 Poster: A snowHead
|
More and more studies are beginning to challenge the green fundamentalists and eco-loonies.
This research indicates that the Earth's climate goes up and down in roughly 1500-year cycles. The trend has been taking place for the past million years.
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850."
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events."
"The study noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
How does that roster of scientists compare to the IPCC work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Wow, a whole 500.
Let's burn the rest, cause mother nature can just absorb all our pollution...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rob@rar, it's in the daily mail, so it must be right! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Wonderful news. I knew it wasn't my fault. Just going to get my V8 back out of the garage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Wonderful news. I knew it wasn't my fault. Just going to get my V8 back out of the garage. |
I didn't know Alfa Romeo did a V8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well that's allright then I'll get a 4x4, maybe a whole fleet, to drive down the local shops - the Daily Mail never has an axe to grind and always gets it's facts right... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
Wow, a whole 500.
Let's burn the rest, cause mother nature can just absorb all our pollution... |
aye - this is convincing stuff, ie:
"The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age."
Aren't grapes grown in UK right now? And all we had to do was wander around a few art galleries to find out. Geez - it's so easy ...
The scary bit is reading the comments posted on this article - very scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| gortonator wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
Wow, a whole 500.
Let's burn the rest, cause mother nature can just absorb all our pollution... |
aye - this is convincing stuff, ie:
"The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age."
Aren't grapes grown in UK right now? And all we had to do was wander around a few art galleries to find out. Geez - it's so easy ...
The scary bit is reading the comments posted on this article - very scary. |
The world was roughly 30% covered in ice 15k years ago. Now it is about 10% icy. There was even a glacier in North London.
The facts are indisputable. The world has clearly been melting since the end of the last Ice Age. The London glacier melted centuries go.
Long before factories, cars and planes.
The scary bit is the myopic, quasi-religious beliefs of the eco-mentalists.
Make no mistake, global warming is mostly non-anthropogenic 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitegold, So how long are these cycles 1500 years as you said before - or longer? You also said that the last ice age was 15k years ago.
As you said the world is coming out of an ice age it's going to get warmer whatever we do.
BUT it's the speed of the change that matters. If it progresses at a slow paced speed then man/plants/animals can adapt slowly and successfully.
If it's too fast then the cost to man will be enormous and plants/animals will really suffer.
I think we need to measure the speed of the change, predict what's going to happen and act accordingly.
Being a mean git - I like the fact that the small "green" changes I've made have saved me money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Wonderful news. I knew it wasn't my fault. Just going to get my V8 back out of the garage. |
I didn't know Alfa Romeo did a V8 |
I wouldn't be see dead in a tarted up Fiat thanks very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Bode Swiller, I was right then, they don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Jumpin Jack wrote: |
Whitegold, So how long are these cycles 1500 years as you said before - or longer? You also said that the last ice age was 15k years ago.
As you said the world is coming out of an ice age it's going to get warmer whatever we do.
BUT it's the speed of the change that matters. If it progresses at a slow paced speed then man/plants/animals can adapt slowly and successfully.
If it's too fast then the cost to man will be enormous and plants/animals will really suffer.
I think we need to measure the speed of the change, predict what's going to happen and act accordingly.
Being a mean git - I like the fact that the small "green" changes I've made have saved me money. |
agreed 100% - the question is whether we are accelerating warming or not? And there sure wasn't an ice age 1500 years ago, so I'm confused too.
I work with some top climate scientists here and some of the results from their research, and the climate change science as a whole, is worrying to say the least. Of course, the models may be wrong, but when the vast majority of them pretty much agree, and convergence is continuing, you have to wonder.
I especially agree on the money bit. I am, after all, from Stockport
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Jumpin Jack, in terms of speed of change there has been faster climate change in the past and there will be again. A complete THC shutdown could drop the temperature in NW Europe for example by 5c in a decade or so and this happened at the outset of the Younger Dryas where glaciers reformed in Scotland.
| Quote: |
| We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it |
We are the evidence. Without the Greenhouse Effect produced by CO2 there would be no life on Earth. Anyway increasing solar flux as the sun ages means that by 500 million years hence the effect of increasing solar output heating the biosphere could well reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere to such which the majority of plants would be unable to sustain photosynthesis, life as we know it would begin to collapse and even if not obliterated by that, life getting through the Suns red-giant phase in 4billion years time would be highly unlikely. If life did survive on earth then beyond the red-giant phase of the Sun temperatures would fall away, the oceans would freeze (if they survived or returned as the earth cooled) and any life on earth 8+ billion years from now would be limited to micro organisms living in the last pockets of liquid water around geothermal vents. We're doomed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the warming of the world would lead to a new ice age again a la "Day After Tomorrow". Is there evidence to support that the Earth is just following it's usual cycle? Sure. Is there evidence that we are accelerating it at an exceeding unnatural rate, yes.
Besides, the quicker our dependancy of oil is ridded the better, the day oil runs out (which I hope I'm not around for if we're still dependant on it) will be a very grim day for civilised humunity.
Now let's go skiing... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| gortonator wrote: |
| Of course, the models may be wrong, but when the vast majority of them pretty much agree, and convergence is continuing, you have to wonder. |
The agreement/convergence of models with each other is not very interesting. Agreement with the facts is the only thing that can give confidence in a model. If any model extant in 1988 predicted that there would be no hotter year for a decade at least, and that the trend in global average temperature in the last 5-6 years would be essentially flat (variation well within 0.1 deg C), then I would take it very seriously. Here's what's actually happened (according to the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
How ever unpleasant some of the more puritanical eco nuts seem I think I will take the IPCC over the Daily Mail anyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, on the (small?) chance that in a very finely ballanced system we are not affecting the result, these people are prepared to gamble the whole future of our planet? Hmmm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Interview on the Today programme this morning this with George Bush's senior science advisor. He said that he agreed with the IPCC's conclusions in their recent report. He argued that there was no doubt that climate change had a man-made component, and that action was required to reduce the production of CO2 otherwise the consequences could be severe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
global weather predictions based on computer models.. mmm is that a bit like northerns rocks mortgage trading computer model
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
cyclic changes and man made global warming then ........ we are all doomed
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I must admit, I have never believed that we are makinga significant difference to "Global Warming". I really do believe that natural processes have far more effect than anything we do in that area.
BUT I do strongly strongly believe that we need to seriously reduce our CO2 emissiosn. Not because of the effect on the atmosphere, but because most of them come from the burning of fossil fuels - and those are going to run out sometime (which will of course almost completely eliminate CO2 emissions when it happens).
The faster we burn them, the sooner they will run out (Duh!).
So from that POV, it really doesn't matter whether we are causing (or accelerating) global warming, since the "cure" is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I have a choice of agreeing with the IPCC or a bunch of people on a website whose hobby or lifestyle or profession will be severely curtailed if the IPCC are right?
In the face of conflicting evidence I'll stick with agreeing with the professional nobel winning scientists. Call me old fashioned but on issues like this evidence, logic, reason and fact outweigh passion and faith.
As to the ostrichs get with the enlightenment its hundreds of years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| gortonator wrote: |
| Jumpin Jack wrote: |
Whitegold
I work with some top climate scientists here and some of the results from their research, and the climate change science as a whole, is worrying to say the least. Of course, the models may be wrong, but when the vast majority of them pretty much agree, and convergence is continuing, you have to wonder.
|
|
At one time the majority of scientists agreed the world was flat. And those who claimed differently had a difficult live.
At one time the majority of 'scientists' thought the earth was the centre of the universe... Those that thought differently were crucified.
The world has been about a handful degrees C higher at some point in the past... CO2 concentrations have been higher then they are now too...
Climate change is a fact of earths dynamics... Do we contribute to it? Probably. Is it disastrous? Probably not. Some species become extinct, some new will form.. Dynamics of the earth...
Will the glaciers melt? Yes, they have been doing so for millenia. Do they go faster due to us? Probably. Is it a disaster they go a handful of years sooner then the earth on its own would have caused that? I seriously doubt that.
Will the gulfstream shut down? I hope so, it'll seriously make Europe's winters colder, and summers warmer... Would it have shut down by nature itself... not very unlikely... after alll, we only contribute to, not cause climate change...
So lets go ski:P
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 14-09-07 9:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Interview on the Today programme this morning this with George Bush's senior science advisor. He said that he agreed with the IPCC's conclusions in their recent report. He argued that there was no doubt that climate change had a man-made component |
Is there a scientific definition of climate change, so that we can evaluate questions such as:
(1) Whether it's happening
(2) If so, whether the changes are systematic or random
(3) If systematic, whether it's happening faster than in pre-industrial times
(4) If random, whether the variability is greater than in pre-industrial times.
When I see the words "climate change", the subject is treated in an Aristotelian manner; as if anyone sufficiently clever would know it when they saw it from it's very "essence". Of course, science in the West stagnated under that paradigm for the best part of 2000 years.
Note that, as I posted above, the scientifically defined quantity "global mean temperature" has remained remarkable constant these past several years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Read the article & spot what is misleading about the title of this thread:-
The article is about a report by TWO 'respected researchers' who have 'looked at the work of more than 500 scientists' that leads them to 'argue that these experts are doubtful the phenomenon is caused by man-made greenhouse gases'.
I'm sure if I was selective enough I could find the work of over 500 scientists to enable me to argue that they are doubtful on many theories (ie some agree, some disagree).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The earth has been hotter in the past, it's also been colder.
Things will die out in large numbers in the relatively near future.
On balance I agree with Ronald.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
laundryman, without spending hours going through the IPCC report I'd hazard a guess that changes to a range of measurable factors over and above what is considered to be natural cyclical phenomenon would be the definition of man-made climate change? IIRC the Third IPCC report looked in great detail at each of your specific questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Kenzie wrote: |
| I'm sure if I was selective enough I could find the work of over 500 scientists to enable me to argue that they are doubtful on many theories (ie some agree, some disagree). |
Try "relativity" or "quantum mechanics" or "thermodynamics", etc, etc. The point about these theories is that (while no theory can ever be said to have provided the final word) they can be used to make accurate predictions, which climate science, as yet, cannot. Therefore, therories in that field cannot be said to be "settled" to anything like the degree of others in different fields of natural science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I hadn't seen a thread on this topic in, oh, at least three days. I was starting to worry about never again reading the same arguments we've all read a million times before. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
ami in berlin, I think we need another PSB thread as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
| snowball wrote: |
| So, on the (small?) chance that in a very finely ballanced system we are not affecting the result, these people are prepared to gamble the whole future of our planet? Hmmm |
No, it's worse than that, they are prepared to gamble the next few decades of skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kenzie, wrote
| Quote: |
The article is about a report by TWO 'respected researchers' who have 'looked at the work of more than 500 scientists' that leads them to 'argue that these experts are doubtful the phenomenon is caused by man-made greenhouse gases'.
|
Exactly. It sounds just like those blurbs on the stuff about the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
But could it also be a natural phenomenom
