Global Warming

[Gelsons Dad]

It is happening and would happen with or without human interference.
I don't think anyone would deny this is a recurring cycle given what we know.

However we are catalyzing the proccess imo.

Given enough time and given enough universes, it is statistically probable that life will spark into existence. This does not mean that we can't have kids.

My point is that you are talking about a natural cycle of warming/cooling that occurs over an incredibly long time. This period has done it in a generation. I know of no event outside of meteor strikes and other Extinction Level Events that has caused such a major change in the ecosystem in such a hugely short time.

-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:29 pm --

So your point is that some graphs about ice in the last 650 million years don't correspond to some graphs about sea temperature anomaly during El Nino from the past 5 years?

Just as some graphs showing the rate of CO2 increase don't correspond to the recorded temperature change over the same period.

Either the model is wrong or the data is wrong or both.

I'm not sure that anybody has claimed this?

You're not talking about climate there, you are talking about weather. Example; if you pay £1.50 for bread, then the year after pay £1.75, then £2.00, then £1.80, then £1.75, what is the overall trend?

I'm not talking about weather and you know it. I'm talking about the climate change model based on the effects of greenhouse gasses as described in the Hansen et al paper discussed earlier.

According to that model, for the rate of temperature increase to stagnate as it has in the last few years there would have to have been a reduction in the rate of CO2 emission. There has in fact been an increase in the rate of emissions as shown by one of the random graphs I posted earlier.

 

[Damocles]

It is happening and would happen with or without human interference.
I don't think anyone would deny this is a recurring cycle given what we know.

However we are catalyzing the proccess imo.

Given enough time and given enough universes, it is statistically probable that life will spark into existence. This does not mean that we can't have kids.

My point is that you are talking about a natural cycle of warming/cooling that occurs over an incredibly long time. This period has done it in a generation. I know of no event outside of meteor strikes and other Extinction Level Events that has caused such a major change in the ecosystem in such a hugely short time.

But this is where the question I have comes in regarding ice core data only going back so far and not being as accurate (in terms of sort term fluctuations for obvious reasons) as recorded history of the last 500 years.

Ice core data goes back for hundreds of thousands of years?

I'm not sure of the question

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It is happening and would happen with or without human interference.
I don't think anyone would deny this is a recurring cycle given what we know.

However we are catalyzing the proccess imo.

I reckon this just about sums up my position on this.

I would add that global warming doesn't have to be the doomsday scenario that many paint, in any event. Many have hypothesised that it could save as many lives as it takes. Moreover never underestimate humanity's ability to adapt and survive. If civilisation can endure in the Arctic Circle I am sure it can cope with sea levels rising a few inches.

 

[Damocles]

It is happening and would happen with or without human interference.
I don't think anyone would deny this is a recurring cycle given what we know.

However we are catalyzing the proccess imo.

Given enough time and given enough universes, it is statistically probable that life will spark into existence. This does not mean that we can't have kids.

My point is that you are talking about a natural cycle of warming/cooling that occurs over an incredibly long time. This period has done it in a generation. I know of no event outside of meteor strikes and other Extinction Level Events that has caused such a major change in the ecosystem in such a hugely short time.

-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:29 pm --

Just as some graphs showing the rate of CO2 increase don't correspond to the recorded temperature change over the same period.

Either the model is wrong or the data is wrong or both.

I'm not sure that anybody has claimed this?

You're not talking about climate there, you are talking about weather. Example; if you pay £1.50 for bread, then the year after pay £1.75, then £2.00, then £1.80, then £1.75, what is the overall trend?

I'm not talking about weather and you know it. I'm talking about the climate change model based on the effects of greenhouse gasses as described in the Hansen et al paper discussed earlier.

According to that model, for the rate of temperature increase to stagnate as it has in the last few years there would have to have been a reduction in the rate of CO2 emission. There has in fact been an increase in the rate of emissions as shown by one of the random graphs I posted earlier.

So you're talking about a paper written in 1988?

An it doesn't strike you that using a 30 year old paper written at the advent of climate science to disprove current observations is a little on the daft side?

This is akin to stating that because Newton was wrong, then Einstein's Theory of Relativity couldn't possibly be correct.

 

[Rascal]

I think the answer is, nobody knows for sure what is happening.Nobody on either side of the debate can offer comprehensive proof either way.


My thoughts are ignore it at our peril.


And tax the rich lots more, just in case.

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

This started out as a request for people's opinion and now it's a full scale boring argument. Welcome to Off Topic.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Given enough time and given enough universes, it is statistically probable that life will spark into existence. This does not mean that we can't have kids.

My point is that you are talking about a natural cycle of warming/cooling that occurs over an incredibly long time. This period has done it in a generation. I know of no event outside of meteor strikes and other Extinction Level Events that has caused such a major change in the ecosystem in such a hugely short time.

-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:29 pm --



I'm not sure that anybody has claimed this?

You're not talking about climate there, you are talking about weather. Example; if you pay £1.50 for bread, then the year after pay £1.75, then £2.00, then £1.80, then £1.75, what is the overall trend?

I'm not talking about weather and you know it. I'm talking about the climate change model based on the effects of greenhouse gasses as described in the Hansen et al paper discussed earlier.

According to that model, for the rate of temperature increase to stagnate as it has in the last few years there would have to have been a reduction in the rate of CO2 emission. There has in fact been an increase in the rate of emissions as shown by one of the random graphs I posted earlier.

So you're talking about a paper written in 1988?

An it doesn't strike you that using a 30 year old paper written at the advent of climate science to disprove current observations is a little on the daft side?

This is akin to stating that because Newton was wrong, then Einstein's Theory of Relativity couldn't possibly be correct.

The advent of climate science is an odd name. Was there no study of climatology before 1988? Or was there simply no hypothesis that mans activities were producing enough CO2 to change the natural temperature variations that have happened since the earth was formed?

Given the huge variations in temperature and CO2 that your own graph shows and the non uniform lead/lag of the two data sets it's hard to fathom how one could be so certain of the facts.

I'm considerably more convinced by the total solar irradiance thesis.

[bigimg]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-co2-ushnc2.png?w=640[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-tsi-ushcn2.png?w=640[/bigimg]

 

[toffee balls]

I think the answer is, nobody knows for sure what is happening.Nobody on either side of the debate can offer comprehensive proof either way.


My thoughts are ignore it at our peril.


And tax the rich lots more, just in case.

you have missed one more "city couldn't play " from your location you commy bastard.

How are you ?

 

[Forzacitizens]

happening ... yes

man made.... no

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This started out as a request for people's opinion and now it's a full scale boring argument. Welcome to Off Topic.

You'd wonder what was wrong if it changed to anything different.<br /><br />-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:56 pm --<br /><br />

I think the answer is, nobody knows for sure what is happening.Nobody on either side of the debate can offer comprehensive proof either way.


My thoughts are ignore it at our peril.


And tax the rich lots more, just in case.

you have missed one more "city couldn't play " from your location you commy bastard.

How are you ?

I tried to point that out to him several weeks ago but I was ignored. Don't hold your fucking breath.