards the end of the 20th century. ( full item reproduced as a PDF ).
Now look at this item again and see the conclusion it leads to. In the year 900, average temperatures over the preceding 25 years were HIGHER than in the 25 years to 2000. There has never been any suggestion that the years 875-900 were a period of accumulation of 'greenhouse gases'. Therefore, there is NO reason to suppose that greenhouse gas accumulation is the reason for the present rise in temperatures during 1975-2000.
No scientific expertise is needed to accept this conclusion, it is a matter of simple logic.
Here is an extract from the final paragraph of Kinninmonth's book:
The evidence advanced by the IPCC, that human activity will cause dangerous interference with the climate system, is illusory ... These assertions ignore a large body of paleoclimatic evidence that that points to climate having changed abruptly and relatively frequently in the past ... The theory of 'greenhouse climate change' is conceptually simple, seemingly plausible, but deficient in its consideration and treatment of complex climatic processes. Importantly, there is no evidence that a reduction in global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will reduce the incidence of dangerous climate extremes, or reduce the human suffering and community loss that accompany them.
LINKA recent newspaper item was headed 'Hottest since 900 AD' and included the text:
A panel of experts has found that the past few decades were warmer than any comparable period in the past 400 years. And there is evidence that temperatures were higher in the past 25 years than at any other quarter-century since the year 900. The report by the National Academy of Sciences was congressionally mandated after another study showed unprecedented warming in the northern hemisphere towards the end of the 20th century. ( full item reproduced as a PDF ).
Now look at this item again and see the conclusion it leads to. In the year 900, average temperatures over the preceding 25 years were HIGHER than in the 25 years to 2000. There has never been any suggestion that the years 875-900 were a period of accumulation of 'greenhouse gases'. Therefore, there is NO reason to suppose that greenhouse gas accumulation is the reason for the present rise in temperatures during 1975-2000.
No scientific expertise is needed to accept this conclusion, it is a matter of simple logic.
Here is an extract from the final paragraph of Kinninmonth's book:
The evidence advanced by the IPCC, that human activity will cause dangerous interference with the climate system, is illusory ... These assertions ignore a large body of paleoclimatic evidence that that points to climate having changed abruptly and relatively frequently in the past ... The theory of 'greenhouse climate change' is conceptually simple, seemingly plausible, but deficient in its consideration and treatment of complex climatic processes. Importantly, there is no evidence that a reduction in global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will reduce the incidence of dangerous climate extremes, or reduce the human suffering and community loss that accompany them.
@R'as al Ghul: Ok, now I see what you mean. Yes, I agree to your last post. The main problem with polluting "with the right stuff", is that it's logistically infeasible to make it compensate the greenhouse gas emissions, because the emissions must be high up in the atmosphere, and many of the required gases are quite rare, poisonous if they spread to lower atmopshere levels (ozone, for example), and many of them are also difficult to produce in large amounts. It's also unknown exactly what would happen if we miraculously would find a way to make this logistically feasible. We would get a very particle-filled atmosphere, and poisonous gases would be likely (due to diffusion) to reach the lower atmosphere levels and make the air difficult, if not dangerous, to breathe.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
This is like calling pro choice people pro murderers. Im not in favor f pollution Im in favor of common sense.
Common sense? You're not willing to invest less than a percent of state income to prevent what 99% of all scientists believe is the greatest threat to mankind throughout all time? That all defense analysis specialists all over the world - including the USA - think is the greatest threat to global security since the second world war? That is now starting to show itself everyday, confirming the prediction models? That economists all over the world fear will cause the greatest economical crash since the 30ies depression?This is like calling pro choice people pro murderers. Im not in favor f pollution Im in favor of common sense.
Instead, you prefer continued pollution, over almost invisible regulations that will not affect economy more than one percent at most. It looks like you're supporting the pollution itself, than any "common sense".
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Oh please what BS. Prove it. If you can your smarter than all the scientiists. Neither you nor they have any way of proving it with out a time machine and hanging out for a few million years.
Prove that you jumping off a cliff will kill you. Unless you jump, how can we ever know?Oh please what BS. Prove it. If you can your smarter than all the scientiists. Neither you nor they have any way of proving it with out a time machine and hanging out for a few million years.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
LINK
Oh yeah, another right wing extremist link... LINK
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
You seem to forget that your examples are merely temporary discontinuities, lasting for one or two years, then things return to normal again.
Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.
no, global warming (as well as global cooling) is a 4.6 billion year trend which has continuous fluctuation and reversal in temperature trends over the entire period.You seem to forget that your examples are merely temporary discontinuities, lasting for one or two years, then things return to normal again.
Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO