Global Warming

[twinkletoes]

I admire Damocles, trying to take on the cleek.

 

[SWP's back]

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

Hundreds of thousands of years against 5 billion years rather makes for a small sample.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Anyone who is worried about global warming wasn't stood with me at Edinburgh Airport last Friday.

 

[Damocles]

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.

This just isn't true. It is happening, as even Gelson's Dad will admit. There's not a single credible climate scientist out there that suggests anything else.

The point of this thread was because I was speaking to a mate who happens to be a climatologist at the Met Office. We were arguing about whether or not this is an issue that is taken seriously and he suggested a lack of education amongst the man in the street regarding the scale of the problem. I thought that due to the widespread interest of the issue, people would understand. The Inconvenient Truth made a big impact, as did successive government programs. You always get a few cranks but for the most part, I would under the impression that most people acknowledge it as an issue and understand the reprecussions. It seems that I was hugely mistaken.

A seven year study into the reporting of climate change and global warming in the media, that covered The Sun, The Mirror, The Express and The Mail found that that was a massive deviation in the scientific consensus of climate change and the reporting of such. My mate put it down to this as a lead course. I think politics is much to do with it, personally<br /><br />-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:08 pm --<br /><br />

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.

I'll ask again as you ignored me the first time around. Why are you using a thirty year study to try to disprove current science?

And can you please stop posting random graphs without an explanation of what you are trying to show?

 

[DavidSilvasLeftFoot]

It isn't man made, climate change has happened naturally throughout time. We had an ice age not too long back 20,000 years ago, the earth is still recovering from that.

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

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.

This just isn't true. It is happening, as even Gelson's Dad will admit. There's not a single credible climate scientist out there that suggests anything else.

The point of this thread was because I was speaking to a mate who happens to be a climatologist at the Met Office. We were arguing about whether or not this is an issue that is taken seriously and he suggested a lack of education amongst the man in the street regarding the scale of the problem. I thought that due to the widespread interest of the issue, people would understand. The Inconvenient Truth made a big impact, as did successive government programs. You always get a few cranks but for the most part, I would under the impression that most people acknowledge it as an issue and understand the reprecussions. It seems that I was hugely mistaken.

A seven year study into the reporting of climate change and global warming in the media, that covered The Sun, The Mirror, The Express and The Mail found that that was a massive deviation in the scientific consensus of climate change and the reporting of such. My mate put it down to this as a lead course. I think politics is much to do with it, personally

-- Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:08 pm --

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.

I'll ask again as you ignored me the first time around. Why are you using a thirty year study to try to disprove current science?

And can you please stop posting random graphs without an explanation of what you are trying to show?

It was a trick to see who agreed with your opinion.

 

[Damocles]

It isn't man made, climate change has happened naturally throughout time. We had an ice age not too long back 20,000 years ago, the earth is still recovering from that.

So the warming trends in the past 50 years don't count because it sort of mirrors something that occurred over the course of 20,000 years?

Well shit.

My point here is yes, the climate does change over the course of thousands and thousands of years but the current consensus indicates that this warming has occurred over a vastly shorter timeframe. We're worried about the next hundred years rather than 20,000 years.

 

[Damocles]

It was a trick to see who agreed with your opinion.

It was a trick to see if people who don't keep up to date with climate science understand that the planet is changing rapidly to a point where their grandchildren will have to fight to survive. This isn't an argument on which you can have opinions. It's a fact which you either understand or you do not.

 

[rickmcfc]

Global Warming does not exist, Climate Charge however does, and its a natural cycle that has hapenned since earth began. Man is probably adding the the effect, the the effect is that small is not even worth mentioning.

 

[Damocles]

Global Warming does not exist, Climate Charge however does, and its a natural cycle that has hapenned since earth began. Man is probably adding the the effect, the the effect is that small is not even worth mentioning.

And these people are the ones doing it.