collapse

Poll

Do you believe that man's emission of Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 are (and will) signifcantly affecting the Climate?

Yes
28 (75.7%)
No
7 (18.9%)
Unsure
1 (2.7%)
D
1 (2.7%)

Total Members Voted: 37


Cobblestones

  • Domestic Rider
  • Country: 00
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 4
Re: Global warming my a.s
« Reply #120 on: February 13, 2012, 16:53 »
Well, you may have noticed already, I'm not a scientist.  I think my position is that I'm not convinced the warm trend is solely "caused" by man.

I'm not sure Easterbrook has an exact answer for every detail of the PDO (cause or effect) either, so I'm not quite sure what you'd like me to add.

As a layman, I find it odd that "solutions" to AGW center around the transfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped ones.  Further, I find it odd how the "accepted" science really has no explanation for why temps have not, since 1997, continued to march upward.  I also find it odd how the AGW crowd has behaved towards the skeptics.

Cynically, the taxation of CO2 and methane use and production is where this science has lead, not to any solutions.  Even if what you believe is 100% true then the effects realistically can't be stopped or even slowed.  I'm not much of an Armegeddonist so I will continue to consider other opinions if that's ok with you.

Thank you for the honest answer. I wish more in this thread would be that honest.

Clearly nobody posting in this thread is a climate scientist. So for anybody to say that they oppose mainstream climate science on scientific grounds would be preposterous. Sure, most here are able to google research results, and if they're published in popularized form (i.e. dumbed down), we might even get the general idea of them.

It seems fairly clear to me from your post that you oppose the idea of AGW or global climate change because of the 'solutions' which are offered to combat it which you describe as 'transfer of wealth' and 'taxation of CO2 and methane'. And my hunch is that most opponents of global climate change are mostly motivated by that angle. What I find disingenuous is for people to go from there, google a few fringe websites (which are mostly funded by the fossil fuel lobby) and cite half-digested pseudo science in order to claim that their opposing view is based on scientific grounds.

Clearly, when the vast majority of experts in the field agree that the current models are 'state of the art', then that is the best approximation of nature we are currently able to produce. It doesn't mean that the models are perfect and they are never going to be revised, or even that they will make accurate predictions of the future, but they are the best one could come up with, and no outrageous claim by any fringe group will change that.

I think what would be fruitful in this debate is to separate out climate science as a description and model of nature, from what humanity should or shouldn't do in order to influence the trajectory. This is where I believe mistakes have been made. Unlike the 'denial' side, which accepts funding from any corner and puts itself in many a conflict of interest, real climate science should be entirely independent of lobbying influences and hold itself to a higher standard. Also, climate scientists should not be in the business of suggesting goals for greenhouse gas reductions. The result should simply be that if this and that much CO2 and CH4 is emitted over a certain time period, global climate will likely change to whatever result is predicted according to the best models available. The decision to reduce emissions to whatever goal has to be a political one where everybody can and should participate, as long as we all accept that science has done its best to predict such changes.

There's so much to be said about your argument of 'transfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped ones', which, if you would just stop for a minute and think about it, should make you blush (hint: think about the exploitation of natural resources of developing countries by global companies with no regards to labor or environmental laws including all the corruption which follows). But that has little to do with global climate change.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 16:54 by Cobblestones »
    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.

    Scott SoCal

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 60
    • Liked: 3
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #121 on: February 13, 2012, 18:35 »

    There's so much to be said about your argument of 'transfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped ones', which, if you would just stop for a minute and think about it, should make you blush (hint: think about the exploitation of natural resources of developing countries by global companies with no regards to labor or environmental laws including all the corruption which follows). But that has little to do with global climate change.

    I am only really talking about the 'penalties' to developed nations.  One would think the atmosphere would be unable to differentiate between CO2/CH4/NOx produced by India or China and those GHG's produced by the US or Canada.  Yet (it's my understanding) the protocol takes a much different approach to assessing 'penalties'.

    Either GHG's are bad or they are not, right?

    Again, cynically, it appears as though the US economy is essentially under attack from the rest of the world.  Granted, per capita, we produce more GHG's.... but if there is going to be cuts in emissions then there should be cuts across the board (my view).  But that is not how the protocol is set up.  Then you throw in the sketchiness of the IPCC, the hockey stick, the emails... the skeptics... the earth warming and cooling before the industrial revolution...  it makes it very easy to be a doubter if one comes from a slightly cynical starting point.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #122 on: February 13, 2012, 19:32 »
    Right, based on what you chose to ignore and supersize, can I take that you will ignore all serious points and objections I (and others) raise then, and you will just come out with bongs and dudes, and Al Gore's, and other zingers? This isn't about debate at all for you, is it?

    I am apologizing if you except more from user named Humpy Jam on cycling forum, with topic named Global warming my ass ;D

    The very data that you yourself throw in as significant seriously suggest you are not understanding the material you are raising, as it is supportive of my points, not yours. When you realise that your argument is floored, you move the goal posts. If 420,000 doesn't matter, as we are talking zillions, you've got some nerve raising a point that is based on 150 years , from the that same data set, as a counter argument.

    You are right, I am liar dude :D, I did 145 minutes instead of 140 minutes of running.
    Just watched last Fidel speech conference, it last 6 hours, what he did said? Nothing, really nothing :'(
    I am doomed and superior on the other hand cos my English knowledge, you see when someone type 55 694 words in answer; i have that mechanism to ignore irrelevant belletristic letters and just pick up important things.
    In your case my answers are just that, on 10% of your post which is relevant for my logic chip , sorry but I am unable to computing other 90% ;) cos it consist of.... wait what did I just try to say?
    Yes Brevity is the soul of wit :D
    Nothing personal mate.

    If you are really keeping "an open mind and are willing to learn", I suggest you revisit the way you are going about it.

    Thanks mate, I will try that 8)
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 19:33 by Humpy Jam »
    Reverend Fred Saves!!

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #123 on: February 13, 2012, 19:45 »
    Reading what we actually write isn't your strong point, is it?
    Reading quality is not a problem, quantity is ;)

    The problem with not reading is that you keep asking questions, issues and problems (from 2003), which have answers (from 2012) which are already given, in posts above you, and in links before this one.
    So you somehow gave us an answers about global warming, bravo!! :P
    Wait, apply for the academic job.
    Of course I am keep asking questions, issues and problems which you can not (as I can not 100% answer on yours q, if any) ;D answer, ok you can.
    Bravo!

    And which are in posts about as long as the one you quote, so spare me the "it's too long" nonsense. Or do you only read long stuff when it suits you?

    My long stuff are copy/paste art, nothing else. Yours on the other hand consists (as I mention earlier) of two jpg. graphs, with some superb (I must admit) poetry, trying to answer on my issues,...wait I am going somewhere again..
    Brevity is the soul of wit ;)
    Nothing personal mate.

    P.S.
    EDIT: Please try not to edit yours posts one hour later, then I would might have a chance to answer them ;)
    It is at least..., nah never mind.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #124 on: February 13, 2012, 19:54 »
    But let keep this topic not too serious, just regular food fight, ok? We are not some naked fanatics in front of UN building, and I am apologizing in advance and backwards if I hurt someone feelings ;)


    It's Freudian. The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate-change believers are like Freudians.
    If the weather is warm, it's proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play.kool :-*

     It's chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise. The computer models immortalized by Al Gore did not anticipate this; in fact, they predicted that temperatures would continue to rise steeply more or less forever, except that human beings would all die in 50 years or so with unknown (though presumably salutary) effects on the by-then Venus-like surface of planet Earth
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 19:56 by Humpy Jam »

    Cobblestones

    • Domestic Rider
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 61
    • Liked: 4
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #125 on: February 13, 2012, 21:00 »
    I am only really talking about the 'penalties' to developed nations.  One would think the atmosphere would be unable to differentiate between CO2/CH4/NOx produced by India or China and those GHG's produced by the US or Canada.  Yet (it's my understanding) the protocol takes a much different approach to assessing 'penalties'.

    Either GHG's are bad or they are not, right?

    Again, cynically, it appears as though the US economy is essentially under attack from the rest of the world.  Granted, per capita, we produce more GHG's.... but if there is going to be cuts in emissions then there should be cuts across the board (my view).  But that is not how the protocol is set up.  Then you throw in the sketchiness of the IPCC, the hockey stick, the emails... the skeptics... the earth warming and cooling before the industrial revolution...  it makes it very easy to be a doubter if one comes from a slightly cynical starting point.

    No one says that Chinese or Indian GHGs are any different from US or European ones. This is precisely the line I think would be useful to draw. The science should concern itself with modeling and predictions what will happen when we put so and so many GHGs in the atmosphere (never mind where they come from). The politics is for the general public discussion (provided we accept the scientific consensus which none of us has the expertise to understand or improve anyway).

    Say, globally, we want to limit GHG emissions to a certain level, in order to curb climate change to a point we think is still acceptable. There's at least two questions which have to be answered by politics.
    1) How much climate change is acceptable?
    2) How do we globally proportion out limits on GHG emissions?
    Neither of the two are scientific questions and should not be answered or even addressed by scientists. Both could be answered using economic models and basically turned into a cost/benefit analysis. Of course the answer to both questions will be different for each country. Now, I can see the point that developed countries often use energy much more efficiently and productively. On the other hand, they also use so much more energy per capita than developing nations.

    Conversely, I hope you can appreciate the point of international solidarity. Obviously, developing nations will have a much harder time to cope with climate change than developed ones. Implementation of emission cuts will burden them proportionally more than developed countries. Also, they have contributed much less to the problem in the first place. So why not give them a break?

    Anyway, this is the playground for discussion. Not the science, but the politics of it.
  • ReplyReply

  • Martin318is

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 560
    • Liked: 163
    • Less interesting than he seems on paper
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #126 on: February 13, 2012, 22:30 »
    I invite you to share with me an article by a peer reviewed scientist that says the IPCC are unreliable and alarmist.

    Not necessary.  There is a large supply of articles and comment from the Fox network making exactly that clai....  oh wait...
  • ReplyReply
  • About Masters Club racing:
    ".. if I can't double the petrol money, I'm headin over the mountains instead" - Michael Fox, Team SAS

    Martin318is

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 560
    • Liked: 163
    • Less interesting than he seems on paper
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #127 on: February 14, 2012, 00:38 »
    For me, I get frustrated by people ignoring one truth because they are in disagreement about another point that may or may not be related.  For instance, it is pretty stupid to hear the words "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" and immediately address it as a question of man-made CO2 emissions or man made actions.  The two are linked issues, but one does not necessarily negate the other.  Here is a sequence of topics for discussion that should all be taken as individual points (in my view):

    • The global climate is heating up
    • CO2 is a contributor to global warming
    • Man made CO2 is contributing to (or even accelerating) the increases in global CO2
    • Man can take actions to reduce man-made CO2 emissions
    • Reductions in man made CO2 will impact global CO2
    • Reducing global CO2 will slow down or halt global warming

    While in most cases in that sequence you need to basically agree with an earlier point to bother considering the next one, the reverse is NOT true. 

    Too often (as we see in the above conversation) a person's reaction to the question of point 1 is to argue about 5 and claim that supposed lack of evidence on that point will somehow disprove the reality of point 1.

    My own view is that the science is very solid on points 1 through 4, debateable on point 5 depending upon which method is used, and that point 6 is possibly true for slow down, unlikely for halt.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 00:42 by Martin318is »

    Dekker_Tifosi

    • Super Saiyan 3
    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 228
    • Liked: 3
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #128 on: February 14, 2012, 00:43 »
    i don't think human co2 emissions have any effect at all at the global weather systems.

    The main change is that we have a lot more weather data available due to technology progress than we had before. All this data makes scientists jump to certain conclusions which are mostly premature and need much, much more researching. Who says fluctuations like these haven't taken place before.
    In fact, science only has a global view of the avg. temperature and fluctuations over the past few million years. They don't have year-to-year precise intervals, hell, they don't even have accurate 100-year intervals data. So perhaps a sudden rise and sudden fall of avg. temperature has taken place before, we simply do not know and scientists who claim they do aren't good scientists. It will takes centuries of more research before we know or we might even never know.

    Also regarding co2 emissions and their effect on the weather there has been a lot of contradicting research on that as well. So again, how can they possibly make a definite conclusion about it. It's beyond me how scientists, people who learned for this stuff, can jump to stuff like that. Probably pressurized by politics.
  • ReplyReply

  • Martin318is

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 560
    • Liked: 163
    • Less interesting than he seems on paper
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #129 on: February 14, 2012, 01:48 »
    Also regarding co2 emissions and their effect on the weather there has been a lot of contradicting research on that as well. So again, how can they possibly make a definite conclusion about it. It's beyond me how scientists, people who learned for this stuff, can jump to stuff like that. Probably pressurized by politics.

    Heard that one a LOT and have yet to hear a valid argument for why politicians would invent the idea and push it onto scientists - after all, the other option is that scientists came up with the theory first (and therefore were not pressured by politics).  Only one of those two can be true.

    Also, speaking from experience, the claim that scientists are somehow the slaves of political interests is just plain absurd.  Whilst you get the odd self interested researcher (as you do in every other walk of life) the overarching role of a scientist is not to do what politicians want them to.  Their goal is to find the underlying truth - whatever that is.
  • ReplyReply

  • bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #130 on: February 14, 2012, 07:21 »
    For me, I get frustrated by people ignoring one truth because they are in disagreement about another point that may or may not be related.  For instance, it is pretty stupid to hear the words "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" and immediately address it as a question of man-made CO2 emissions or man made actions.  The two are linked issues, but one does not necessarily negate the other.  Here is a sequence of topics for discussion that should all be taken as individual points (in my view):

    • The global climate is heating up
    • CO2 is a contributor to global warming
    • Man made CO2 is contributing to (or even accelerating) the increases in global CO2
    • Man can take actions to reduce man-made CO2 emissions
    • Reductions in man made CO2 will impact global CO2
    • Reducing global CO2 will slow down or halt global warming

    While in most cases in that sequence you need to basically agree with an earlier point to bother considering the next one, the reverse is NOT true. 

    Too often (as we see in the above conversation) a person's reaction to the question of point 1 is to argue about 5 and claim that supposed lack of evidence on that point will somehow disprove the reality of point 1.

    My own view is that the science is very solid on points 1 through 4, debateable on point 5 depending upon which method is used, and that point 6 is possibly true for slow down, unlikely for halt.
    Thanks for joining in on the discussion. Your sequence of points is good, however I would respectfully like to correct the scientific consensus on these things:

    Reductions in man made CO2 will impact global CO2
    Reducing global CO2 will slow down or halt global warming

    There is a time lag in the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, the effects of today's emissions will be felt in say, I dunno, 30 years time.  That means, climate change/global warming will get worse over that time period. If we continue increasing the concentration, it will get worse and worse. So we can't stop it, but by reducing emissions we are reducing its severity.

    Reducing severity is important because places are building adaptation strategies, policies and technologies. If the severity of climate change is greater than the capacity of the adaptation strategy, then that would be a gigantic waste of time, money, resources and potentially lives.

    I'm sorry, this is without references, I'd be happy to provide if you need.


    i don't think human co2 emissions have any effect at all at the global weather systems.

    The main change is that we have a lot more weather data available due to technology progress than we had before. All this data makes scientists jump to certain conclusions which are mostly premature and need much, much more researching. Who says fluctuations like these haven't taken place before.
    In fact, science only has a global view of the avg. temperature and fluctuations over the past few million years. They don't have year-to-year precise intervals, hell, they don't even have accurate 100-year intervals data. So perhaps a sudden rise and sudden fall of avg. temperature has taken place before, we simply do not know and scientists who claim they do aren't good scientists. It will takes centuries of more research before we know or we might even never know.

    Also regarding co2 emissions and their effect on the weather there has been a lot of contradicting research on that as well. So again, how can they possibly make a definite conclusion about it. It's beyond me how scientists, people who learned for this stuff, can jump to stuff like that. Probably pressurized by politics.

    Thank you also for joining the debate!
    Climate scientists say at the beginning of their conferences that they need more data and better super computers. They are well aware of the limitations of their field. That's why they are super conservative about their predictions and super careful about their experiments. They are great scientists. Their predictions are not premature: the issue of climate change has strong for 30+ years, and they have been strengthening and refining the theories and calculations since 1890 with Svante Arrhenius!

    Perhaps a sudden rise/fall in temperature has happened before? ===> Scientists know the effects this will have on ecosystems, life, oceans, forests, soil, etc. and they are communicating these right now. Measuring the effect of temperature on something would be an easy scientific experiment to make, so you can be sure they know what the effects will be.

    Finally, there is little-no contradicting research on CO2 emissions and climate. Most of what you read that is against this relationship fails in peer-review, is criticised for being poor science. In fact, the poor science is more likely to be the political pressure.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycman: Sagan Greipel Brajkovic Breschel CA.Sorensen Porte Wegmann Sutton Zubeldia Fedrigo Lastras Roux Selig Morabito Dumoulin T.Meyer
    CQ game-breakers: Boom Ciolek DeGendt Steegmans Bertagnolli Blythe Masciarelli Stetina Boeckmans Vaugrenard

    Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #131 on: February 14, 2012, 08:25 »
    No one says that Chinese or Indian GHGs are any different from US or European ones. This is precisely the line I think would be useful to draw. The science should concern itself with modeling and predictions what will happen when we put so and so many GHGs in the atmosphere (never mind where they come from). The politics is for the general public discussion (provided we accept the scientific consensus which none of us has the expertise to understand or improve anyway).

    Say, globally, we want to limit GHG emissions to a certain level, in order to curb climate change to a point we think is still acceptable. There's at least two questions which have to be answered by politics.
    1) How much climate change is acceptable?
    2) How do we globally proportion out limits on GHG emissions?
    Neither of the two are scientific questions and should not be answered or even addressed by scientists. Both could be answered using economic models and basically turned into a cost/benefit analysis. Of course the answer to both questions will be different for each country. Now, I can see the point that developed countries often use energy much more efficiently and productively. On the other hand, they also use so much more energy per capita than developing nations.

    Conversely, I hope you can appreciate the point of international solidarity. Obviously, developing nations will have a much harder time to cope with climate change than developed ones. Implementation of emission cuts will burden them proportionally more than developed countries. Also, they have contributed much less to the problem in the first place. So why not give them a break?

    Anyway, this is the playground for discussion. Not the science, but the politics of it.

    Well put. Every country has some responsibility to protect the environment, some countries are in a better position to put it place policies that could do so than others.

    The cream of the society (no matter which nation) could try and live a bit more of an austere life. On the other hand, 60% of the India's population live below or just above the poverty line (it would be close to 80% according to other credible estimates) and if a country like India has to develop and this large section of the population has to have a decent standard of living, the Carbon emissions will obviously go up.

    I have said earlier that environmental protection has been a luxury policy for most govt around the world. It shouldn't be an imperative that harsh caps are to be imposed on developing nations would certainly not help in improving living standards in such nations and almost sends the message that developing nations are condemned to be where they are.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #132 on: February 14, 2012, 09:10 »


    • The global climate is heating up
    • CO2 is a contributor to global warming
    • Man made CO2 is contributing to (or even accelerating) the increases in global CO2
    • Man can take actions to reduce man-made CO2 emissions
    • Reductions in man made CO2 will impact global CO2
    • Reducing global CO2 will slow down or halt global warming

    Jesus Martin my love, where is question mark at the end? 8)
    I know that Aussies are all hysterical about it, but let me calm you down with my superb knowledge of climatology and more superb knowledge of copy/paste art ;)

    1.The global climate is no heating up

    1978 it had started to warm again, to everybody’s relief. But two decades later, after the temperature peaked in 1998 under the influence of El Nino, climate stopped warming for eight years; and in 2007 entered a cooling phase marked by lower solar radiation and a reversal of the cycles of warm ocean temperature in the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is important to note that this new cooling period is occurring concurrently with an acceleration in CO2 emissions.
    Polar bears can swim and they will survive in Belgium if needed. England had lot of vineyards once, and this is the reason why they drink so heavily :-X

    2. CO2 is a contributor to global warming, hell no!
    It is just fine, by some CO2 is only 9% of GHG ;)
    It is so healthy gas.

    3.Man made CO2 is contributing to (or even accelerating) the increases in global CO2, of course not :o
    The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance, or 4% top :-[

    4. Man can take actions to reduce man-made CO2 emissions
    There is no need for that. Man can not do anything, it is natural. Hey alarmist, take an experiment and try to change Moon, or Venus climate, it will not happened.

    5. See above
    6. See bove

    CO2 hysteria is just another global tax, everyone is producing and everyone must payed ...no wait, some countries should pay more :'(.
    It is just US blackmail against UN (US is major UN contributor)

    That is just my 34 cents
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #133 on: February 14, 2012, 09:17 »
    Well put. Every country has some responsibility to protect the environment, some countries are in a better position to put it place policies that could do so than others.

    The cream of the society (no matter which nation) could try and live a bit more of an austere life. On the other hand, 60% of the India's population live below or just above the poverty line (it would be close to 80% according to other credible estimates) and if a country like India has to develop and this large section of the population has to have a decent standard of living, the Carbon emissions will obviously go up.

    I have said earlier that environmental protection has been a luxury policy for most govt around the world. It shouldn't be an imperative that harsh caps are to be imposed on developing nations would certainly not help in improving living standards in such nations and almost sends the message that developing nations are condemned to be where they are.

    This is point of interest I afraid.
    ganjakrissdude, just throw your garbage wherever you like, I throw mine throughout window every day, and guess what? There is no global warming here ;D ;D Just waiting for good looking naked eco chick to  show up 8)
  • ReplyReply

  • Sizzle

    • Owner of Liquigas & Garmin
    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 323
    • Liked: 144
    • Vale Craig1985
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #134 on: February 14, 2012, 10:27 »


    There is a time lag in the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, the effects of today's emissions will be felt in say, I dunno, 30 years time.  That means, climate change/global warming will get worse over that time period. If we continue increasing the concentration, it will get worse and worse. So we can't stop it, but by reducing emissions we are reducing its severity.

    ...

    Perhaps a sudden rise/fall in temperature has happened before? ===> Scientists know the effects this will have on ecosystems, life, oceans, forests, soil, etc. and they are communicating these right now. Measuring the effect of temperature on something would be an easy scientific experiment to make, so you can be sure they know what the effects will be.
     



    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[22] This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and a few other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[23] While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[24][25][26]

    -- 20%. It's not an insignificant fraction, is it?



    I heard an interview with a Danish geologist yesterday who suggested there has never before been this rapid an increase in temperature.


  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #135 on: February 14, 2012, 10:44 »
    Jesus Martin my love, where is question mark at the end? 8)
    I know that Aussies are all hysterical about it, but let me calm you down with my superb knowledge of climatology and more superb knowledge of copy/paste art ;)

    1.The global climate is no heating up

    1978 it had started to warm again, to everybody’s relief. But two decades later, after the temperature peaked in 1998 under the influence of El Nino, climate stopped warming for eight years; and in 2007 entered a cooling phase marked by lower solar radiation and a reversal of the cycles of warm ocean temperature in the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is important to note that this new cooling period is occurring concurrently with an acceleration in CO2 emissions.
    Polar bears can swim and they will survive in Belgium if needed. England had lot of vineyards once, and this is the reason why they drink so heavily :-X
     

    How can it be a cooling period if temperatures are above historic averages?
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #136 on: February 14, 2012, 11:44 »
    How can it be a cooling period if temperatures are above historic averages?
    By whom, it depends where and how they measure those temp. The temperature of the U.S., which has a relatively good surface record taken from many stations, has shown no significant warming trend over the last 100 years. The globally averaged surface temperature record from IPCC 1995 shows an increase of about 0.5°C between 1910 and 1940, before most of the greenhouse gases from human activities entered the atmosphere. Therefore, most of the warming of the last 100 years has natural causes as its explanation.
    That is what I believe IMHO :P






    [img]http://www.imgplace.com/img407/2901/59image192.th.gif[/
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 11:47 by Hank Tickler »

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #137 on: February 14, 2012, 12:02 »
    The graph doesn't seem to come up very well.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/time-series/

    You can choose global average for each month, none of them look like showing a cooling period to me, and all the regression lines are positive.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #138 on: February 14, 2012, 12:20 »
    The graph doesn't seem to come up very well.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/time-series/

    You can choose global average for each month, none of them look like showing a cooling period to me, and all the regression lines are positive.

    Yes something happens with upload,
    I will back latter, must running 8)
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1974
    • Liked: 52
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #139 on: February 14, 2012, 14:07 »
    ...just finished a rather interesting article which examines, among other things, the well established relationship between climate change denial and the idea that bike paths are a U.N. plot...the article link is below...

    http://grist.org/climate-change/cohort-replacement-climate-deniers-wont-change-but-they-will-die/

    ...hope this moves the discussion forward ( seeing as we will now have a better picture of the various players on the fight card for today's bout)....or we could just give up on this discussion and concentrate our energies onto really important stuff like which gruppo has the shinier finish: Campy, Dura-Disgrace or SCAM?...

    Cheers

    blutto
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 8403
    • Liked: 3364
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Race Preview of 2014Best Post 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #140 on: February 14, 2012, 15:57 »
    Off topic discussion moved here
    http://velorooms.com/the-troll-hole/re-global-warming-my-a-s/
    please keep it civil guys
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 10:19 by Admin »

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #141 on: February 14, 2012, 19:36 »
    The graph doesn't seem to come up very well.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/time-series/

    You can choose global average for each month, none of them look like showing a cooling period to me, and all the regression lines are positive.

    Well Judge it seems that is easy to play with numbers, here is example.

    The figure shows the combined land-surface air and sea surface temperatures (degrees Centigrade) 1861 to 1998, relative to the average temperature between 1961 and 1990.
    My question: Why are they choosing the average temperature of the period 1961-1998 as the "normal one"??

    In the graph an horizontal key covering the cool period from 1947 to 1977, marked with the letter A.

    According to the IPCC, the rising levels of CO2 anthropogenic emissions are responsible for the sustained temperature increase. Ergo, the bigger the concentrations of carbon dioxide, the greater the warming. Period. And we just do not see it, right?

    Also some errors are possible: "This comment by the UNEP obviously leaves aside measuring errors due to inappropriate techniques, or old and unefficient equipments, as it has been demonstrated more times than the IPCC likes to remember. A 0.5º C error in measurement made during the sailboat era, when canvas or metal buckets wre used to pick the water from the sea surface; or by means of pipe intake feeding the boilers of early 20th century ships, etc, are enough to invalidate (if those arrors are not corrected) all sea surface temperature records prior to the 1950s"



    We discuss Vostok ice core project early on, and I mentioned Croatian Academic of Sciences dude dr. Paar (who do not buy those stuff)  and how CO2 are related with temperature, right?
    It is related, but first we see temperature rising, and then CO2 rising, not vice-versa, let me explain.



    Under letter A, at left, in the region about + 322.000 before present, CO2 concentrations decreased from 300 to 260 ppm, and temperatures did the same, during the same period, from 3,6º C to 1,58º C, aproximately. However, it does not matter here which one went down or up first - the point is their ups and downs do not correlate at all, as suggested by the UNEP and the IPCC.


    Let us go to the example marked by the letter C. Temperatures began to go down, and CO2 levels kept going for about 1800 years more! Then, while CO2 levels remained stable (in clear and wide plateau during about 8,000 years), the temperature went down, kept quite stable, went down again, up, and down once more before CO2 levels started to decrease. But, as in the case B, changes in temperature occurred BEFORE carbon dioxide levels followed the “correlation”.

    The same lack of correlativity is present in example D, where temperatures go down rapidly, while carbon dioxide levels keep stable for a while, and the go down in a manner and intensity that differ with other parts of the chart, showing CO2 is not the important GHG pretended by the IPCC and the "warmers".

    Ice core do not lie, of course people choose it, some even suggest that Vostok samples where contaminated, broken etc.
    You must admit that I am great in copy/paste ;)
    I am not saying it must be true, however it opens lot of place for discussion.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #142 on: February 14, 2012, 19:54 »
    ...just finished a rather interesting article which examines, among other things, the well established relationship between climate change denial and the idea that bike paths are a U.N. plot...the article link is below...

    http://grist.org/climate-change/cohort-replacement-climate-deniers-wont-change-but-they-will-die/

    ...hope this moves the discussion forward ( seeing as we will now have a better picture of the various players on the fight card for today's bout)....or we could just give up on this discussion and concentrate our energies onto really important stuff like which gruppo has the shinier finish: Campy, Dura-Disgrace or SCAM?...

    Cheers

    blutto

    blutto you apocalyptic rider of climate changes. 8) I like those free minded text, mildly sarcastic, and lot of good will and humor.
    Especially like when someone called me: "And not just conservative white men, but old conservative white men"
    Dude is right, I will not change my mind soon ;D, cos I just changed my mind after years of climate propaganda, and guess what? Nothing happens yet ;) ;)
    I was ready dude, I was ready, like my neighbor Jehovah's Witness, I was damn ready.
  • ReplyReply

  • Martin318is

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 560
    • Liked: 163
    • Less interesting than he seems on paper
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #143 on: February 14, 2012, 22:31 »
    Jesus Martin my love, where is question mark at the end? 8)

    Why would the numbered points in my post require question marks?   It was VERY clearly stated that they are placeholders for a sequence of ideas for discussion and not statements of fact. 

    That should pose no problem for anyone - unless of course they are so insecure about their point of view that they see the lack of question marks as some form of attack... 
  • ReplyReply

  • Zam

    • everything and nothing.
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: re
    • Posts: 2665
    • Liked: 476
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #144 on: February 14, 2012, 22:37 »
    Interesting topic..i really wish ACF would take part in earnest.
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2293
    • Liked: 518
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #145 on: February 15, 2012, 00:18 »
    blutto you apocalyptic rider of climate changes. 8) I like those free minded text, mildly sarcastic, and lot of good will and humor.
    Especially like when someone called me: "And not just conservative white men, but old conservative white men"
    Dude is right, I will not change my mind soon ;D, cos I just changed my mind after years of climate propaganda, and guess what? Nothing happens yet ;) ;)
    I was ready dude, I was ready, like my neighbor Jehovah's Witness, I was damn ready.

    Ok - so you have no way of showing data which supports your claim that the last ten years are part of a broader "cooling period", thanks anyway.
  • ReplyReply

  • Tuart

    • Pobblebonk
    • Road Captain
    • Country: tl
    • Posts: 2045
    • Liked: 483
    • Awards: Velogames Giro Winner 2014
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #146 on: February 15, 2012, 04:00 »
    Can I ask,  if you have a complaint with another member of this community, please raise it with the moderation team either by PM, or by using the report button.  It does not serve any purpose to discuss what is acceptable and non-acceptable within the thread as it does nothing but disrupt things as much as the original problem, and also gives off a very poor advert of the community.

    The original posts regarding this have been moved here>
    http://velorooms.com/the-troll-hole/re-global-warming-my-a-s/
    where discussion if needed may be continued.

    Thanks muchly

    Absolute bull crap Dim. I made a valid post on the subject of someones posting in here. Saying now we can't question what people post is absurd and a moderator will remove those posts is absurd.
  • ReplyReply
  • 2014 Velorooms Giro d'Italia Velogames Winner

    DinZ

    • 2.2 is where it is at
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: zm
    • Posts: 3476
    • Liked: 359
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #147 on: February 15, 2012, 06:13 »
    I cannot comment on the Science of Climate change but am interested in the political aspect of developed nations and developing nations

    My understanding of the differing requirements is related to balance and realism

    firstly with balance. It is great for the developed world, which has benefited from years of doing god knows what and progressed to a point where they are able to have the luxury of saying, hang on we have messed up here and need to sort this out, let us use progressive technologies and limits to slow the impact. Then alongside that say, well sorry developing world after years of oppression and taking all your resources we are not going to offer you the same advantages we had when developing. Sorry

    to say all countries emissions are equal is to take a very isolated view of the situation and tends to ignore anything that has happened in the last 120 years or so.

    secondly i think there is an element of realism. If you make too great a demand of countries that simply cannot deliver then nothing will happen. if the limits on developing countries are too great, it no longer really becomes a realistic choice and they will just ignore anything.

    thats the way i see it anyway. Happy for someone to explain to me why i am completely wrong. My wife and son never tire of doing the same at home.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #148 on: February 15, 2012, 08:01 »
    Ok - so you have no way of showing data which supports your claim that the last ten years are part of a broader "cooling period", thanks anyway.
    Of course we realize that to many people, including many radicalized professors, global warming alarmism is almost  like a religion. Since 1998 the Earth is cooling and it happens to coincide with a similar period of unusually low solar activity. Look at the green line.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #149 on: February 15, 2012, 08:03 »
    Why would the numbered points in my post require question marks?   It was VERY clearly stated that they are placeholders for a sequence of ideas for discussion and not statements of fact. 

    That should pose no problem for anyone - unless of course they are so insecure about their point of view that they see the lack of question marks as some form of attack...
    Thank God Martin I thought that you are warmer, but you are one of ours, thank God :D
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    Recent Posts

    Re: Team Sponsorship 17/18 by LukasCPH
    [December 11, 2017, 22:22]


    Re: Team Sponsorship 17/18 by Armchair Cyclist
    [December 11, 2017, 21:52]


    Re: Team Sponsorship 17/18 by LukasCPH
    [December 11, 2017, 14:10]


    Re: Men's Kits 2018 by jimmythecuckoo
    [December 11, 2017, 14:08]


    Re: Men's Kits 2018 by LukasCPH
    [December 11, 2017, 14:00]


    Re: Men's Kits 2018 by just some guy
    [December 11, 2017, 13:13]

    Recent Topics

    topic Team Sponsorship 17/18
    [Men's Road Cycling]
    LukasCPH
    December 11, 2017, 22:22
    topic Men's Kits 2018
    [Men's Road Cycling]
    jimmythecuckoo
    December 11, 2017, 14:08
    topic Chris Froome
    [The Dark Side]
    hiero
    December 11, 2017, 12:07
    topic Lappartient
    [Men's Road Cycling]
    hiero
    December 11, 2017, 11:37
    topic Collective CQ Team 2018
    [Games]
    LukasCPH
    December 11, 2017, 07:57


    Top
    Back to top