Climatic Change

[scracha]

Regardless of whether it's caused by humans or not, is anyone else kinda scared of all this global warming? Glaciers melting, antartica dissappearing, forst fires, hurricanes, heatwaves, disease spreading, sealevels rising, giant jellyfish, flooding, ocean acidification, etc etc.

[Mr Merde]

Why worry.

If it happens it happens and there is really f all we can really do about it.

There was a time when Antartica was full of animal and plant life. It still had the long months of darkness and daylight but the animals adaoted. Then camne the ice. They all died. Who's to say that the earth isnt returning to aprevious state and that this is just another turn in a cycle/

99% of all life that has lived on this place we call Earth is now extinct. Could nature be telling us our time is near, in geological time maybe.

[2wheeldrifter]

Regardless of whether it's caused by humans or not, is anyone else kinda scared of all this global warming? Glaciers melting, antartica dissappearing, forst fires, hurricanes, heatwaves, disease spreading, sealevels rising, giant jellyfish, flooding, ocean acidification, etc etc.

Is a concern... more so for my kids!

Fuk no motorsports... or maybe motors for that matter!

Quick sell your beach front properties :laugh:

[puddytat]

Im really worried,my retirement aint looking anywhere as cosy as it did.
I think most folk really underestimate how deep the shit is that we're stumbling into.
I could go on & on but that'll just rev up the flat earthers that'll no doubt be along shortly.....

[Thaeos]

2012 baby, here it comes!

[JimO]

Im really worried,my retirement aint looking anywhere as cosy as it did.
I think most folk really underestimate how deep the shit is that we're stumbling into.
I could go on & on but that'll just rev up the flat earthers that'll no doubt be along shortly.....

the sky is falling

[flyingcr250]

im not worried, nothing HUGE is going to happen in my lifetime, except maybe poverty caused by the price rises associated with the stupid moronic ETS,
how is charging people gunna save the planet?? at the end of the day all this isnt to save the planet, its to save US!!! the planet will still be here long after people are gone, itll just regenerate and the cycle will start all over again.

[Quasievil]

the basis for it is a load of crap, here sums up my opinion

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_aPcXfAwPcg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_aPcXfAwPcg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Quasievil]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BYiptjBlzE0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BYiptjBlzE0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[zahria]

Its the fact that the working taxpayer again is being lumbered with yet more bloody taxes to pay for goddam carbon credits etc that pisses me off.
Look at the fires in the States, they won't be paying carbon credits for those?
China's Factory practices, the list goes on.

I reckon that it is a spin off from the World wars last century, and all the associated crap that got blown into the atmosphere.

[Bounce001]

Global warming is a crock of shit made up by politicians to get more tax.

[Pwalo]

Regardless of whether it's caused by humans or not, is anyone else kinda scared of all this global warming? Glaciers melting, antartica dissappearing, forst fires, hurricanes, heatwaves, disease spreading, sealevels rising, giant jellyfish, flooding, ocean acidification, etc etc.

No. The earth has been warmer before (ie the early Medieval period - you know before the Industrial Revolution), so I'm looking forward to a bit of warming.

[Blackbird]

The most readable book on climate change I've found is by our very own Dr David Morgan, economist and biker extrordiaire. He found it very hard to wade through the hyperbole and in some cases, downright dishonesty by scientists and politicians on both sides of the argument. He used some of his considerable resources to go digging and his book, " Poles Apart: Beyond the shouting, who’s right about climate change?" is the result.

Fascinating reading and written in a style which can be readily understood. Entertaining too! Go to your local library or bookshop.

[Jantar]

Here we go again. Thread number 297565 on Global warming


Regardless of whether it's caused by humans or not, is anyone else kinda scared of all this global warming?
Not scared at all. Because if you look at the actual data http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 You'll see that the atmosphere has been cooling since the extreme high of 1998. If we treat that high and the 1999 low as anomalies and discard them then the temperatures have still not risen over the last 9 years, and there are many indications of record low temperatures in 2009.


Glaciers melting,

The earth experienced a minin ice age only 150 - 300 years ago. During this period glaciers advanced, the Thames froze over, crops failed in many parts of the world etc. We have been rebounding from that ice age ever since. Now, what do you think happens to glaciers that have advanced during an ice age when that ice age ends?

Oh, and many glaciers around the world (including he western ones in New Zealand) are showing signs of advancing again.


antartica dissappearing,

Huh? That is a new one. The West Antartic ice sheet is breaking up, but that is above the antarctic circle, and has done this many times before. The remainder of Antartica is comprised mainly of glaciers over bedrock, and these glaciers are so massive that they are hard to comprehend. But like all glaciers they are flowing, so they calve. Nothing new there. But Antartica disappearing? Where is that data?


forst fires,

What have forest fires got to do with global warming? I believe that in last years fires in Australia, nearly all were as a result of arson. Does Global warming cause arsonists?


hurricanes,

There are no more or less hurricanes now than there have been in the past. More are being recorded now that they are measured by satelite, but no more are happening. If there are more hurricanes then that would prove the planet is cooling. Severe weathere is caused by a temperature difference between the poles and the equator. Global warming says that the polar regions will heat up first, so that would lead to more benign weather patterns, not more extreme one.


heatwaves,

And cold waves. The lowest November temperatures ever recorded in parts of USA. Record cold spells in Russia, the coldest May since records began in New Zealand (did you miss that one?).



disease spreading,

Like swine flu? People are more mobile now, so when a new disease evolves it will spread much faster. like at 400 knots in a 747 instead of 4 knots in a sailing ship.


sealevels rising,

I love this one. Have a read of http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm Its a bit old now, but then again so are the claims that have been disproved.



giant jellyfish, flooding, ocean acidification, etc etc.

Nothing to do with Global warming etc. etc. etc.

[wysper]

Is a concern... more so for my kids!

Fuk no motorsports... or maybe motors for that matter!

Quick sell your beach front properties :laugh:

or buy a property a few hundred yards back and start laughing!!


Im really worried,my retirement aint looking anywhere as cosy as it did.
I think most folk really underestimate how deep the shit is that we're stumbling into.
I could go on & on but that'll just rev up the flat earthers that'll no doubt be along shortly.....


I like my little piece of flat earth.. stops those marbles that I keep losing rolling off :blink:

[Flatcap]

I'm more worried about the impact of the ecomentalists than the environment itself. Being a fundamentalist greenie is now a religion:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10612602

[mashman]

Im really worried,my retirement aint looking anywhere as cosy as it did.
I think most folk really underestimate how deep the shit is that we're stumbling into.
I could go on & on but that'll just rev up the flat earthers that'll no doubt be along shortly.....

My step dad has just done his 40 years on the railways in the UK. Unfortunately during a string of acquisitions, following privatisation, the pension fund lawfully dissappeared. The shit will get deeper if we follow the way the UK does business... or the world for that matter.

But i have to agree with several guys on here... any ELE will render climate change moot.

[vifferman]

Global warming says that the polar regions will heat up first, so that would lead to more benign weather patterns, not more extreme one.
Indeed. The greenies are using scare-mongering to get people to run on emotions rather than logic. Science (in the form of actual records) suggests that
if the world warms up, the weather patterns will be more settled, with fewer extreme weather events.

I'm more worried about the impact of the ecomentalists than the environment itself.
Studying Greenpeace's history is illuminating; they used to be anti-establishment, battling "The Man" and "The Establishment". However, as they've become more mainstream, they've had to shift their focus, and now that they themselves have become part of the establishment, it's been harder to find windmills to tilt at. The more radical are, however, still destructive and anarchistic, and anti-humanitarian, even stating that if all humans were gone from Mother Earth, she'd be much happier and healthier.

The biggest worry is that now that global climate change has become a cause celebre, it's a big industry in itself, employing thousands of bureaucrats, scientists, statisticians, lobbyists, etc etc. all of whom have every reason to want to keep the ball rolling and the gravy train steaming along. Kinda makes it hard for them to be at all unbiased and open-minded.

[Blackbird]

The biggest worry is that now that global climate change has become a cause celebre, it's a big industry in itself, employing thousands of bureaucrats, scientists, statisticians, lobbyists, etc etc. all of whom have every reason to want to keep the ball rolling and the gravy train steaming along. Kinda makes it hard for them to be at all unbiased and open-minded.

Well said Ian. That's exactly the point Gareth Morgan made. some people are becoming very rich on it! As for asking who believes or doesn't, you might as well ask whether you believe in God or not. Almost a matter of faith with the amount of conflicting evidence around.

[Quasievil]

If Ive learnt one thing in life...."follow the money trail for the answers"

its a scam

[puddytat]

As for asking who believes or doesn't, you might as well ask whether you believe in God or not. Almost a matter of faith with the amount of conflicting evidence around.

Your've hit the nail on the head.....

[centaurus]

A few points I want to make:

1. Global warming is real and it's made by us. However, I believe the term is wrongly chosen. It's not so much about warming as about global weather screw-up. In the last 10-15 years the world has seen more and more totally unexpected (and usually very destructive) weather patterns all over the world. And it's getting worse and worse every year.

2. Pleople need to understand once and for all that this "global warming hoax" talk is exactly the same as the tobacco companies were doing in the 60-70, trying to argue that smoking doesn't actually kill. There's a lot of money still to be made from fossil fuel and nobody wants to give up this huge amount of money. The funny thing is that they acquire adepts by threatening us with the car extinction if we believe in man made global warming. However, if you look at the figures, the industries and the armies of the world produce the majority of the pollution and green gasses, but unlike us normal people they have powerful lobby groups in every country and sponsor most world's leading political parties, so we end up carrying the burden they should wear.

3. The fact that global warming is real doesn't mean that politicians can't use it to squeeze us of more money. That's what they know best. Do not mistake the two issues: on one hand man made global warming is real and is here, but on the other hand for politicians it's just another excuse to tax us more (like "terrorism" is nowadays a very good excuse to take away personal freedom in more and more countries).

4. FORGET GLOBAL WARMING. THERE'S ANOTHER MORE URGENT ISSUE. Global man made pollution has killed and continues to kill many people. Most people in the urban areas are getting sick or at least have a lower quality of life due to pollution. I'm surprised nobody talks about this. If we as a society continue to burn fossil fuels as much as we currently do, pollution will kill or sicken us all long before the petrol runs out or the weather gets so warm that we end up drowning. This is a much more immediate danger and I'm surprised it has been so ignored in the last few years in the favour of global warming.

[Mikkel]

Huh? That is a new one. The West Antartic ice sheet is breaking up, but that is above the antarctic circle, and has done this many times before. The remainder of Antartica is comprised mainly of glaciers over bedrock, and these glaciers are so massive that they are hard to comprehend. But like all glaciers they are flowing, so they calve. Nothing new there. But Antartica disappearing? Where is that data?

Hmmm, I actually had the impression that there is hardly any precipitation on antarctica in this era (IIRC I've heard people call it "the driest place on earth"). As such the glaciers shouldn't flow at all since no new material is being added. Any calving observed in this circumstance would be due to actual destabilisation through melting at the terminus.


Indeed. The greenies are using scare-mongering to get people to run on emotions rather than logic. Science (in the form of actual records) suggests that
if the world warms up, the weather patterns will be more settled, with fewer extreme weather events.

Where is the data to suggest this? A reference would be nice. Especially since it goes against what you would expect from a thermodynamical perspective:

Higher temperature = higher energy = more movement = more turbulence.

A higher temperature would also mean more evaporation from the seas and as a result more moisture in the air and consequently more precipitation. It would stand to reason that this would affect an increase in hurricanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane#Mechanics) since they rely on the increased humidity over warm water to get going in the first place.

Weather effects like El Nino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino#Definition) is being driven by minute temperature differentials (0.5°C) and can have a huge impact. The weather system is a chaotic system - i.e. minute difference in initial conditions may effect huge differences in the results.

But hey, I'm neither a meteorologist nor a climate scientist, so if you got a reasoned reference to suggest that warmer weather equates a mores stable climate I'd love to see it.


Well said Ian. That's exactly the point Gareth Morgan made. some people are becoming very rich on it! As for asking who believes or doesn't, you might as well ask whether you believe in God or not. Almost a matter of faith with the amount of conflicting evidence around.

It would just be refreshing if laymen were willing to admit they don't actually have the first clue about what they are talking about. Instead we have people engaging in the debate with a delusion that they have the answer and that there really isn't anything to discuss. It would serve them better to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

[Jantar]

A......

3. The fact that global warming is real doesn't ......
All through your post you keep saying that Global warming is real as though it were a fact.

Have a look at the actual data, and you will see that the climate is changing. It always has and always will. At present we appear to be in a period of global cooling. We have been cooling for around 10 years, and that is likely to continue for a further 15 - 20 years.

Global warming isn't a fact, its a dogma.

Your last point about pollution though is something we should all be concerned about. But that is a seperate topic from global warming.

[Dave Lobster]

It would just be refreshing if laymen were willing to admit they don't actually have the first clue about what they are talking about. Instead we have people engaging in the debate with a delusion that they have the answer and that there really isn't anything to discuss. It would serve them better to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, and blindly hand over their cash like good little sheep.

Edited for you..

[Mikkel]

Edited for you..

The day I need someone to put words in my mouth I'll be in touch.

Whether people know what they talk about and whether they choose to enter the debate with an open mind or prejudice they will still be paying their taxes. I'm all for debunking myths - and all for not ignoring a potential problem.

[Mr Merde]

.....

4. FORGET GLOBAL WARMING. THERE'S ANOTHER MORE URGENT ISSUE. Global man made pollution has killed and continues to kill many people. Most people in the urban areas are getting sick or at least have a lower quality of life due to pollution. I'm surprised nobody talks about this. If we as a society continue to burn fossil fuels as much as we currently do, pollution will kill or sicken us all long before the petrol runs out or the weather gets so warm that we end up drowning. This is a much more immediate danger and I'm surprised it has been so ignored in the last few years in the favour of global warming.


This I believe is a the real problem.

[centaurus]

Have a look at the actual data, and you will see that the climate is changing. It always has and always will. At present we appear to be in a period of global cooling. We have been cooling for around 10 years, and that is likely to continue for a further 15 - 20 years.

Global warming isn't a fact, its a dogma.

Your last point about pollution though is something we should all be concerned about. But that is a seperate topic from global warming.

As far as "data" is concerned, I've seen a lot of data and quite a lot of ways of representing. Depending how you collate the data, and the period you choose for your representation, you can easily change the context. I have personally seen the same figures interpreted in two totally different ways by changing the other parameters (usually they play with the sampling period and the result looks totally different). That is why I am not going to argue with you on the "data" subject -we would be here till next year and still not agree on an answer.

However, the point is moot due to the fact that the same factors that create global warming are creating pollution too so even if we were to say global warming is a hoax, we still need to deal with the gasses that will kill us long before global warming will kill the planet.

The issue is that the lobby groups againsts the "global warming" issue are trying to convince us that is in our disadvantage to believe or agree with the global warming (because if we do we will have to agree with higher taxes, we will have to dich the cars, etc... - which is a load of shit). Unfortunately there are a lot of people around (expecially among us petrol heads) that refuse to believe in the "man made-global warming" not because they've seen concrete data and have been truly convinced by the evidence, but just because deep down they think admitting there is global warming will be in their disadvantage.

[Jantar]

Hmmm, I actually had the impression that there is hardly any precipitation on antarctica in this era (IIRC I've heard people call it "the driest place on earth"). As such the glaciers shouldn't flow at all since no new material is being added. Any calving observed in this circumstance would be due to actual destabilisation through melting at the terminus.
It is one of the driest places on earth with average precipitation over the continent at less than 50 mm per annum. That isn't No precipitation, just very little. A surface area of 13829430 km^2 and 50 mm of precipitation means that that the glaciers have to calve an average of 6.9 * 10^11 cubic meters of ice each year just to stay in balance.




Where is the data to suggest this? A reference would be nice. Especially since it goes against what you would expect from a thermodynamical perspective:

Higher temperature = higher energy = more movement = more turbulence.



My meteororolgy reference books are at work, and I'm at home right now. But this goes right back to Met 101, and the formation of the Hadley Cells. It isn't the temperature of the atmosphere itself that sets off movement and turbulance, but the temperature gradient between adjacent air masses. The Hadley cells are the means that the atmosphere uses to redistribute energy through the atmosphere. Warm air rises in the equatorial regions, and falls at around 30 degrees latitude. It rises again at 60 degrees latitude and falls in the polar regions. The result is easterly winds at the equator, duldrims in the tropics, westerly winds in the roaring 40s and easterly again as latitudes become polar. The greater the temerature differential the stronger these winds will be. Note that all the global warming models predict warming will take place fastest in the polar regions and at high altitudes.

For hurricanes to form we need a small area of high temperauture over the sea which will cause warm moist air to rise. As it rises it will start to rotate (anticycl;onic in the northern hemisphere, cyclonic in the southern hemisphere). But two more conditions are required for a hurricane or a cyclone: There must be a cooler air mass close by which is generally caused by a decending high pressure air mass (here's where the hadley cells come in), and there must be strong high altitude winds to move that rising air awai and feed the forming low pressuere area below. These strong winds also require a temperature differential betyween equatorial and polr regions.

[Okey Dokey]

Well, I think OVERPOPULATION is the "real" problem. Never mind an ETS, how about a carbon tax on children?:laugh:

[mashman]

It would just be refreshing if laymen were willing to admit they don't actually have the first clue about what they are talking about. Instead we have people engaging in the debate with a delusion that they have the answer and that there really isn't anything to discuss. It would serve them better to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

It would be refreshing if the scientific community actually did something scientific to put the questions that a layman may have to rest. As it stands it's just he said, she said... Even when they were discussing climate change a few years ago, the NZ oceanographer said that he didn't believe in "global warming" as he couldn't find any evidence of it (no i can't find the source but it was a televised event)... the others on the panel essentially told him to shut the fuck up and sit down... Perhaps the scientific community should spend some time explaining what they're trying to do instead of ignoring some very valid questions...

[Winston001]

.....

4. FORGET GLOBAL WARMING. THERE'S ANOTHER MORE URGENT ISSUE. Global man made pollution has killed and continues to kill many people. Most people in the urban areas are getting sick or at least have a lower quality of life due to pollution. I'm surprised nobody talks about this. If we as a society continue to burn fossil fuels as much as we currently do, pollution will kill or sicken us all long before the petrol runs out or the weather gets so warm that we end up drowning. This is a much more immediate danger and I'm surprised it has been so ignored in the last few years in the favour of global warming.

Exactly. I have posted this many times here - the real issue is Pollution.

However the Climate Change/Global Warming debate is directly linked to pollution. It is not a separate issue. Releasing CO2 and complex hydrocarbons into the environment is harmful to the biosphere which we live in and need.

[Winston001]

Nothing to do with Global warming etc. etc. etc.

Have to disagree. Ocean acidification is directly linked to pollution of the environment through vast releases of CO2. It dissolves with seawater and lowers the ph which destroys shellfish, coral etc. CO2 is a greenhouse gas so reducing its production by man helps the environment.

[Maha]

Its the re-occurring natural evolution of Mother Earth.
Its happened several times before and things will get a little crazy again in another few 100,000 years.
Planet Earth is just having a clean out, natures enema if you will.

[Matt Bleck]

what makes me laugh is all the people who believe it is real have nothing to say when I ask the question.... "so what are you doing to help stop it?" :confused:

[Jantar]

Have to disagree. Ocean acidification is directly linked to pollution of the environment through vast releases of CO2. It dissolves with seawater and lowers the ph which destroys shellfish, coral etc. CO2 is a greenhouse gas so reducing its production by man helps the environment.

Oceanography is outside my area of expertise, but I have noted this:

From: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5393/1468?hits=150&RESULTFORMAT=&maxtoshow=&HITS=150&fulltext=ocean&searchid=1&resourcetype=HWCIT&fdate=%2F%2F


Measurement of boron isotope compositions in species of planktonic foraminifera that calcified their tests at different depths in the water column are used to reconstruct the pH profile of the upper water column of the tropical ocean. Results for five time windows from the middle Miocene to the late Pleistocene indicate pH-depth profiles similar to that of the modern ocean in this area, which suggests that this method may greatly aid in our understanding of the global carbon cycle.

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK.

I am unable to find historic ph data to actually calculate any trend. maybe you can point to it. All the peer reviewed articles I have found are predictions, but dont show the current value or past values.

[Subike]

How long have we had the internet?
Information can be transfered to almost any riegion of the civalised world within seconds of the event being reported upon.
Thus we hear of floods, earthquakes, droughts, wars etc the day they happen.
As recent as 50 years ago it could take a week for information about a flood in the middle if the sahara desert to reach our new papers.
Now it would take 50 seconds for us to read about such an event, even to the point of being able to see it happening live .
Does the sunami on Xmass day ring a bell?
My point?
The transfer of information is now so fast, that we can see what is happening anywhere in the world as soon as its happens.
This gives the false appearance of an increase of these things, when really a lots of natural events are happennig at the same pace they always have. we just didnt know how often before.
Add to this that the money makers of the world know this, use it to entrap us into believeing the world is coming to an end, because we caused it.
thus we have to fund them to find the solution to a problem that does not exist. And we will never really know the truth either way, it will be hidden behind other agenders, the fat cats dont care about anything other than the gold in their treasure vaults.

[peasea]

If the world is going to get warmer I'm going to get into air conditioning.

Global warming is a natural thing, like ice ages coming ad going etc, we'll get around it but what we will have trouble getting around is the fucking taxes they'll throw at us to "save the planet". Yawn, sick of hearing about it.

[Str8 Jacket]

Well, I think OVERPOPULATION is the "real" problem. Never mind an ETS, how about a carbon tax on children?:laugh:

Hell no, just think of how much extra we'll have to pay too beneficiaries just to cover that tax!!

[george formby]

In our lifetime, say the next 50 years, poverty, disease, water & food shortages, on going pollution & energy crises will affect us most. More realistically, people fighting to get away from these issues will cause the problems. Actual climate change, getting colder or warmer is well beyond our control, whether we are at fault or not. The chance's of a natural catastrophe are growing by the day. Geologically, the last 50'000 years have been eerily quiet. No major asteroids, volcanoes or earthquakes. On a volcanic scale, Lake Taupo is small, the whole of Yellowstone national park in the U.S. is one active (very) crater. It's 100's of kilometres across.... Mount St Helens is a fumarole for a volcanic area even bigger. Ferk.
Make love, ride your bike, love your kids & live well.
It could all go tits up any minute, don't sweat it.

[george formby]

How long have we had the internet?
Information can be transfered to almost any riegion of the civalised world within seconds of the event being reported upon.
Thus we hear of floods, earthquakes, droughts, wars etc the day they happen.
As recent as 50 years ago it could take a week for information about a flood in the middle if the sahara desert to reach our new papers.
Now it would take 50 seconds for us to read about such an event, even to the point of being able to see it happening live .
Does the sunami on Xmass day ring a bell?
My point?
The transfer of information is now so fast, that we can see what is happening anywhere in the world as soon as its happens.
This gives the false appearance of an increase of these things, when really a lots of natural events are happennig at the same pace they always have. we just didnt know how often before.
Add to this that the money makers of the world know this, use it to entrap us into believeing the world is coming to an end, because we caused it.
thus we have to fund them to find the solution to a problem that does not exist. And we will never really know the truth either way, it will be hidden behind other agenders, the fat cats dont care about anything other than the gold in their treasure vaults.

I agree, the media barrage is mis-leading. Allegedly we absorb as much information in one day as a person who died 100 years ago would have been exposed to in their whole life. I find that staggering even if it is only half true.:shit:

[Mikkel]

It is one of the driest places on earth with average precipitation over the continent at less than 50 mm per annum. That isn't No precipitation, just very little. A surface area of 13829430 km^2 and 50 mm of precipitation means that that the glaciers have to calve an average of 6.9 * 10^11 cubic meters of ice each year just to stay in balance.

Good point :yes: Your estimate for glacier calving doesn't factor in sublimation though ;)


My meteororolgy reference books are at work, and I'm at home right now. But this goes right back to Met 101, and the formation of the Hadley Cells. It isn't the temperature of the atmosphere itself that sets off movement and turbulance, but the temperature gradient between adjacent air masses. The Hadley cells are the means that the atmosphere uses to redistribute energy through the atmosphere. Warm air rises in the equatorial regions, and falls at around 30 degrees latitude. It rises again at 60 degrees latitude and falls in the polar regions. The result is easterly winds at the equator, duldrims in the tropics, westerly winds in the roaring 40s and easterly again as latitudes become polar. The greater the temerature differential the stronger these winds will be. Note that all the global warming models predict warming will take place fastest in the polar regions and at high altitudes.

So, would you assume, in the case of global warming, that during said warming:
a) Temperature differentials increase.
b) Temperature differentials decrease.
c) Temperature differentials stay the same.
d) It doesn't matter, it's just a conspiracy and we do not need to know more!
?


It would be refreshing if the scientific community actually did something scientific to put the questions that a layman may have to rest. As it stands it's just he said, she said... Even when they were discussing climate change a few years ago, the NZ oceanographer said that he didn't believe in "global warming" as he couldn't find any evidence of it (no i can't find the source but it was a televised event)... the others on the panel essentially told him to shut the fuck up and sit down... Perhaps the scientific community should spend some time explaining what they're trying to do instead of ignoring some very valid questions...

Oh, I agree completely. The debate has become too heated and too much personal prestige and political attention has been vested in it. As a result the debate is, as was observed earlier, taking on the appearance of a religious schism more than a reasoned search for truth. Alas, most research is funded by governments and as a result are not at all isolated from political influence.

As for researchers ignoring valid questions - sometimes it is ok to reserve your judgement until you know more. If anyone indeed knew what was going on and could prove it there wouldn't be much of a debate really. There was an american president who once said something along the lines of: "Please give me a one armed scientist. Just so he can't say on the other hand."
If this stuff wasn't very complicated there wouldn't be anything to talk about really. But it doesn't help the debate that Joe Bloggs turns it into his personal crusade by with religious zeal spamming the ether with ill-informed opinions. As for questions, there are no dumb questions - but there are difficult questions which can not be answered at the moment. Truth be told, if people were, just ever so slightly, better at asking questions instead of believing that they have the answer we could be doing a whole lot better.


Its the re-occurring natural evolution of Mother Earth.
Its happened several times before and things will get a little crazy again in another few 100,000 years.
Planet Earth is just having a clean out, natures enema if you will.

Indeed, the climate does change by itself. However, that fact does not preclude that humankind may have some influence on climate change.
And no matter what influence humankind may have upon climate change, it is still important to understand to what extent climate change (man made and/or natural) may impact upon the way we live our lives.

[Badjelly]

Have a look at the actual data, and you will see that the climate is changing. It always has and always will. At present we appear to be in a period of global cooling. We have been cooling for around 10 years, and that is likely to continue for a further 15 - 20 years.


Hi Jantar

I've been meaning to respond to your statements about recent global cooling, but haven't got around to composing a decent response. All I'll say for now is that the cooling (if any) in the last decade certainly hasn't been very large:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

And has left the noughties as the warmest decade for quite a while.

Now, why do you think cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years?

[centaurus]

I agree, the media barrage is mis-leading. Allegedly we absorb as much information in one day as a person who died 100 years ago would have been exposed to in their whole life. I find that staggering even if it is only half true.:shit:

It is true that we absorb much, much more information than any of our ancestors have in their lives. However, the problem is whether the percentage of real/true info is greater than before. I suspect that even though we get so much info today, most of it is tainted/biased/tweaked/faked so a very small portion of it is actually accurate and reliable. We are not much closer to the truth than our parents or grandparents were when it comes current events or debates.

[Badjelly]

It would be refreshing if the scientific community actually did something scientific to put the questions that a layman may have to rest. As it stands it's just he said, she said...

So let's assume that, hypothetically, the scientific community(*) did something scientific to put the questions that a layman may have to rest. They might ... I don't know ... write a big fucking report summarising the science and update this report regularly, and also write a whole bunch of books putting it in less technical language. And maybe some blogs. Then, hypothetically, let's assume some other people came along and argued the toss about everything the scientific community had said. Let's say, hypothetically, that some of the arguments made some sense and the rest were complete and utter bollocks. Then, in this hypothetical situation, a member of the public would look at all this and wouldn't be able to judge the arguments him/herself without a lot of study, and probably not even then. So it would be just he said, she said. :confused: Hypothetically.

(*)I think the word "community" gets way overused these days. Your choice, not mine.

[Maha]

Indeed, the climate does change by itself. However, that fact does not preclude that humankind may have some influence on climate change.
And no matter what influence humankind may have upon climate change, it is still important to understand to what extent climate change (man made and/or natural) may impact upon the way we live our lives.

What I was pointing out was that, what is going on now with the Planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all.

[Jantar]

...
So, would you assume, in the case of global warming, that during said warming:
a) Temperature differentials increase.
b) Temperature differentials decrease.
c) Temperature differentials stay the same.
d) It doesn't matter, it's just a conspiracy and we do not need to know more!
?

......

A very good question. Lets first off make the assumption that warming is occuring. Then to test the cause of the warming it is neccessary to seperate out the global data into latitudinal data.

If it is the solar effect (ie a more active sun) that is causing the warming then the results will occur in the equatorial regions first, and that would mean that temperature differentials will increase.

If it greenhouse gasses that are the cause then the warming will appear most in the polar regions and temperature differentials will decrease.

As for response d) hahaha. Can you envisage any scientists ever saying "we do not need to know more!"?

[Naki Rat]

What I was pointing out was that, what is going on now with the Planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all.

In terms of climate, yes, but there is a hell of a lot more going on in terms of resource depletion which is going to effect mankind a hell of a lot sooner than creeping sea levels and increasingly volatile weather patterns.

It's all put in easily digested form here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU) :shit:
It's approaching 4 million views so must have some merit.

[Jantar]

Hi Jantar

I've been meaning to respond to your statements about recent global cooling, but haven't got around to composing a decent response. All I'll say for now is that the cooling (if any) in the last decade certainly hasn't been very large:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

And has left the noughties as the warmest decade for quite a while.

Now, why do you think cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years?

Correct, the cooling hasn't been large, and if we remove the 1998 high and 1999 low from the data the linear trend is almost flat.

As for why I believe cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years? The PDO swung from its positive phase to its negative pahase in 1998 - 99. Each half cycle of the PDO lasts around 25 - 30 years, and as we are now 10 years into a downward half cycle that leaves 15 - 20 years of cooling before we see another upward trend in the temperatures.

[Dave Lobster]

As for response d) hahaha. Can you envisage any scientists ever saying "we do not need to know more!"?

The religious ones??

[Badjelly]

What I was pointing out was that, what is going on now with the Planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all.

Something like what is going on now with the planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all. This is very well known. As I pointed out in a post in a thread a long time ago and far away (yesterday I think) the lates IPCC Working Group 1 report has a 66-page chapter on it.

Are you going somewhere with this?

[Badjelly]

As for why I believe cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years? The PDO swung from its positive phase to its negative pahase in 1998 - 99. Each half cycle of the PDO lasts around 25 - 30 years, and as we are now 10 years into a downward half cycle that leaves 15 - 20 years of cooling before we see another upward trend in the temperatures.

OK.

Are you aware that there a few people--the one whose name comes to mind is James Annan (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/)--who have been trying to interest climate sceptics in bets about temperature changes over the next decade or so? They haven't had very many takers.

[James Deuce]

The IPCC seems to forget that fuck all people care about the fake industry they've created because they struggle to get to the next pay day. Or even the next day. Nothing the IPCC proposes, or subsequent Government recommendations (which all seem to focus on moving billions of dollars around whilst achieving nothing) makes anyone's life easier or simpler or cheaper so most of the people who do pay attention from time to time roll their eyes and get ready to present their wallet for another exploratory from the Tax man, while the vast majority of the planet's population have no idea that the "crisis" is meant to be sparking changes in behaviour in them specifically. Or that there even is a crisis.

Stop with the bad news already. We've been hearing it so long it has been tuned out. Find another record and sell the changes and stop beating people for not believing in your particular brand of "change or die" politics.

[Maha]

Something like what is going on now with the planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all. This is very well known. As I pointed out in a post in a thread a long time ago and far away (yesterday I think) the lates IPCC Working Group 1 report has a 66-page chapter on it.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Yeah back to bed, its given me a head-ache....<_<

[Jantar]

Are you aware that there a few people--the one whose name comes to mind is James Annan (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/)--who have been trying to interest climate sceptics in bets about temperature changes over the next decade or so? They haven't had very many takers.
Sure. I have seen a couple of these challenges although not from this source.

I would be prepared to make a bet based on a temperature trend, but not on any actual numbers. The email hacking should give a pretty good idea why no scientist would be prepared to make such a bet. When data is altered, modified and misrepresented to show a desired conclusion, only a fool would make a bet with the very crowd that is modifying the data.

[Badjelly]

Sure. I have seen a couple of these challenges although not from this source.

I would be prepared to make a bet based on a temperature trend, but not on any actual numbers. The email hacking should give a pretty good idea why no scientist would be prepared to make such a bet. When data is altered, modified and misrepresented to show a desired conclusion, only a fool would make a bet with the very crowd that is modifying the data.

I might be prepared to make a bet, though only for a small, symbolic sum, as I am not really a betting man.

I don't quite grasp the distinction you draw between the trend and the numbers. The trend is based on numbers. Either way we're going to be talking about changes or differences in the numbers between one decade and the next.

I am not a member of the CRU crowd (and neither is James Annan).

The GISS Temperature series (GISTEMP (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)) is, I believe, fully open. (It hasn't been as popular with sceptics recently as the CRU one, as it has warmed relative to the CRU series this decade because of the greater weight it gives to the Arctic.)

[Badjelly]

Yeah back to bed, its given me a head-ache....<_<

I have that effect on people.

But one point I want to get across, because it seems to be completely missed--inverted even--in popular discusion, is that one reason climate scientists became concerned a few decades ago about the possibility of global warming was the discovery of the large swings in climate that have occurred in the last couple of million years, on a cycle of about 100,000 years. These have been driven (apparently) by changes in the Earth's orbit, changes that don't affect the total amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, but do affect the distribution of that energy by latitude and time of year. Somehow these changes have driven large swings in the climate, suggesting the climate system is more sensitive than had been thought.

A geochemist called Wally Broecker wrote a series of books, one of which referred to twisting the tail of the climate dragon. I think it's a good metaphor and puts in perspective the claim that we don't what the effect is so we should continue to twist the tail ever harder.

[Mikkel]

If it greenhouse gasses that are the cause then the warming will appear most in the polar regions and temperature differentials will decrease.

Howcome? Are greenhouse gasses only present in the polar regions? If an increase in greenhouse concentrations was to occur - would the concentration only occur in the polar regions? Do we know for sure?


As for response d) hahaha. Can you envisage any scientists ever saying "we do not need to know more!"?

Not really, but the debate does not just include scientists at this point. And, unfortunately, answer d) seems to be quite popular with some segments of the debaters.

[Skyryder]

There's gonna be a lot of sick faces when man gets to Mars and discovers a dead civilisation along with a dead planet.:jerry:



Skyryder

[Jantar]

Howcome? Are greenhouse gasses only present in the polar regions? If an increase in greenhouse concentrations was to occur - would the concentration only occur in the polar regions? Do we know for sure?
....
I believe the effect is not because the GG concentrations are higher in the polar regions, but more because the albedo is higher. The actual mechanics is beyond me, but all AGW models show more warming in the polar regions than in the equatorial regions, and all solar models show more warming the equatorial regions and less in the polar regions.

I'll see if I can source the reasons and mechanics behind this.

[Mikkel]

I believe the effect is not because the GG concentrations are higher in the polar regions, but more because the albedo is higher. The actual mechanics is beyond me, but all AGW models show more warming in the polar regions than in the equatorial regions, and all solar models show more warming the equatorial regions and less in the polar regions.

I'll see if I can source the reasons and mechanics behind this.

Of course, that would make perfect sense. The higher the albedo - the larger fraction of the light is reflected and thus will pass through the atmosphere twice, which in turn increases the impact of greenhouse gasses.

[rainman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

Interesting summary of the arguments for and agin AGW on the BBC site...

[LBD]

Yes I am concerned on two counts...

1) I am conerned that "Global warming, green house, CO2 emmisions..."or what ever we are calling change infulenced by mans inhabitation of the planet, is being used as a tool to tax the masses...

2) I am scared the warnings are correct....I reason that we cannot be taking billions of tons and barrels of fossil fuels that are laying relitively inert in the ground, and converting them to both gasses and particulate matter in the atmosphere without affecting the equilibrium of the planet.

[Jantar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

Interesting summary of the arguments for and agin AGW on the BBC site...
Good god. Who does this stuff? This whole article has obviously been written by a warmer. There are two major indications that this hasn't been written by anyone with a science backgraound, and that it is by a warmer.

The first and major reason is that skeptics do not make claims, they analyse claims by others and find the errors. This means that the warmers position should have been on the left and labled warmer, and the skeptics version on the right and labled counter.

The second reason is that the skeptics evidence has been twisted and distorted by omitting much of importance and highlighting suppporting evidence as if it were the major evidence. eg
"Many of these are in urban centres which have been expanding and using more energy. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. " Excludes the information that when there are truely rural sites close to an urban site that often the rural site shows no warming, or a much smaller degree of warming than the urban site, which shows that the alloance for UHI effect is far too small. Then there is fact that both NASA and CRU define rural as a population less than 250000 people, yet still call Christchurch a rural site.

[Mikkel]

The first and major reason is that skeptics do not make claims, they analyse claims by others and find the errors. This means that the warmers position should have been on the left and labled warmer, and the skeptics version on the right and labled counter.

Yeah, right!

[Hopeful Bastard]

Gees guys.. Its like though as if the world is gonna blow up tomorrow at approximately 0800 hours and 32 seconds!


The World is just doing what it has been doing for its entire life! The dinosaurs were living happily. Then BAM! Ice age. and then.. Uh oh.. That Ice starts melting. Seas rise. Kills off everything that has survived on the ice. Then Ice forms again. (This is where us HUMANS noticed alot of ice about) Then hello.. Ice starts to melt again (HUMANS are going holy shit!! Global warming!! RUN AWAY!!! FARRRKK!!)

This is my view on this whole "global warming" bullshit. Its bullshit! The world is doing what it has been doing forever. Way before us humans came about! Okay.. We may of helped to speed it up a little bit.. But other than that, There aint no global warming..


Have any of you ever watched Ice Age 1 followed by Ice age 2? They are some really awesome movies. They may be kids movies, But they are right about the world.

[Swoop]

I'm more worried about the impact of the ecomentalists than the environment itself. Being a fundamentalist greenie is now a religion
Oh fuck. The bastards will do the same as the "imaginary friend" mob and become tax-free.
More parasites upon society...

[SPman]

Gees guys.. Its like though as if the world is gonna blow up tomorrow at approximately 0800 hours and 32 seconds!


The World is just doing what it has been doing for its entire life! The dinosaurs were living happily. Then BAM! Ice age. and then.. Uh oh.. That Ice starts melting. Seas rise. Kills off everything that has survived on the ice. Then Ice forms again. (This is where us HUMANS noticed alot of ice about) Then hello.. Ice starts to melt again (HUMANS are going holy shit!! Global warming!! RUN AWAY!!! FARRRKK!!)

This is my view on this whole "global warming" bullshit. Its bullshit! The world is doing what it has been doing! Okay.. We may of helped to speed it up a little bit.. But other than that, There aint no global warming..


Have any of you ever watched Ice Age 1 followed by Ice age 2? They are some really awesome movies. They may be kids movies, But they are right about the world.
and presumably coloured your view of paleohistory.......

[Badjelly]

This is my view on this whole "global warming" bullshit. Its bullshit! The world is doing what it has been doing!

Deep, man.

[Badjelly]

...At present we appear to be in a period of global cooling. We have been cooling for around 10 years, and that is likely to continue for a further 15 - 20 years.


I've been meaning to respond to your statements about recent global cooling...

Right oh then. Actually the bloke who does the Open Mind blog just did it for me

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

He shows several plots of global temperature (surface and satellite) over the last 30 years. The time series fluctuates around a trend line with frequent excursions up to +/- 2 standard deviations and 1998 standing out as a larger excursion. (1 standard deviation is around 0.3-0.35 C.) It's been doing this for 30 years, since the trend picked up. It's still doing it.

This article on Realclimate presents what the global climate models say should be happening:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

In particular...

http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg

Trend + fluctuations.

I found it odd that people who claim to be sceptics can get so excited about the lastest fluctuation in a time series.