blueish swede
Well-Known Member
BulgarianPride said:
The difference is that this time we're around and its going to affect us.
Climate Change is here and man made
- Thread starter SWP's back
- Start date
The difference is that this time we're around and its going to affect us.
asgoodasitgets
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 1,566
- Team supported
- Team America World Police
To save me trawling the whole thread, could someone tell me whether I need a big coat or a pair of speedos ?
Ta
Ta
BulgarianPride
Well-Known Member
corky1970 said:
Men throwing garbage in the seas is also a reason why so many fish are dieing. Polar bears adapted to like the frozen north, due to climate change, i am sure they will adapt to not like the frozen north. If not, they can go fuck themselves, who needs then anyways?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Anyone harbouring any doubt about the futility of the green lobby in altering human behaviour need only look to the story of the Easter Island statues.
These were made by competing tribes on the island as a mutual show of strength. Their transportation and erection required a tremendous amount of timber, which was harnessed from the island's forests. Such was the grip that this craze had on the island's inhabitants that it was completely deforested within a few decades. There must have been a point where a tribe looked upon the island and realised that they were cutting down the last tree, considered the consequences and maybe even considered the absurdity of what they had done and then carried on to cut the last tree down anyway.
Human beings will stop using oil when it runs out or becomes more expensive (in real terms) than any viable alternatives and I'm afraid to say that any impact on the world's climate will merely be a sideshow and a talking shop to the main event: human greed, innovation and insanity.
These were made by competing tribes on the island as a mutual show of strength. Their transportation and erection required a tremendous amount of timber, which was harnessed from the island's forests. Such was the grip that this craze had on the island's inhabitants that it was completely deforested within a few decades. There must have been a point where a tribe looked upon the island and realised that they were cutting down the last tree, considered the consequences and maybe even considered the absurdity of what they had done and then carried on to cut the last tree down anyway.
Human beings will stop using oil when it runs out or becomes more expensive (in real terms) than any viable alternatives and I'm afraid to say that any impact on the world's climate will merely be a sideshow and a talking shop to the main event: human greed, innovation and insanity.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
blueish swede said:
99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct and we will be no different.
£200 on your gas bill will not alter the fact one bit or slow down our demise!
BulgarianPride
Well-Known Member
blueish swede said:
We were always around, and we've always managed a way to survive. That is when we were primates, and early primitive men. We've come a long way sense then, so why do you think we are at such risk?
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,597
Possibly positively?blueish swede said:
Skashion said:
For a lazy comment. I told you that you're out of date. You counter by showing me a report from 5 years ago.
Skashion said:
So? The ones that have a high LoSU all show huge warming. The others we aren't really sure about yet but have a general idea of. I cannot fathom that you do not believe the LoSU to be on the conservative side here for an IPCC paper published 5 years ago nor do I believe that you are not clever enough to use simple additioin to add up the best case screnario of low LoSU forcings against the best case scenario of high LoSU forcings and still see a 5 degree warming. Or why don't you look at the confidence in projected changes? Or the summaries of the entire report?
Your whole opinion here seems to be "we don't know everything therefore we don't know anything". Unless you are playing the conspiracy card, and I certainly hope that you aren't. When AR5 comes out in 18 months, you'll see all those LoSUs shoot up, for the record.
Oh yeah, Greenland takes "infinite" time to melt.
[bigimg]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61790000/jpg/_61790899_ice_reuters.jpg[/bigimg]
That "infinite time" took four days by the way.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Latest IPCC report I'm afraid. Take it up with the IPCC.Damocles said:
I've no doubt the LoSUs will improve, because science is supposed to go forward, not backwards. If it shows us how best to counteract or mitigate the effects of climate change, that's what I want to see. How can we hope to approach geoengineering without sufficient knowledge to do so?
EAST ANTARCTIC Damo, EAST ANTARCTIC. I said it very clearly. The evidence currently shows they are gaining mass. Greenland contains water enough only for 6 or 7m of sea level rises, not the 200ft (60m) you were foaming at the mouth about.
As I haven't received a response I will mention this;
In 1974 scientist warned that polution was getting into our food chain and causing us grave problems. As an example they quoted Tuna fish had an alarmingly high level of Mercury in them. If anyone remembers Marvin Gaye's classic about mans effect on the envoiroment, 'Mercy Mercy Me' they will remember he sang 'fish full of mercury'. That's how alarmed we all were about the pollution............ and then a year later it was reported that in fact Mercury levels in fish swing wildly from year to year and cannot be used as evidence of global pollution.
Scientist eh, don't you just love 'em.
Oh and on a seperate note but again in the 1970's, Sweeden and other Nordic countries complained about British power stations producing acid rain that was destroying their trees. Succesive Governments had scientists prove that this was all a lie and the UK were not responsible for acid rain.I think we all now agree that power stations do in fact casue acid rain.
Governments eh, don't you just trust 'em.
In 1974 scientist warned that polution was getting into our food chain and causing us grave problems. As an example they quoted Tuna fish had an alarmingly high level of Mercury in them. If anyone remembers Marvin Gaye's classic about mans effect on the envoiroment, 'Mercy Mercy Me' they will remember he sang 'fish full of mercury'. That's how alarmed we all were about the pollution............ and then a year later it was reported that in fact Mercury levels in fish swing wildly from year to year and cannot be used as evidence of global pollution.
Scientist eh, don't you just love 'em.
Oh and on a seperate note but again in the 1970's, Sweeden and other Nordic countries complained about British power stations producing acid rain that was destroying their trees. Succesive Governments had scientists prove that this was all a lie and the UK were not responsible for acid rain.I think we all now agree that power stations do in fact casue acid rain.
Governments eh, don't you just trust 'em.
Skashion said:
These are the only people who issue reports?
You've ignored my point about the difference between the low and high LoSU values still meaning a 5 degree warmig.
Again, we don't know everything. This doesn't mean we don't know anything.
Foaming at the mouth? You sound like Dave. If you want to talk science then let's do that but if you're going to go down this path then I'd rather sit on an ice spike.
You said Eastern Antarctic when I said "Greenland and parts of the Arctic". I meant parts of the Antarctic which you pretty much picked up on and I thought we were still talking about the same thing.
Also "they are gaining mass"? Talk about cherry picking. Yes, East Antartica is gaining mass because its sea ice is rapidly increasing as its land ice is growing. Sea ice is the thing that people are arsed about as like an ice cube in a glass it contributes more to sea level changes. Also, the overall mass of Antartica is shrinking, not growing.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,597
You sure about sea ice contributing more than land ice Damocles?
Go get a glass, fill it nearly to the top and put some ice cubes in.
Report Ba k what happens to the level when it melts.
Go get a glass, fill it nearly to the top and put some ice cubes in.
Report Ba k what happens to the level when it melts.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Sea ice does not contribute to sea level rises. The East Antarctic ice sheet is the issue because that's on land, and hence does contribute to sea level rises when it melts. The East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains 60+% of the world's fresh water, is gaining mass.Damocles said:Skashion said:
These are the only people who issue reports?
You've ignored my point about the difference between the low and high LoSU values still meaning a 5 degree warmig.
Again, we don't know everything. This doesn't mean we don't know anything.
Foaming at the mouth? You sound like Dave. If you want to talk science then let's do that but if you're going to go down this path then I'd rather sit on an ice spike.
You said Eastern Antarctic when I said "Greenland and parts of the Arctic". I meant parts of the Antarctic which you pretty much picked up on and I thought we were still talking about the same thing.
Also "they are gaining mass"? Talk about cherry picking. Yes, East Antartica is gaining mass because its sea ice is rapidly increasing as its land ice is growing. Sea ice is the thing that people are arsed about as like an ice cube in a glass it contributes more to sea level changes. Also, the overall mass of Antartica is shrinking, not growing.
paphos-mcfc
Well-Known Member
Would the changing of the Earth's orbit over several hundred years effect the the current climate change? Hotter summers, colder wetter winter????
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit</a>
Just a thought.
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit</a>
Just a thought.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,597
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7645112/Melting-sea-ice-would-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-by-hairs-breadth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... eadth.html</a>
If all the floating ice in the world melted it would cause sea levels to rise by just 4cm. In comparison if all the ice on land melted it would cause a rise of 70m.
If all the floating ice in the world melted it would cause sea levels to rise by just 4cm. In comparison if all the ice on land melted it would cause a rise of 70m.
corky1970 said:
You'll get none. You seemingly don't understand either science as a method for explanation nor the science involved here. I won't be debating you on this because I think you're trolling. I'll debate Skash as he seems to be clever enough to not post a single scientific paper which talks of a single effect as some sort of marker. Try as you might, you'll get no further contribution from me because I think you're an idiot and it's a waste of my time. If you somehow come up with some science, then we can talk again
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
paphos-mcfc said:
Not as much as me driving at 90mph in 4th apparently ;-)