http://www.realclimate.org/
This is a good place to start for those people writng the ignorant rubbish on this thread.
This is a good place to start for those people writng the ignorant rubbish on this thread.
Junk Science
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Pick your starting point. Those with only high school education (or lower), start at an easy level.
Pick your starting point. Those with only high school education (or lower), start at an easy level.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
Crickey, I think some of this stuff is away above some of you guys, but give it a go anyway. Remember, climate change is complicated. Doing nothing is not an option anymore!!!
Crickey, I think some of this stuff is away above some of you guys, but give it a go anyway. Remember, climate change is complicated. Doing nothing is not an option anymore!!!
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Right, because a website told you.
Like I said, I'm not on board with the whole global warming issue but I do things that help the environment in general. So I don't see what the big fuss is about. And why is there nothing on the sun's activities even though that's probably the single most important determinant in the earth's temperature?
Like I said, I'm not on board with the whole global warming issue but I do things that help the environment in general. So I don't see what the big fuss is about. And why is there nothing on the sun's activities even though that's probably the single most important determinant in the earth's temperature?
senojekips
Active member
So you are trying to tell us uneducated clods that you understand the material you have quoted better than "some of us guys"?? Yep, that's the first move of any con job, try to talk over people's heads, it will make them think that you are highly educated and therefore infallible. Yeah,... I've been there and seen that, got the cauliflower ears to prove it.
Did you notice that many of the articles you so willingly quote, referred to "global warming". This misconception has already been largely replaced by the adoption of the term "Climate change" as the eggheads have actually started to wake up to the fact that, it is not so much "warming", as extremes of weather, in both directions. Yep,.. even they are slowly admitting that they haven't got it quite right just yet. (Well,... they are not exactly admitting it, but it is being leaked to the public slowly to avoid having to wipe too much egg off too many faces). Whatever you do though, do not tell anyone this, as it will put the rot into the foundations so many preconceived ideas that people have come to love and believe.
So Errol, your judgement of "us guys" or "them guys" may be somewhat premature. Plus you also seem to have missed the point that this debate is about the part that man's actions may have played in this whole process, not as to whether Global warming/Climate change is actually happening.
The Other Guy
Spam King
It sure works for a lot of people around here... posting chain e-mails as "news."
perseus
Active member
Yes horrendously complex. We have stable temperatures for thousands of years then bang just as the population explodes and release things that we know absorb heat the atmospheres temperature erupts......:shoothea:
Of course these temperatures are all wrong anyway, no-one had thermometers that long ago, and we don't trust tree rings and ice cores and they don't show exactly the same figure anyway, and look they don't go up at the same time, and just for good measure where is that other temperature chart of that warm place in the Medieval period, and 3 million years ago it was warmer still, (that should cause enough confusion). So it must be the sun or volcanoes, or those funny ray things from outer space, and and I'ts a bloody cold summer here, so there, it can't be humans because no-one is going to stop me driving my SUV. There disproved it! ...... Phew!
senojekips
Active member
Yep,... that's gotta be proof enough for me,...
Stable for thousands of years eh? What's that Mini Ice age on your diagram there??... And that only goes back a single thousand years, selective science at it's best again eh? The climate has never been stable not day to day, year to year nor for any other period. What was it that man was doing to cause the mini Ice age?
It seems you very conveniently missed the point,... again, that no one here has said we should not be doing anything about climate change. So convenient,... so absolutely typical.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Yes horrendously complex. We have stable temperatures for thousands of years then bang just as the population explodes and release things that we know absorb heat the atmospheres temperature erupts......:shoothea:
Of course these temperatures are all wrong anyway, no-one had thermometers that long ago, and we don't trust tree rings and ice cores and they don't show exactly the same figure anyway, and look they don't go up at the same time, and just for good measure where is that other temperature chart of that warm place in the Medieval period, and 3 million years ago it was warmer still, (that should cause enough confusion). So it must be the sun or volcanoes, or those funny ray things from outer space, and and I'ts a bloody cold summer here, so there, it can't be humans because no-one is going to stop me driving my SUV. There disproved it! ...... Phew!
On its own that graph is pretty scary however this is not the first time we have reached these temperatures:
We have reached these points four times in the past and this current peak is not any higher nor is it out sequence in terms of the repetition cycle so how can we attribute a large proportion of the problem to mans industrialisation when we see the same trend pre-industrial revolution?
Until this current trend has reached its conclusion we really cannot assign the cause to industrialisation, if the trend continues and we set new temperature records then sure I am prepared to accept the difference as mans interference (industrialisation, over population etc) but until this cycle ends we just done know.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
As for CO2 concentration, it was higher during the Jurassic period and when the dinosaurs were around. And I don't think they had factories. And life was quite abundant. You can go through the trouble of looking that one up.
The cyclic pattern of the chart MontyB posted is typical of natural phenomena. I don't know how true it is but it's usually how systems in nature tend to work. Also, again, key element could be what the sun is doing. Those temperature fluctuations could in fact have more to do with the sun's cycles than anything else.
The cyclic pattern of the chart MontyB posted is typical of natural phenomena. I don't know how true it is but it's usually how systems in nature tend to work. Also, again, key element could be what the sun is doing. Those temperature fluctuations could in fact have more to do with the sun's cycles than anything else.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Please remember though that this cycle is not over yet, if it ends in the next few years I would suggest that we can claim man is having next to no effect but it it doesn't it may be too late for us to do something about it.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Which is exactly why at least I do my part to help the environment.
It's got many more benefits aside from just global warming. You save money, your neighborhood and country get cleaner. The streets get less crowded and it's better for your health too.
The cycle isn't over, you're right, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it continued on the course that it always had. That's what I think will happen. But the measures that could prevent a global warming have benefits beyond that theory that are true which is why I engage in it.
I think I'm making sense.
It's got many more benefits aside from just global warming. You save money, your neighborhood and country get cleaner. The streets get less crowded and it's better for your health too.
The cycle isn't over, you're right, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it continued on the course that it always had. That's what I think will happen. But the measures that could prevent a global warming have benefits beyond that theory that are true which is why I engage in it.
I think I'm making sense.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The problem is that it is a very "balanced" cycle at what point will that balance reach overload point for example another degree of heat may melt ice packs to the point that they don't recover.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Considering how life is, I don't think it's THAT delicate. If it was, life would have never survived those comets, those Tobas, the Krakatoa's... The earth is a pretty sturdy creature.
Whether or not we choose to poison ourselves to death is another matter.
Whether or not we choose to poison ourselves to death is another matter.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The thing is that life really didn't survive the comets/asteroids it is estimated that 70% of all species of living things became extinct.
There is no doubt that the Earth is a sturdy vessel the problem is that we are not.
senojekips
Active member
Maybe it will be nature's way of telling us that we've reached our "use by" date.
The people who live in cities ***** and whinge about the traffic problem, the pollution, over crowding, land prices etc., but ask them to decentralise and they throw their hands in the air,... Oh, no,... we can't do that. Also they never take into consideration that the cities are often built on what was some of our most productive land. It's too hard to build on poor soils and mountain sides so we build on our best flat arable land.
I know at the moment the boffins are saying that the earth's food growing areas are going to change (that means that they will move, not necessarily disappear), it's just a matter of whether we can adapt quick enough. There is every chance that similar (probably far worse) events have happened before, unfortunately man wasn't here to document it and looking at Monty's last diagram this present surge in mean temperature seems to be right on time and magnitude (so far). Maybe we can blame the idiot who drew the graph?
The people who live in cities ***** and whinge about the traffic problem, the pollution, over crowding, land prices etc., but ask them to decentralise and they throw their hands in the air,... Oh, no,... we can't do that. Also they never take into consideration that the cities are often built on what was some of our most productive land. It's too hard to build on poor soils and mountain sides so we build on our best flat arable land.
What proof is there of this? Obviously we've never seen it before or we wouldn't be here. Is this just another supposition? Who actually knows whether we are really approaching the "tipping point", or is it just fear driven?
I know at the moment the boffins are saying that the earth's food growing areas are going to change (that means that they will move, not necessarily disappear), it's just a matter of whether we can adapt quick enough. There is every chance that similar (probably far worse) events have happened before, unfortunately man wasn't here to document it and looking at Monty's last diagram this present surge in mean temperature seems to be right on time and magnitude (so far). Maybe we can blame the idiot who drew the graph?
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Actually there's so much more land up north that a global warming could in fact make more land arable.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Actually if you look at it you will see that it was more of a question than a statement however if we wait until we are certain of the answer it will be too late as we will only know for certain once we are well past the point of no return.
perseus
Active member
Simply because you are comparing temperature changes on much longer timescales than present changes, when we know other natural effects can have large effects. It is like comparing changes in educational standards over the past few decades with the 'educational' standards 100 000 years ago when we has smaller brains. We could talk about Milankovitch cycles which are of course work on that longer timescale, but there is no need to go into that complex science stuff.
We have had 20 centuries when nothing much has changed with world temperatures. Now consider you were an alien (without any knowledge of human development and population) being given the temperature data up to 1900, and being asked this question:
What is the chance of a rise in average temperatures beyond the range of the past 2000 years over the next century?
The alien would look at the temperature record and conclude, well it is not impossible but very slim, perhaps one in ten, or given the slight downtrend perhaps one in twenty.
So when something happens that is unlikely we need to search for a good explanation rather than just something that is possible, and that is something that has changed over the past hundred years (anthropogenic greenhouse gases).
On a similar note, the change in educational standards in recent decades is not down to having bigger brains, but teaching methods and cultural changes.