Climate Change is here and man made

shemnel said:
you do realise that record ice levels, along side other maximums/minimums regarding rainfall, average temp etc, actually support the theory of climate change>?
Click to expand...
Notice it used to be called global warming. Then it didn't warm so they changed it climate change?

The world's climate is always in flux. 500 years ago, wine of the same quality of France could be produced in the uk due to it being far warmer than it is now. 150 years ago, they held fairs on the Thames as it always froze over.

So say it's changing now is ridiculous when these maximums and minimums you quote only go back 100 years. In geological terms, it's not even an eye blink.
 
shemnel said:
you do realise that record ice levels, along side other maximums/minimums regarding rainfall, average temp etc, actually support the theory of climate change>?
Click to expand...
So why are both poles, (if what has been written is correct) increasing in size?
We were told, originally, that 'Global Warming' was the disaster looming, reinforced
by Gore's apocalyptic film. After no rises in temperatures, this has now been re-phrased as
'climate change,' which smacks of desperation to protect the agenda.
I'm not being pedantic, as I'm no scientist, my own beliefs are that population growth negates any attempt to control
the carbon outputs of nations, and so renders the invasive actions being taken pointless, but am open to the arguments
promoting these actions.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
So why are both poles, (if what has been written is correct) increasing in size?
We were told, originally, that 'Global Warming' was the disaster looming, reinforced
by Gore's apocalyptic film. After no rises in temperatures, this has now been re-phrased as
'climate change,' which smacks of desperation to protect the agenda.
I'm not being pedantic, as I'm no scientist, my own beliefs are that population growth negates any attempt to control
the carbon outputs of nations, and so renders the invasive actions being taken pointless, but am open to the arguments
promoting these actions.
Click to expand...

just for some clarity:

1. Global warming refers to the general trend of increasing temperatures on the globe.
2. Climate Change refers to changes in climate patterns and events as a result of increasing/changing global temperatures
3. Climate prediction is not the same as weather prediction

proving the link between 1 and 2 is incredibly difficult. i.e. Anthropogenic Climate Change (human activities aiding & increasing global warming and thus climate activity)

The point im most keen to stress is media and science can be hugely disconnected. You speak of 'desperation' etc but this all stems from gross misrepresentation of the facts and misunderstanding of terms and theories involved. For the record, nothing has had it's meaning or 'label' changed as such, only by some media wackos who havent been able to report science correctly since day dot.

But, i have to concede, there are scientists in both camps, pro and anti anthropogenic climate change theory, that do not play by scientific standards and are sadly out to either make a lot of noise and get publicity or are simply 'finding' answers that certain funders want them to
 
shemnel said:
just for some clarity:

1. Global warming refers to the general trend of increasing temperatures on the globe.
2. Climate Change refers to changes in climate patterns and events as a result of increasing/changing global temperatures
3. Climate prediction is not the same as weather prediction

proving the link between 1 and 2 is incredibly difficult. i.e. Anthropogenic Climate Change (human activities aiding & increasing global warming and thus climate activity)

The point im most keen to stress is media and science can be hugely disconnected. You speak of 'desperation' etc but this all stems from gross misrepresentation of the facts and misunderstanding of terms and theories involved. For the record, nothing has had it's meaning or 'label' changed as such, only by some media wackos who havent been able to report science correctly since day dot.

But, i have to concede, there are scientists in both camps, pro and anti anthropogenic climate change theory, that do not play by scientific standards and are sadly out to either make a lot of noise and get publicity or are simply 'finding' answers that certain funders want them to
Click to expand...
Good answer, and thanks for the clarity.
However, point one suggests general increases in temperature, if the poles are increasing, how is this so?
Point two is in existence because of point one, in your view, if the temperatures haven't increased, (so we're told)
why is climate change even being discussed?
 
SWP's back said:
He has a point. The graphs you posted backed up the original graph you didn't like or claimed you didn't understand.
Click to expand...
oh for fucks sake.
This clown is all over this thread spouting bollox as fact yet when i try to engage in a proper discussion where he/she could get his/her points across with scientific evidence he/she fails to produce one bit of credible evidence to sustantiate his/her wild claims.

The original poster of the graph posted it in response to me saying the measurements for warming should be taken from the start of the industrial revolution. Clearly the graph is about 200 years short, and irrelevant to the point i was making. In response i posted more of the same irrelevant graphs to subtly highlight the complete bollox the poster was writing.

Unusually for you you jump in with both hands and try to assert your opinion by proving how right you are and how wrong other people are. Read the beginning of my exchanges with tippler and when you get to the post where he/she says,
'I don't need to, I am right and no matter what nonsense and guilt put out by the media I know that man made climate change is myth :0)' then tell me he/she isn't behaving like a child.
 
stonerblue said:
oh for fucks sake.
This clown is all over this thread spouting bollox as fact yet when i try to engage in a proper discussion where he/she could get his/her points across with scientific evidence he/she fails to produce one bit of credible evidence to sustantiate his/her wild claims.

The original poster of the graph posted it in response to me saying the measurements for warming should be taken from the start of the industrial revolution. Clearly the graph is about 200 years short, and irrelevant to the point i was making. In response i posted more of the same irrelevant graphs to subtly highlight the complete bollox the poster was writing.

Unusually for you you jump in with both hands and try to assert your opinion by proving how right you are and how wrong other people are. Read the beginning of my exchanges with tippler and when you get to the post where he/she says,
'I don't need to, I am right and no matter what nonsense and guilt put out by the media I know that man made climate change is myth :0)' then tell me he/she isn't behaving like a child.
Click to expand...
He was indeed behaving like a child saying that.

And yes, the graph is 200 years short, or if we go back 500 years then it's a fucking dealing cooler now than it was then. That's the point. We are in flux and always have been. Anthropological climate change states that increased human released carbon emissions are warming the earth atmosphere.

This is not borne out with no heating in the last twenty years and the fact that Arctic and Antarctic ice is increasing.
 
blueinsa said:
Cant be!

Advert on tv told me to adopt a polar bear last night because i was melting his ice and its the least i can do.
Click to expand...

If you actually read the text and not just the headline you will see that all the NASA scientists quoted agree that global warming is going just as predicted;

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
 
Government control tool, nothing more, nothing less and yet another excuse to raise taxes spuriously.

Science tells us that the Earth has had numerous swings of temperature since its formation with ice ages and hot spells and numerous extinction events yet its all the fault of Human Beings, a species that's been around for literally seconds if the life of the earth was a 24 hour clock.

Sorry, just not having it.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Good answer, and thanks for the clarity.
However, point one suggests general increases in temperature, if the poles are increasing, how is this so?
Point two is in existence because of point one, in your view, if the temperatures haven't increased, (so we're told)
why is climate change even being discussed?
Click to expand...

no prob, this is a horrendously complicated and interconnected area of science and our lives in general, sort of reflecting the world we live in really :)

Point 1, i think, is obviously a bedrock principle for those who believe anthropogenic climate change and you'll even find plenty of people who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change also agreeing there are long term warming trends (then there is a smaller group who deny even the long term warming). It is the connection between human activity and point 2, climate change, that is the biggy.

Point 2 is indeed in existence because of point 1. I personally do not see how you could claim average temperature changes would NOT have an effect on general climate patterns as climate etc is driven by heat fluxes, ability of air to carry enegy/water, polar jet streams and many other temperature driven phenomena.

And once again i think many folks still acknowledge the above but do not believe it is anthropogenic climate change but merely natural fluctuations, ice age cycles etc etc.

so, we calve off another group of folks and end up with two groups who both believe there is warming & climate change but disagree on its origin. And then there are a whole load of grey levels about agreeing to the degree/intensity that human activity has an effect.

the increasing temperatures are a fact of the last few centuries, this is not lies or anything, but depending on how far back you go you are looking at recent warming, long term warming or even long term cooling with recent upward fluctuation. This nicely highlights a problem of climate science which is timescales.

(The icecaps mentioned in previous posts has been distorted by the poster and if you read the articles youll see that they refer to thin ice, thick ice, and imbalance in the Arctic ice)
 
bluethrunthru said:
Everything is the result of climate change we are told- I take issue wit a lot of it because the climate is a dynamic force that has never stood still anyway and most of these people make forecasts and draw conclusions on such a vast scale that they - you- an I - will be long gone by the time they are proven right or wrong so its easy to say stuff with conviction always knowing you are never going to have to answer for it.
If someone got a country to invest in measures at huge expense based on say a 10 year period I'd have more respect because they would have to answer for their mistake. In 2009 work began on flood defences to prevent another "one in a 1000 year event " flooding of the city. Three years after completion they were found to be inadequate. The answer ? Would have been even worse if they hadn't built them !! Hardly a decent answer for those flooded after the reassurances they have had.
In my view we need to accept things have are and will change and look at how we deal with the effects not try and arrest and even reverse climate change.
And my point btw was that Al Gore's film points to the diminishing ice shelf as an effect of climate change
Click to expand...
I agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top