co2 me hole

sligopark

Mahatma coat wrote: »

BTW, who here remembers the O-zone Hole??

or that other crock of sh1te that because of humans we were heading for an ice age - Greens what a bunch of tossers - unfortunately world financiers and drivers of economic (and in charge of hoovering up money from the liberal do gooders of the middle class and the stupid working classes) now have worked out the more naive amongst the slaves will vote in majority to pass up their cash in the form of CO2 taxes ....

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

or that other crock of sh1te that because of humans we were heading for an ice age - Greens what a bunch of tossers - unfortunately world financiers and drivers of economic (and in charge of hoovering up money from the liberal do gooders of the middle class and the stupid working classes) now have worked out the more naive amongst the slaves will vote in majority to pass up their cash in the form of CO2 taxes ....

Again, this was the media, not what was being said in the scientific literature.

MRPRO03

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350994/Greenland-glaciers-flow-slower-hot-summers-adapting-climate-change.html

King Mob

MRPRO03 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350994/Greenland-glaciers-flow-slower-hot-summers-adapting-climate-change.html

Ah, the Daily Mail, bastion of science.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, the Daily Mail, bastion of science.

how about you refute the content of the article rather than attacking the source.

Mahatma coat

Because you seem to be confusing media hype with actual science.
Ozone depletion is still a major concern, and CO2 has always been a concern.

Also isn't stating that there's a vast global conspiracy kinda the exact same boogeymaning you're accusing others of?

this little doozie strikes me as a Pot-Kettle situation

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this little doozie strikes me as a Pot-Kettle situation

How?

The reality (or not) of climate change is a scientific issue. The discussion should be first and foremost about the science, and not about what the media say about the science, nor what the politicians want to do on the back of the science.

Whether or not you or I think carbon tax is a good idea has nothing at all to do with the science of climate change.
Whether or not the media are accurately reporting the science (they're not) has nothing at all to do with the science.

This is what I really find hard to understand about the whole "conspiracy" of climate change, to be honest.

We're told that governments lie to us. To an extent, that's unquestionably true.
We're told that the media mislead us, Again, to an extent, thats unquestionably true.

So along comes climate change as an issue. There are three "angles" here :

- What the science says
- What the governments say
- What the media says

Virtually no-one will argue that the media are giving an honest and accurate picture of the science.
Equally few will argue that the governments are reacting honestly and responsibly to the science.

So do we have a conspiracy that the governments are taking science and twisting it to their own ends? Do we have a conspiracy that the media are, in effect, assisting them with this?
Yes...but we have an additional conspiracy that the science is wrong in the first place....for no discernible reason that I can see.

And when we start looking at this "conspiracy of science"...what gets trotted out as the evidence? Mostly, the media and government....the people who we all accept (to greater or lesser degrees) are misrepresenting the science and turning it to their own ends anyway.

Interestingly, the ozone layer - which you brought up - was a case where arguably there was a conspiracy. DuPont, who owned the patent for the manufacture of Freon stood in the way of regulation, and they were also a major force behind much of the counter-claims regarding the whole ozone-depletion issue (its not CFCs, its something else...honest). Then, in 1986, duPont secured patents on a replacement for Freon (HCFCs, which weren't a threat to the ozone) and suddenly they had a miraculous change of heart, condemned CFCs (for which the patent had expired in the meantime), and became a key player in driving for the banning of these dangerous chemicals.

The science was always there. It was vested interests who funded and fought the "anti" position...and only once it was financially advantageous to them did they shift positions...and their position shift was the key to legislation being passed and accepted by governments around the world.

Now, compare that to today's world. People supporting climate change science are saying what was said in the late 70s and early 80s about the ozone depletion issue. Look at the science, and not what the media, the big business, nor the governments are telling you. How is that a pot/kettle situation?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how about you refute the content of the article rather than attacking the source.

You do realise it's the Daily Mail right?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this little doozie strikes me as a Pot-Kettle situation

Well cept for the small problem that CO2 and climate change actually exist.

But you do actually see the hypocrisy of accusing the media/government of using a boogeyman, while you are doing the same thing?

Mahatma coat

Interesting Point Bonkey, Yes I agree that we shouldnt trust what the Media of the Govt spoonfeed us, but I still Question the Science of ANTHROPORMOPHIC (sp) Climate change, Yes we are havin an effect but NO its not to the level that is beig claimed

Science is never cut and dry, there is always more to learn, more that we just dont understand, thats where the media come intoplay, the bombardmaent of the populus with one single concept, WE are Killing the planet, the conclusion is subjective, the 'Science' used to reach that conclusion is Ropey at best, yet we are expected to take it as Gospel, Science is NOT ar religion however the champions of AGW treat it as such.

Mahatma coat

Well Duh, CO2 exists, tell ya what do your bit and stop Breathing Out :D:D:D

climate change is a Reality, once upon a time the northern shores of Africa grew enough grain to Feed the Roman conquest of Europe, that climate changed, was it because the roman army travelled everywhere in Supercharged V8's?????????

Mahatma coat

yeah I can read a URL

what specificaly in the article do you contest??????

Climate change may not be as catastrophic for Greenland's icecaps as scientists first thought after researchers found hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers.

Increased melting in the warmer summer months is causing the internal drainage system of the ice sheet to 'adapt' and accommodate more melt-water, without speeding up the flow of ice toward the oceans.

This is because in hot conditions there is initially so much melt-water that it runs off into channels below the ice, thereby decreasing the lubricating layer which sits on top of the ice sheets and causes melting over a much larger surface area.
Adapting? An iceberg off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers, scientists believe

Adapting? An iceberg off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. Hotter summers may actually slow down the flow of glaciers, scientists believe
HIMALAYAN GLACIERS 'ARE ADVANCING' AS WELL

Scientists today said Himalayan glaciers are actually growing and not shrinking.

Half of the ice flows in the Karakoran range of the mountains are advancing and not retreating, researchers announced in the first major study since a 2007 United Nations report warned the glaciers would melt by 2035.

The new research, carried out by scientists at the University of California and the University of Potsdam, concluded that global warming is not directly responsible for how glaciers fare.

Dr Bodo Bookhagen told the Daily Telegraph that 'there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier' and said the UN's report 'lumps all Himalayan glaciers together'.

Owing to this, the acceleration of melting appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool ones.

The findings, reported in the journal Nature, have important implications for future assessments of global sea level rise.


More...

* Chilly future for Britain with regular freezing winters if the Arctic continues to warm up, scientists warn

The Greenland ice sheet covers roughly 80 per cent of the surface of the island and contains enough water to raise sea levels by 7 metres if it were to melt completely.

Rising temperatures in the Arctic in recent years have caused the ice sheet to shrink, prompting fears that it may be close to a 'tipping point' of no return.

Some of the ice loss has been attributed to the speed-up of glaciers due to increased surface melting.

Each summer, warmer temperatures cause ice at the surface of the sheet to melt.
Temperature controlled: The acceleration of melting ice appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool summers

Temperature controlled: The acceleration of melting ice appears to stall early on in hot summers, whereas it does not in cool summers

This water then runs down a series of channels to the base of the glacier where it acts as a lubricant, allowing the ice sheet to flow rapidly across the bedrock toward the sea.

Summertime acceleration of ice flow has proved difficult for scientists to model, leading to uncertainties in projections of future sea level rise.

'It had been thought that more surface melting would cause the ice sheet to speed up and retreat faster, but our study suggests that the opposite could in fact be true,' said Professor Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, who led the study.

'If that's the case, increases in surface melting expected over the 21st century may have no affect on the rate of ice loss through flow. However, this doesn't mean that the ice sheet is safe from climate change, because the impact of ocean-driven melting remains uncertain.'
A fjord near Ilulissat, Greenland. The country's ice contains enough water to raise sea levels by 7 metres if it were to melt completely

A fjord near Ilulissat, Greenland. The country's ice contains enough water to raise sea levels by seven metres if it were to melt completely

The researchers used satellite observations of six landlocked glaciers in south-west Greenland, acquired by the European Space Agency, to study how ice flow develops in years of markedly different melting.

Although the initial speed-up of ice was similar in all years, slowdown occurred sooner in the warmest ones.

The authors suggest that in these years the abundance of melt-water triggers an early switch in the plumbing at the base of the ice, causing a pressure drop that leads to reduced ice speeds.

This behaviour is similar to that of mountain glaciers, where the summertime speed-up of ice reduces once melt-water can drain efficiently.

Despite their findings, however, the researchers were keen to emphasise that the ice sheet is 'not safe from climate change'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350994/Greenland-glaciers-flow-slower-hot-summers-adapting-climate-change.html#ixzz1CLMq0gUE

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Interesting Point Bonkey, Yes I agree that we shouldnt trust what the Media of the Govt spoonfeed us, but I still Question the Science of ANTHROPORMOPHIC (sp) Climate change, Yes we are havin an effect but NO its not to the level that is beig claimed

So what leads you to this conclusion?
Are you sure you're not confusing media hype and actual science again?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Science is never cut and dry, there is always more to learn, more that we just dont understand, thats where the media come intoplay, the bombardmaent of the populus with one single concept, WE are Killing the planet, the conclusion is subjective, the 'Science' used to reach that conclusion is Ropey at best, yet we are expected to take it as Gospel, Science is NOT ar religion however the champions of AGW treat it as such.

Well you see the science for AGW is quite strong, there's not as much debate as the media has been implying there is.
Aside from a small few (who are actually doing proper work in the field and producing real papers) who disagree, most climate scientists agree that the Earth is heating up and we are causing it.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well Duh, CO2 exists, tell ya what do your bit and stop Breathing Out :D:D:D

climate change is a Reality, once upon a time the northern shores of Africa grew enough grain to Feed the Roman conquest of Europe, that climate changed, was it because the roman army travelled everywhere in Supercharged V8's?????????

So then why is it so evil for the big bad media to use scaremongering, yet there's nothing wrong with your alternative media doing the exact same thing?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah I can read a URL

what specificaly in the article do you contest??????

The fact it's from the Daily Mail.
They are notoriously bad in reporting any science story, climate change being one of their favourites to misrepresent.

So whatever the point was that the poster was trying to make took a shot to his credibility either way.

Mahatma coat

where am I scaremongering??????????

I'm appealing to the rational scientific and analytical mind in all of us to look at not just the Crap being presented to us but the actual HISTORY recorded of our planet, it has been colder and Hotter within recorded history, that leads me to the presumption that this is a Natural cycle

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

The fact it's from the Daily Mail.
They are notoriously bad in reporting any science story, climate change being one of their favourites to misrepresent.

So whatever the point was that the poster was trying to make took a shot to his credibility either way.

OK heres the GIG

if you think the article misrepresents the Science

SHOW US

cos I think you will understand if I dont just take your word for it

gbee

good logs... wrote: »

global warming is it co2 ????? or was it all the big bombs they tested under the sea and in the desert ???????

The link to CO2 is, IMO correct. Where I'd have issues with is the volumes. Without looking up figures, industrial mankind has not produced enough, even if we stored it up in some huge balloon and released it in one go, as appears in core samples at other times in pre history.

Those bombs will have effected people's general health with exposure to harmful radiation. Underground bombs would be relatively safe, however, I'm seriously dismayed at the hundreds and possibly thousands of air and impact bursts in the atmosphere.

And to think these clowns wanted to detonated in orbit and EMP half the bleeding planet. I kinda seriously can't get my mind around that. It's like a group of children who find a stick of dynamite with a fuse attached and they light it for fun ..............

Mahatma coat

they did detonate in orbit, there are some amazin photos of the explosions, mini stars for a nanosecond and a giant bubble of energy that lasted days

gbee

Mahatma coat wrote: »

they did detonate in orbit, there are some amazin photos of the explosions, mini stars for a nanosecond and a giant bubble of energy that lasted days

More reading for me for another day. Thanks.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

where am I scaremongering??????????

So you don't think there's a vast global conspiracy to use climate change to extort money and force restrictive laws?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm appealing to the rational scientific and analytical mind in all of us to look at not just the Crap being presented to us but the actual HISTORY recorded of our planet, it has been colder and Hotter within recorded history, that leads me to the presumption that this is a Natural cycle

And don't you think that climate scientists have already considered this?
And that maybe the natural cycles don't account for the warming trend?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK heres the GIG

if you think the article misrepresents the Science

SHOW US

cos I think you will understand if I dont just take your word for it

I don't particularly remember saying that this article was misrepresenting the science, just that the Daily Mail was a wholly unreliable source for science news.

But at a quick glance, it's clear to see that the article and the bombastic headline don't match up.

The glaciers that are actually GROWING, not shrinking

Mahatma coat

OK Its 2AM here and I'm off to bed

So YOu dont See anything WRONG in the dailymail article, you just felt the need to attack the dailymail because of a Personal Bias

Is that a good summation of your reaction????????

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK Its 2AM here and I'm off to bed

So YOu dont See anything WRONG in the dailymail article, you just felt the need to attack the dailymail because of a Personal Bias

Is that a good summation of your reaction????????

No I just pointed out the well documented fact that the Daily Mail has a terrible track record with science reporting.
And I did point out something wrong with the article.

DoesNotCompute

squod wrote: »

How about a tax on nuclear explosions, back dated to 1950. Let's say $1,000,000/megaton, then lets add some compound interest........

Sounds like the Green Party's election manifesto to me!

sligopark

King Mob wrote: »

The fact it's from the Daily Mail.
They are notoriously bad in reporting any science story, climate change being one of their favourites to misrepresent.

have to agree with their science stories of how swine flu would kill many tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands and then how the swine flu vaccine would save us all ....

King Mob wrote: »

2) Both Ireland and the UK have had a lot of record breaking hot summers in the last decade.

??

When exactly and when has the climate not being continuning to evolve?

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

have to agree with their science stories of how swine flu would kill many tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands and then how the swine flu vaccine would save us all ....

And some silly people thought that this media hype equated to what the science actually was.

sligopark wrote: »

??
When exactly and when has the climate not being continuning to evolve?

No one is saying that it isn't, they are just saying that we are the cause this time.

2010 is tied with 2005 for the warmest year on record ever, despite how cold it was here in Ireland.
So looking out your window on a cold day is not an accurate reading of the global temperature, let alone global climate.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm appealing to the rational scientific and analytical mind in all of us to look at not just the Crap being presented to us but the actual HISTORY recorded of our planet, it has been colder and Hotter within recorded history, that leads me to the presumption that this is a Natural cycle

Hold on a sec though...this recorded history is being brought to you by scientists. It is, in fact, science...the very stuff that only a few posts ago you were telling us was more complex then met the eye, and that we couldn't possibly understand it all.

And yet, here you are, both trusting scientists, taking their word on how things were, and then drawing simplistic conclusions from it.

As for the "it has been hotter and colder" argument...we've danced this dance before. I've explained to you before that yes, it has been hotter and colder, but that the same records show a slower rate of change, and the patterns do not match what is currently being recorded.

The climatologists aren't claiming its never been hotter or colder either...they're also not claiming that the climate doesn't change naturally. To be honest, this has all been pointed out to you before, but you continue to ignore it.

In effect, you're not arguing against the science at all, you're arguing against the concept that the science deals with, and doing so by misrepresenting things. Ironically, this is the very same thing that we both agree the media and government are wrong for doing.

Elite_Etnisa

Just a quick question where do you see the actual global warming ?

Has it got warmer because iv never seen winters like this in past 20 years in any of the eu countries.

Global Warming is a theory created by peopl to create money fooling stupid people like you. Co2 tax , strikes and way more , new cars on sale everything.

The theory is right CO2 causes global warming but nothing is going to change in next thousands of years because of co2 it self its just a money making idea.

Everything else is just a normal cycle. BTW dont tell me global warming causes drops in temp as well dont be stupic look at it clearly.

sligopark

King Mob wrote: »

And some silly people thought that this media hype equated to what the science actually was.

imagine that... media hype and solely by the likes of the daily mail ... certainly wouldn't be seen in science media journals

King Mob wrote: »

No one is saying that it isn't, they are just saying that we are the cause this time.

that's riiggghht - greens blaming CO2 exceters humans so to force excretion CO2 tax charges on us under the banner of a religion science, the evidence of which is debatable at most amongst those in search of the truth rather than the removal of cash from lower eaters.

But then call me a sceptic.

namelessguy

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

Just a quick question where do you see the actual global warming ?

Has it got warmer because iv never seen winters like this in past 20 years in any of the eu countries.

Global Warming is a theory created by peopl to create money fooling stupid people like you. Co2 tax , strikes and way more , new cars on sale everything.

The theory is right CO2 causes global warming but nothing is going to change in next thousands of years because of co2 it self its just a money making idea.

Everything else is just a normal cycle. BTW dont tell me global warming causes drops in temp as well dont be stupic look at it clearly.

Did the really need such a convoluted reason to market "new cars". It seems to me that there have been new cars sold since the first car was produced.

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

The theory is right CO2 causes global warming but nothing is going to change in next thousands of years because of co2 it self its just a money making idea..

Is it just me or does that statement not make any sense.

King Mob

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

Just a quick question where do you see the actual global warming ?

Has it got warmer because iv never seen winters like this in past 20 years in any of the eu countries.
.

Ummm...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

imagine that... media hype and solely by the likes of the daily mail ... certainly wouldn't be seen in science media journals

Yea, tabloid journalism tends to hype what the papers say.

I don't think you understand what the journals are.

sligopark wrote: »

that's riiggghht - greens blaming CO2 exceters humans so to force excretion CO2 tax charges on us under the banner of a religion science, the evidence of which is debatable at most amongst those in search of the truth rather than the removal of cash from lower eaters.

But then call me a sceptic.

Well I don't think you can call climate change a religion even under the loosest of definitions.
Can you explain how it is a religion?