[Archived] The Weather

[colin]

Bazza,

Nothing personal, but just why are you so against the climate change theory?

Most independent scientists are now firmly convinced that climate change is real and is happening and that it is going to severly effect the world over the next 50-100-200 years.

Please will you let me/us know why you don't beleive in it. I'm just really interested as to why in the overwhelming face of scintific evidence you take the opposite view. Is it something religious?

It's not really like those people who are having a go at the theory of evolution is it?

Cheers

Colin

[broadsword]

Apparent;ly global temps have gone down slightly over the last 6 or 7 years.

[Paul]

Why was it hotter 2000 years ago than it is now?

Why a 1000 years ago were temperatures comparable to temperatures in the 21st century some 900 years before mass industrialisation.

This is easy, I think you'll have to come up with better questions. Answers to these points are available to anyone in general education, who waches the TV or reads a paper.

We know, Geography "O" level, the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling; a couple of examples I can dredge up from my O levels, we had the Medieval Warm Period (800 - 1300) and the Little Ice Age (1500 - 1850). I think (could be wrong) we are technically in an Ice Age at present though this is more to do with a scientific definition than wooly mammoths roaming the planet!! This was taught in schools 40 years back and I don't think is open to challenge.

If man-made co2 is completely culpable for global warming, then why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around

Throughout history there have been natural increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. The current rapid increases in CO2 levels are thought to be primarily responsible for global warming, i.e a more rapid warming than would occur under "natural" circumstances, without man's influence. Now I'm surmising with this, I can't give you a link but I've read it on several occassions; natural stores of CO2 are oceans and forests. World warms up, water temperatures rise, oceans' ability to store CO2 is reduced consequently there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 after a period of warming. CO2 is stored in carbon sinks in forests, temperatures increase, wild fires become more common, forests burn releasing stored CO2 and fewer trees available to store CO2 afterwards, natural CO2 concentrations increase after a period of warming.

How can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly?

Scientists are simply extrapolating data based on knowlede gained from historical studies.......btw you'd be surprised how accurate weather forecasts are! If scientific opinion is 80% correct we still have an 80% chance of facing real problems, would you bet against it?

the majority liberal opinion.

Just as an aside why do you generally use the word "liberal" in a derogatory manner? It regularly slips into your arguements. At one time or another I've met many people from the MB and liberal is not a word that springs to mind to describe them. There just people. The use, usually out of context, tends to undermine your arguement considerably.

On the whole global warming /environmental / planetary resources issue it to treat our environment in a better, more sustainable way is simple commonsense. It's not sandal-wearing, Guardian- reading, wooly-minded liberalness, just a good idea. Forecasts suggest world population will increase to 9 billion in the next 50 years, an increase of 50%, if we don't begin to manage the environmental impact, global warming or not, it must be obvious to anyone that such growth will have enormous influence on our planet.

To take one small example. My travel to work time has doubled in 10 years. Providing a decent public transport system would cut traffic congestion, benefit the economy, benefit society and help reduce carbon emissions. Global warming may never happen, the scientists could be wrong, I've no problem agreeing with you on that, however to stick our heads in the sand and do nothing is inviting disaster. Scientific opinion says we have 80-100 years before the real impacts occur and now is the time to take action - it's a very short timescale. Using your weather forecast arguement there is an 80% likelihood they will be right. Awful odds for those who say do nothing.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Paul

[Paul]

An industry is building up around this whole issue and the gullible are their consumers . Industries are only ever out for one thing . To make money .

Regretably this is very true. I have attended supplier's conferences with major retailers, (this is when they tell supliers how it's going to be in the next 12 months) where the opportunities presented by the green or environmental market are openly discussed as just that. Simply a way to make more money and create a new market. Climate change is a marketing opportunity for major retailers make no mistake about that.

My experience is the "green" claims made by UK retailers are total rubbish and contain no more substance than a desire to avoid being pilloried in the tabloid press. All the re-used plastic bags and extra club card points in the world won't make a jot of difference. Industry will only react when consumer demand and / or government forces it to.

However this doesn't change the fact we face significant environmental problems of which global warming is just one. Neither does it alter the position where "greener" industrial processes can be both economically and environmentally sound and therefore do stand up to scrutiny.

The Earth is not a machine that can be examined when it "goes wrong" . There is no right or wrong .....and even the ones doing the diagnosing on past results are rank amateurs and capable of having vested interests in doing so

Are you dismissing the scientific community as "rank amateurs?"

Edited December 20, 2007 by Paul

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazza,

Nothing personal, but just why are you so against the climate change theory?

Most independent scientists are now firmly convinced that climate change is real and is happening and that it is going to severly effect the world over the next 50-100-200 years.

Please will you let me/us know why you don't beleive in it. I'm just really interested as to why in the overwhelming face of scintific evidence you take the opposite view. Is it something religious?

It's not really like those people who are having a go at the theory of evolution is it?

Cheers

Colin

FFS Im getting rather fed up of repeating myself here. Colin if you want to have a dig at least try to read my posts.

I have reiterated 6 times up until know , that I believe in global warming this is fact, what I am not yet totally convinced about is the man-made argument.

There is a difference between Global warming & Man-Made Global warming

This is easy, I think you'll have to come up with better questions. Answers to these points are available to anyone in general education, who waches the TV or reads a paper.

We know, Geography "O" level, the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling; a couple of examples I can dredge up from my O levels, we had the Medieval Warm Period (800 - 1300) and the Little Ice Age (1500 - 1850). I think (could be wrong) we are technically in an Ice Age at present though this is more to do with a scientific definition than wooly mammoths roaming the planet!! This was taught in schools 40 years back and I don't think is open to challenge.

We are not technically still in an ice-age, in the 1970’s the consensus amongst scientists was that we were heading for another ice-age, because they believed that the use of cfc’s in the earths biosphere would unnaturally cool the earth, rather than heat it up. 2000 years ago it was hotter than it is know fact and there was as much co2 present.

If the earth is susceptible to warming and cooling periods as you say, then surely a vast majority of the current warming can be apportioned to record levels of solar activity via an eleven year sun-spot which is potentially causing a current a period of relative warmth

Throughout history there have been natural increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. The current rapid increases in CO2 levels are thought to be primarily responsible for global warming, i.e a more rapid warming than would occur under "natural" circumstances, without man's influence. Now I'm surmising with this, I can't give you a link but I've read it on several occassions; natural stores of CO2 are oceans and forests. World warms up, water temperatures rise, oceans' ability to store CO2 is reduced consequently there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 after a period of warming. CO2 is stored in carbon sinks in forests, temperatures increase, wild fires become more common, forests burn releasing stored CO2 and fewer trees available to store CO2 afterwards, natural CO2 concentrations increase after a period of warming

Paul you telling me something I already know, but carbon stores via rainforests and bio-plankton activity is a completely different thing to Co2 lag. You have gone off at a tangent, and yes I saw the same programme were you are getting your information from it was on the BBC a couple of years ago

Rising Co2 levels generally lag behind temperature rises by several hundred years not the other way around. So therefore Co2 levels must have been extremely high in the 17 & 18th centuries; which they were not.

[Paul]

You have gone off at a tangent,

No all I've done is given you a perfectly simple explanation of how CO2 levels increase after a period of warming. What is a CO2 lag? I don't know.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

No all I've done is given you a perfectly simple explanation of how CO2 levels increase after a period of warming. What is a CO2 lag? I don't know.

Co2 lag is the time it takes Co2 levels to correlate with temperature rises, there is believed to be a lag of between 200-1000 years. If Co2 is the driving force behind the recent warming trends then this means that we must have been producing record levels of Co2 between the 10th and 18th centuries, the industrial revolution came some 70 years after the very latest date. This phenomenon has never been explained.

I grasp what you saying about Carbon sinks and I actually agree with you, it makes perfect sense that rising temperatures will heat the oceans and the oceans ability to absorb Co2, plus micro-plankton do not like particularly warm waters. There is also the risk that methane stores in the ocean and under perma-frost tundra maybe released if the Earth continues to rise, this is potentially more dangerous than Co2 rises. There is also a danger that the global conveyer belt will turn off as a result of temperature rises, this is the death of the oceans and oceans ability to store carbon and produce oxygen will be nullified ( the surprising thing is , all this has happened several times before man came to abuse the planet)

What people are not told though is what proportion of Co2 man actually contributes in comparison to natural carbon emissions

“An average year of global wildfires releases more than 300 times the CO2 of one year’s total petroleum recovery combusted”

[den]

Co2 lag is the time it takes Co2 levels to correlate with temperature rises, there is believed to be a lag of between 200-1000 years. If Co2 is the driving force behind the recent warming trends then this means that we must have been producing record levels of Co2 between the 10th and 18th centuries, the industrial revolution came some 70 years after the very latest date. This phenomenon has never been explained.

Says who?

"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."

One possible explanation?

Again Bazza, you're using your ignorance of the subject, to cast doubt on the facts. [and that isn't meant to be nasty.]

I don't think you or I know enough about the science involved, to make claims that "I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly"

[blue phil]

Again Bazza, you're using your ignorance of the subject, to cast doubt on the facts. [and that isn't meant to be nasty.]

I don't think you or I know enough about the science involved

Facts Den ? There are very few facts involved , most is just informed guesses - the rest of your post could not be described as "facts" by any stretch of the imagination just educated opinion .

So to sum up we have those who know nothing but trust those scientists who are in the majority .......and how many times in history have this group been wildly wrong ?

...and on the other hand we have those who know nothing but are prepared to consider the views of other less vocal scientists .

Like I said before the root of the problem (if it exists) is in the global economic system allied to massive overpopulation - particularly in the developed and developing world .

So why are the scientists - who we all know are infallible superhuman beings - strangely silent on these points ?

Could it be that they find it easier to fall in line and conform to the prevailing liberal political concencus rather than tell the truth ?

When they stop trying to play it both ways and start to say things that really will make the politicians cr$p themselves ; then is the time to take them seriously .

[den]

So to sum up we have those who know nothing but trust those scientists who are in the majority .......and how many times in history have this group been wildly wrong ?

I'll play along. You start with the number of times they've been right. Off you go............

Struggling? Just goes to show what a daft statement that was.

Edited December 23, 2007 by den

[philipl]

Like I said before the root of the problem (if it exists) is in the global economic system allied to massive overpopulation - particularly in the developed and developing world .

[blue phil]

I'll play along. You start with the number of times they've been right. Off you go............

Struggling? Just goes to show what a daft statement that was.

Why on earth should I start with the number of times when they've been right when my argument is the opposite ....?

Been on the pop , Den ?

[blue phil]

Like I said before the root of the problem (if it exists) is in the global economic system allied to massive overpopulation - particularly in the developed and developing world .

Another late night reveller .....

This one's lost the capacity to use the quote facility ....

[philipl]

100% of the population live in either the developed or the developing world in case you hadn't noticed- I was just havinga laugh at your nonsensical dribblings.

[blue phil]

Ah ...I understand now - you were just being your usual smart arse pedantic self !

For your benefit I'll explain further .....

Much of the world is developed , ie - industrialised and users of massive amounts of the world's energy resources and therefore (allegedly) contributing to global warming .

The rest of the world merely aspires to reach that level and , accordingly , will exacerbate global warming .

Increasing population growth in both developed and developing nations ( ie , everyone !!!) will worsen the situation even more- they will all be consumers sooner or later .

(I suppose I could argue that there are remote tribes in the middle of nowhere who aren't developed nor even developing .......but for the sake of argument I won't include them - that would be descending to your level )

Happy new year by the way ...

[den]

Ah ...I understand now - you were just being your usual smart arse pedantic self !

For your benefit I'll explain further .....

Much of the world is developed , ie - industrialised and users of massive amounts of the world's energy resources and therefore (allegedly) contributing to global warming .

The rest of the world merely aspires to reach that level and , accordingly , will exacerbate global warming .

Increasing population growth in both developed and developing nations ( ie , everyone !!!) will worsen the situation even more- they will all be consumers sooner or later .

(I suppose I could argue that there are remote tribes in the middle of nowhere who aren't developed nor even developing .......but for the sake of argument I won't include them - that would be descending to your level )

Happy new year by the way ...

Do you want to make a serious proposal, or just continue to berate anyone who responds to you?

[blue phil]

But it is serious , Den ......curbing population growth and limiting consumerism is very serious . Maybe you could explain why it isn't ......

Perhaps if I just made a early morning daft attempt at quoting someone followed by a ....that would be more acceptable to you .

Maybe stating ".......I was just havinga laugh at your nonsensical dribblings. "...would be OK as well ?

Happy new year

Edited December 27, 2007 by blue phil

[den]

But it is serious , Den ......curbing population growth and limiting consumerism is very serious . Maybe you could explain why it isn't ......

Perhaps if I just made a early morning daft attempt at quoting someone followed by a ....that would be more acceptable to you .

Happy new year

You didn't answer my question BP.

[blue phil]

......and what questions are they , Den ?

[Rovermatt]

We're snowed under.

I was out for dinner last night and the snow started falling around 6.30 or so. By the time I left the restaurant there was a couple of inches worth lying on the ground and I had to abandon both my attempts to drive a friend home (after much swerving) and my car in a unmanned car park, before my father showed up in his Land Rover to get me home. Unbelievable.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Rovermatt

[Presty On Tour]

i went football training lastnight on the astro turf, on the way the car temprature reading was 0.0c outside.

shorts, jansen 10 rovers shirt on and i'd had one of the best training sessions of my career.

i ran riot

[FINRover]

Weather in my hometown at the moment -8.8 centigrade.

[Claytons Left Boot]

Wow! Zero degrees and 2" of snow

Stop it lads before the Norwegians come on here and start taking the p!ss.

[blue phil]

It is extremely embarrassing when they say on the news that snow is causing havoc ....and then show pictures where the grass is still clearly visible ....

[American]

Drove through a blizzard and 60-70 mph winds last night to get to Utah. 2 nights earlier it was about -12 c or so in Ohio as we were going through.