Global warming?

[JimO]

saw a interisting docco presented by Baldric from blackadder today about glaciers in pomgolia, did you know some of england was under 1 mile of ice back in the old days

[Banditbandit]

Good to know the trillions the West is spending is in such good hands.

It really doesn't mater what money is spent on ... for Capitalism spending money is everything ... spend it on wars .. spend it on climate change prevention ..

Someone always wins by making shit loads of money ... which is the point ..

[swbarnett]

Someone always wins by making shit loads of money ... which is the point ..

Very true. There is a point, however that we are very close to where the economy will be crippled by exactly that. 1% of the people holding 99% of the financial wealth is not good for the economy. It's not even good for that 1%.

[Banditbandit]

saw a interisting docco presented by Baldric from blackadder today about glaciers in pomgolia, did you know some of england was under 1 mile of ice back in the old days

That could be why they all left and came down here to pester us ...

[yokel]

It really doesn't mater what money is spent on ... for Capitalism spending money is everything ... spend it on wars .. spend it on climate change prevention ..

Someone always wins by making shit loads of money ... which is the point ..

No you are wrong, making money is capitalism. using your or others money/capital (not borrowed) to help make more money/capital.
what we have now is the opposite, they're not making money, they're receiving money.

[Banditbandit]

No you are wrong, making money is capitalism. using your or others money/capital (not borrowed) to help make more money/capital.
what we have now is the opposite, they're not making money, they're receiving money.

Gee .. you really are stupid aren't you ..

If someone is receiving money then someone else is giving (spending) it ..

[george formby]

saw a interisting docco presented by Baldric from blackadder today about glaciers in pomgolia, did you know some of england was under 1 mile of ice back in the old days

I did. A mate built a house on the side of a Loch in Scotland a few years ago. It's actually on the beach but a 5 minute walk up a very steep hill away from the Loch. Huge drop in water level over the last few 10's of thousands of years. It's a u shaped glacial valley and the surrounding (huge) hills are round like bowling balls where the ice has scoured over them. Quite awesome place actually.
A bit further north the coastal rock is the same strata which forms the Appalachian mountain chain in a Mercka. The rock was split and pushed apart by the mid Atlantic trench.
That's quite enuf geology from me. A'll get me coat.

[carbonhed]

Huge drop in water level over the last few 10's of thousands of years.

Really?

[yokel]

Gee .. you really are stupid aren't you ..

If someone is receiving money then someone else is giving (spending) it ..

That's not capitalism you foolish fool you.

[Banditbandit]

That's not capitalism you foolish fool you.

I am fully aware of what Capitalism is. Any Capitalist economy (or more precisely, a capitalist-democratic political economy such as Godzone) requires people to spend money. Simply, manufacturing goods for sale (or providing services) requires people with money to purchase those goods or services, and provide a profit for the capitalist factory owner, or service owner.

Money circulates upwards as people spend. Without spending the system collapses.

This is why we get bombarded by advertising - so we spend money. Without spending the capitalists make no profit.

If you think that capitalist is confined to investment and money-generation then you are lost in the economic-focused cultures of the European-derived world - which is precisely where the capitalist overlords want you to be.

[george formby]

Really?

I did say 10's of thousands of years. Maybe hundreds. Sea level has been higher and it's been lower. As we are witnessing now. Was just a point of interest.

[SPman]

The global average temperature is currently just under 14C. Each doubling of CO2 causes an increase of around 1.2C (on latest IPCC data) so to get to 38C would require the CO2 concentration to be doubled 20 times. Yes 2^20. As the present concentration is 400 ppm (0.0004) then to get to 2^20 times the present concentration would require 1048576 x 0.0004 ppm. You can check this yourself but that is 419 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently atmosphere in total. As O2 is only 21% of the atmosphere, where is the oxygen required to make this amount of CO2 going to come from?

You are quite right - I didn't mean a global average of 38C - more, consistent summer averages of 38C +, in major population areas who are not ready for it. ie greater and longer heat waves.... always proven fatal to many, and not that many can sit inside in Air conditioned comfort...

If you read the research literature rather than the MSM you would get a totally different idea of what is happening to the climate. I.e. It is currently in a pause, or even cooling.

Really?
You have the facts to back this up?
All the papers I've read from reputable scientific establishments show no such thing.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2008BAMS2370.1

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

While the warming of surface temperatures was relatively slow from 1998 to 2012, it was relatively fast from 1990 through 2006. Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.

[SPman]

your acquaintances should worry about something else.
like in the other vid, CO2 is plant food.
150 gigatons of CO2 comes from bacteria and animals vs 6 gigstons are man made, then theres CO2 from dying vegetation and the oceans.

So? Sure, humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth, but what you neglect to consider is that the natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks. Human CO2 emissions have upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. The end result is that humans are responsible for 100% of CUMULATIVE emissions, that is the CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.There is a global equilibrium which is reasonably efficient balancing CO2 levels. Start pumping extra into the system - even if it seems like not a lot in the global scheme of things, and the scales start to tilt.
"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

CO2 levels have not reached the levels we have now in over 15 million years, (humans in any form have only existed for the last two million years or so)

Yes - CO2 is plant food, and extra amounts are beneficial - up to a point -once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances, and many plants don't react well to jumps in CO2 levels.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Incr...or-plants.html

at the end of the day the climate is controlled by the sun, it out of our hands.

Bullshit - please explain how the temperature continued to increase during a period of low sunspot activity - a sun "cool phase"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...g-advanced.htm

we should be more worry about our physical environment but because people are so caught up in this global warming nonsense the actual real environment gets raped and pillaged.

Yes, we should - but in many areas, the two are currently interlinked.

[george formby]

Anybody seen this weekends weather forecast? Looks a bit wet & windy.

http://www.metvuw.com/forecast/forec...n=nzni&tim=108

Only posted here as I did not want to start a weekend weather thread.

[yokel]

So? Sure, humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth, but what you neglect to consider is that the natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks. Human CO2 emissions have upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. The end result is that humans are responsible for 100% of CUMULATIVE emissions, that is the CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.There is a global equilibrium which is reasonably efficient balancing CO2 levels. Start pumping extra into the system - even if it seems like not a lot in the global scheme of things, and the scales start to tilt.
"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

CO2 levels have not reached the levels we have now in over 15 million years, (humans in any form have only existed for the last two million years or so)

Yes - CO2 is plant food, and extra amounts are beneficial - up to a point -once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances, and many plants don't react well to jumps in CO2 levels.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Incr...or-plants.html

Bullshit - please explain how the temperature continued to increase during a period of low sunspot activity - a sun "cool phase"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...g-advanced.htm

Yes, we should - but in many areas, the two are currently interlinked.

"humans contribute 3% or 4% of TOTAL emissions of the earth" that sounds way to high to me, were those numbers come from?

Sooo what about the dominate greenhouse gas water vapour, should we stop emitting that too?

The computer models are wrong, that means the man made co2 hypothesis that the computer models are based on is most likely horse shit.
more about computer models http://youtu.be/T2J8zEJHIg8?t=2m14s

website that use words like "myths" or "debunked" I find hard to take seriously. just give me your numbers and facts I'll decide if it is "debunked"

" At skepticalscience.com, we are skeptical about skeptical science" haha