You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
johnny on the spot said:Vagivoovoo said:Global warming is bullshit.
In what respect?
In the respect we are being told its our fault and we will have to be taxed for our own good.
The Earth's temperature and seen well documented rises and falls since records began and scientists will tell you its gone on for a lot longer than we have records for.
Solar activity has a huge impact on the Earth's long term weather and temperature but please don't tell the government or they will tell us all the sun is bad for us and we need to be taxed or we are all dooooooooooomed!
Ice ages anyone? Was the use of fridges, deodorants and gas guzzling 4x4's responsible for those?
blueinsa said:johnny on the spot said:Vagivoovoo said:Global warming is bullshit.
In what respect?
In the respect we are being told its our fault and we will have to be taxed for our own good.
The Earth's temperature and seen well documented rises and falls since records began and scientists will tell you its gone on for a lot longer than we have records for.
Solar activity has a huge impact on the Earth's long term weather and temperature but please don't tell the government or they will tell us all the sun is bad for us and we need to be taxed or we are all dooooooooooomed!
Ice ages anyone? Was the use of fridges, deodorants and gas guzzling 4x4's responsible for those?
Is the sun a constant source of energy?
The sun’s radiation varies over many time scales, from short (11 year sunspot cycle, 20-27 year magnetic field) to medium (106 and 216 year cycles) to long (tens of thousands of years). Northern hemisphere temperature variations over the last 200 years closely match estimated solar intensity, as one would expect. (George Taylor, ‘Science Wake Up Call: There is More Hype Than Truth,’ National Association of Manufacturers, May 2004)
Is CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas?
Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.
Has the climate been stable for a long time but now getting increasingly extreme?
Climate swings are nothing new. Between 800 and 1300 AD – The Medieval Warm Period – much of the world was several degrees warmer than today. People grew wine grapes in England, figs in Germany and assorted crops in Greenland. Then came the Little Ice Age, with temperatures considerably colder than today which persisted until the climate warmed again around 1900. The likely cause? Changes in the sun’s energy output, or perhaps the Earth’s orbit, say Harvard-Smithsonian scientists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.
twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
In 2003, Baliunas co-authored a highly controversial paper with Willie Soon that reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years.
Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication. According to the acknowledgments listed in the paper, it was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication. According to the acknowledgments listed in the paper, it was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
The Flash
Well-Known Member
We won't destroy the earth, the earth will destroy us. Once mother nature decides enough is enough, she'll kick our species to smithereens.
I think it's a bit egotistical to suggest that 150 years of human industrialisation is going to spell the end for a planet that has been an ever-changing organism for a few billion years.....
I think it's a bit egotistical to suggest that 150 years of human industrialisation is going to spell the end for a planet that has been an ever-changing organism for a few billion years.....
twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
One of the most irritating things that climate scientists have to put up with these days is the bombardment of what I call "bollockspeak" from scientifically illiterate celebrity deniers and polemicists hiding behind their pulpits in the national press. Ignorance is bliss, or so they say, but it can also be perfidious; especially so when accompanied by the mindless arrogance and puffed-up smugness of the know-it-all who demonstrably does not know it all.
This was displayed to perfection at the Hay festival a few weeks ago. I was talking about my new book, Waking the Giant, which addresses the well-established, but not widely known, links between a changing climate and a sometimes violent response from the solid Earth.
As usual the questions at the end of my presentation were astute and well-informed. I did think it a little odd, however, that the climate change deniers appeared to be absent, or were at least keeping their heads down.
A few days later, however, all became clear. The contrarians did, in fact, have a presence in the form of Jeremy Clarkson. Presumably being too self-effacing and timid to challenge me face-to-face at the event, Clarkson chose instead to denigrate the talk, the science and me personally in a weekly column he churns out for the Sunday Times.
Here are a few choice quotes:
"Science fiction is thriving; only today it's all being written by global warming enthusiasts".
[McGuire] says that soon, climate change will bring about an age of geological havoc including tsunamis and something he calls 'volcano storms'.
This is fantastic stuff. Scary. Possible. And we haven't even got to the clincher yet, because McGuire says that as all the snow melts, the sea will become heavier and that will cause fault lines to shift all over the world. Japan. Mexico. Chile. All gone. The man is talking here about an extinction-level event. And the word is that when the film rights are sorted, Denzel is earmarked for the lead.
[McGuire] delivered his cataclysmic view of events to come in much the same way that The War of the Worlds was first played on the radio. Seriously, as though it were fact.
But I think the scariest part is that McGuire is actually employed by the government as an adviser. It actually takes him seriously".
I think you get the picture. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the bilge in the column is reflective not of my Hay talk, but of the barely coherent products of Clarkson's own fevered imagination, it is near impossible to imagine the degree of conceit required for someone with – let's say limited - scientific expertise, to sit through a talk that presents the fruits of peer-reviewed research by hundreds of scientists and dismiss them out of hand. Slightly miffed – to say the least – I sent a letter to the Sunday Times outlining my thoughts about Mr. Clarkson and his rantings. This has not been published, either in its entirety or in part, and I have yet to receive any response from the paper at all.
The bottom line is that rapid climate change drives a hazardous response from the Earth's crust – fact! The idea is not new and – in scientific circles – is not even controversial.
We have a huge amount of data gleaned from the 20,000 years that has elapsed since the end of the last ice age, which saw one of the most dramatic transformations in our planet's history; from frigid wasteland to the broadly clement world we are familiar with today. The changes in stress and strain in the crust that resulted from melting of the 3km-thick continental ice sheets and a 130m rise in global sea levels, saw Lapland wracked by massive quakes associated today with places like the Pacific "ring of fire", while volcanic outbursts on Iceland increased 30 times. There is plenty of evidence too, for seismic shakings and volcanic rumblings, during this period, right across the planet.
With the climate once again changing at least as rapidly as during post-glacial times, we are already seeing a seismic response to the loss of ice mass in Alaska, and a rise in the frequency of giant landslides as a reaction to heat waves across mountainous regions. How widespread and obvious the future response of the Earth beneath our feet will be to continued planetary warming, remains uncertain. Clearly, however, the potential exists for unmitigated climate change to bring about a significant and hazardous riposte.
When we get down to the nitty-gritty, it does not really matter whether Clarkson and his ilk accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change or not. As a certain Canute discovered in a somewhat different context more than 1,000 years ago, such denial will not halt Nature in its tracks. We will continue to see global temperatures climbing; the polar ice sheets crumbling or and sea levels sloshing ever higher. In the fullness of time, the deniers' pretence that the data don't exist, while shouting "la, la, la" and holding their hands over their ears, will make not a blind bit of difference to the outcome.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/10/climate-change-science-fiction-jeremy-clarkson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... y-clarkson</a>
This was displayed to perfection at the Hay festival a few weeks ago. I was talking about my new book, Waking the Giant, which addresses the well-established, but not widely known, links between a changing climate and a sometimes violent response from the solid Earth.
As usual the questions at the end of my presentation were astute and well-informed. I did think it a little odd, however, that the climate change deniers appeared to be absent, or were at least keeping their heads down.
A few days later, however, all became clear. The contrarians did, in fact, have a presence in the form of Jeremy Clarkson. Presumably being too self-effacing and timid to challenge me face-to-face at the event, Clarkson chose instead to denigrate the talk, the science and me personally in a weekly column he churns out for the Sunday Times.
Here are a few choice quotes:
"Science fiction is thriving; only today it's all being written by global warming enthusiasts".
[McGuire] says that soon, climate change will bring about an age of geological havoc including tsunamis and something he calls 'volcano storms'.
This is fantastic stuff. Scary. Possible. And we haven't even got to the clincher yet, because McGuire says that as all the snow melts, the sea will become heavier and that will cause fault lines to shift all over the world. Japan. Mexico. Chile. All gone. The man is talking here about an extinction-level event. And the word is that when the film rights are sorted, Denzel is earmarked for the lead.
[McGuire] delivered his cataclysmic view of events to come in much the same way that The War of the Worlds was first played on the radio. Seriously, as though it were fact.
But I think the scariest part is that McGuire is actually employed by the government as an adviser. It actually takes him seriously".
I think you get the picture. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the bilge in the column is reflective not of my Hay talk, but of the barely coherent products of Clarkson's own fevered imagination, it is near impossible to imagine the degree of conceit required for someone with – let's say limited - scientific expertise, to sit through a talk that presents the fruits of peer-reviewed research by hundreds of scientists and dismiss them out of hand. Slightly miffed – to say the least – I sent a letter to the Sunday Times outlining my thoughts about Mr. Clarkson and his rantings. This has not been published, either in its entirety or in part, and I have yet to receive any response from the paper at all.
The bottom line is that rapid climate change drives a hazardous response from the Earth's crust – fact! The idea is not new and – in scientific circles – is not even controversial.
We have a huge amount of data gleaned from the 20,000 years that has elapsed since the end of the last ice age, which saw one of the most dramatic transformations in our planet's history; from frigid wasteland to the broadly clement world we are familiar with today. The changes in stress and strain in the crust that resulted from melting of the 3km-thick continental ice sheets and a 130m rise in global sea levels, saw Lapland wracked by massive quakes associated today with places like the Pacific "ring of fire", while volcanic outbursts on Iceland increased 30 times. There is plenty of evidence too, for seismic shakings and volcanic rumblings, during this period, right across the planet.
With the climate once again changing at least as rapidly as during post-glacial times, we are already seeing a seismic response to the loss of ice mass in Alaska, and a rise in the frequency of giant landslides as a reaction to heat waves across mountainous regions. How widespread and obvious the future response of the Earth beneath our feet will be to continued planetary warming, remains uncertain. Clearly, however, the potential exists for unmitigated climate change to bring about a significant and hazardous riposte.
When we get down to the nitty-gritty, it does not really matter whether Clarkson and his ilk accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change or not. As a certain Canute discovered in a somewhat different context more than 1,000 years ago, such denial will not halt Nature in its tracks. We will continue to see global temperatures climbing; the polar ice sheets crumbling or and sea levels sloshing ever higher. In the fullness of time, the deniers' pretence that the data don't exist, while shouting "la, la, la" and holding their hands over their ears, will make not a blind bit of difference to the outcome.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/10/climate-change-science-fiction-jeremy-clarkson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... y-clarkson</a>
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
twinkletoes that man has very vested interests in making sure we keep banging the drum
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,794
Damocles already stated on the thread that where the funding arises is not relevant as any possible bias from the scientists having accepted funding is unfalsifiable.twinkletoes said:In 2003, Baliunas co-authored a highly controversial paper with Willie Soon that reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years.
Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication. According to the acknowledgments listed in the paper, it was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
twinkletoes
Well-Known Member
SWP's back said:Damocles already stated on the thread that where the funding arises is not relevant as any possible bias from the scientists having accepted funding is unfalsifiable.twinkletoes said:In 2003, Baliunas co-authored a highly controversial paper with Willie Soon that reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years.
Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication. According to the acknowledgments listed in the paper, it was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
If Damocles says so then it must be true.<br /><br />-- Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:07 pm --<br /><br />
BoyBlue_1985 said:twinkletoes that man has very vested interests in making sure we keep banging the drum
Clarkson?
SWP's back said:Damocles already stated on the thread that where the funding arises is not relevant as any possible bias from the scientists having accepted funding is unfalsifiable.twinkletoes said:In 2003, Baliunas co-authored a highly controversial paper with Willie Soon that reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years.
Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication. According to the acknowledgments listed in the paper, it was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
Damocles also said that the peer review process is designed to lessen bias in every experiment.
The only possible conclusion that global warming skeptics can come to, is that there's a vast conspiracy involving many of the governments of the world, almost ALL of the climate scientists, many of the data gatherers, many of the solar scientists, many of the geologists and this is carried out in secret as a way of earning tax revenues that they presumably couldn't get from from any other means (because taxes only exist because of environmentalism).
The above conclusion is not the thinking of a sane person.