[Archived] Climate Change

[Audax]

There has already been snowfall in places this October, this past summer did not seem to be extraordinarily hot, it seems last winter lasted into May and often, September is already cool which happened this year. Though this is not scientific evidence and one can always say there are freak weather occurrences, this is why so many are sceptical of global warming claims.

[Audax]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/342876/Sir-Bob-Geldof-All-humans-will-die-before-2030

Bob Geldof made a speech, what he said and other info in this article.

[Amo]

Why are people paying the price for 'climate change' when there is no scientific consensus that mankind is even responsible?

[Steve Moss]

Here's a concise overview of the man-made global warning argument, complete with analysis of global temperature over the last 40,000 years, from nano-tech guys. http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

Not unsurprisingly, there is nothing remarkable about our current temperatures, including the alleged increases, if considered over a 40,000 years. The shock only comes if one looks from 1400 to present, which coincidentally is the range cited by supposed neutral climate scientists.

Here's the conclusion:

"In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

And that, if you will allow me to return full circle, means that the Fat Fingers argument is probably poppycock too."

[Steve Moss]

As a picture is worth a 1,000 words, I'll try using one for the last 4-5,000 years:

And here's another for the last 400,000+ years:

[Steve Moss]

It looks like the IPCC has been torpedoed- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

So much for the "consensus".

[Paul]

I'm not sure people take too much notice of the Daily Porn on LIne Mail these days. It's a newspaper which understands exactly how to create and write the news for a readership with a particular mindset

[dave birch]

The Mail sounds like one of those media organisations that fashions a problem and then tells you who to blame.

[Steve Moss]

Getting their excuses in early?

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/11/13/0150213/puzzled-scientists-say-strange-things-are-happening-on-the-sun

[cn174]

Although I'm not old enough to remember this, when we did about climate change at uni (as all good geography students should do ) we started looking at this first.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

[neekoy]

As with all these kinds of debates, I am more then happy to rely on scientific consensus but my ears always get pricked as soon as it becomes political and there are vested financial interests in peddling a story one way or the other. Al Gore is the perfect example. Peddling doo gooder sentiments whilst living in hypocrisy and swaying opinion to ensure government grants are given to companies he invests in to make himself millions.

All this talk of "destroying the planet" is ridiculous, the planet was here 4.5 billion years ago and 3.6 billion of that has sustained life through every type of change and destruction... the only thing that is screwed is us.

[thenodrog]

All this talk of "destroying the planet" is ridiculous, the planet was here 4.5 billion years ago and 3.6 billion of that has sustained life through every type of change and destruction... the only thing that is screwed is us.

Indeed...... However I can't quite believe that the dinosaurs built a gazillion power stations and took countless tonnes of minerals out of the ground to make plastic toy homo sapiens for their kids though. Climate change still did for them though.

[cn174]

Indeed...... However I can't quite believe that the dinosaurs built a gazillion power stations and took countless tonnes of minerals out of the ground to make plastic toys for their kids though. Climate change still did for them though.

I dunno, I think Dinosaurs might be cleverer than you think

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507305/Dinovembers-toy-dinosaurs-come-life-creative-parents-spark-web-craze.html

[thenodrog]

I dunno, I think Dinosaurs might be cleverer than you think

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507305/Dinovembers-toy-dinosaurs-come-life-creative-parents-spark-web-craze.html

edited my post in deference Clur.... although Dinosaurs didn't know what homo sapiens were back then.

[Al]

Indeed...... However I can't quite believe that the dinosaurs built a gazillion power stations and took countless tonnes of minerals out of the ground to make plastic toy homo sapiens for their kids though. Climate change still did for them though.

And the dinosaurs were no more the cause of climate change than the human race is today. It is a natural phenomenon.

[Baz]

And the dinosaurs were no more the cause of climate change than the human race is today. It is a natural phenomenon.

You deny humans are having any effect on the climate?

The dinosaurs where around for over 100m years, and where only really finally wiped out by massive, instant climate change from a meteor. We have seen a larger temperature fluctuation in the past 200 years than the geological record shows in that whole 100m year period.

[Al]

You deny humans are having any effect on the climate?

The dinosaurs where around for over 100m years, and where only really finally wiped out by massive, instant climate change from a meteor. We have seen a larger temperature fluctuation in the past 200 years than the geological record shows in that whole 100m year period.

I certainly deny that humans are having any significant effect on climate. If there is to be a new ice age or significant higher temperatures there is kean all we can do about it.

What you say is bullpoo. Do you deny that there has been an ice age when glaciers changed the rock formations in this country?

[Baz]

Do you deny that there has been an ice age when glaciers changed the rock formations in this country?

Do you deny that there has been an ice age when glaciers changed the rock formations in this country?

In a geological sense yes i deny, in a geomorphical sense, no i agree. Which one are you arguing?

Do i know that climate has changed over a long period of time, well yes, the science says yes, do i think humans have influenced the climate, well yes too. The overwhelming % of scientists agree with me, which part of their science do you disagree with, considering they also include natural climate change as part of their reasoning?

[Al]

Whatever geo you are referring too it is complete nonsense to say that there have been more fluctuations in temperature in the last 200 years than in the previous 100 million years when we have had Ice Ages. If you are referring to a specific period millions of years ago it hardly has any relevance to the current climate.

Of course a high % of scientists agree with you. Having pinned their colours to the mast they are now terrified of being wrong in much the same way as they stuck to the phlogiston theory of burning and the flat Earth when it was obvious that they were wrong.

If you care to outline the science and reasoning they are using I will attempt to tell you where I disagree. Do you know for instance that if you plot a graph of global warming against the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the rise in temperature almost invariably precedes the increase in CO2? If The scientists were correct you would expect it to be the other way round.

[thenodrog]

Do you know for instance that if you plot a graph of global warming against the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the rise in temperature almost invariably precedes the increase in CO2? If The scientists were correct you would expect it to be the other way round.

I'm sure I read somewhere that any rise in global temperature thaws vast swathes of ground across Canada and Russia previously subject to permafrost and in turn leads to increased bacterial and plant growth and the ensuing prodn and release of massive amounts of CO, Co2 and CH4, which in turn lead to as multiplier of further warming and further release of greenhouse gases.

Whaddya reckon Al?

[Stuart]

I thought plants produced oxygen?

[thenodrog]

Indeed they do and that might be the planet's balancing mechanism to the extra greenhouse gasses produced by the increased bacterial action breaking down that vegetation. It's all heavy stuff.

[Majiball]

I thought plants produced oxygen?

They also produce CO2.

[Al]

They also produce CO2.

Well in my science lessons I was told that they absorb CO2 and produce O2, What makes you think that they produce CO2?

[Paul]

Well in my science lessons I was told that they absorb CO2 and produce O2, What makes you think that they produce CO2?

I could get very boring over this but will try not to. You are correct, this is the standard teaching in relation to plants and photosynthesis BUT when the products of photosynthesis, typically sugars, are later broken down by the plant to release energy CO2 is also released. At night plants release more CO2 than they take in during the day. Plants are basically composed of sugars made carbon (CO2), oxygen and hydrogen, when the plant dies the decomposition process slowly releases the carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. While living approximately 50% of absorbed CO2 is released back into the atmosphere as a waste product.

I'll pop back to growing them now!