Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Bundle Up, It's Global Warming'

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    Sparks wrote: »
    Dude, your argument is that your back yard getting colder means the entire planet is getting colder. Your back yard != the entire planet.

    I think you need a strong argument yourself before calling other people's arguments weak. And if you really want to get into it, find an argument that has no answer in here.

    The lack of snow in the modern British and Irish winters was attributed to global warming, a process said to leas to more Atlantic energy and rainier and milder winters.

    It's worth pointing out that if the UK ( and/or) Ireland is cold the continent is probably escaping mild south westerlies. So the northern Eurasian continents coldness correlates to the coldness here. In North Western Germany the recent cold spell continues, and that "cold pool" seems set to make Jan cold if we get an Easterly.


  • Options
    #93
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    So it is not just a "village" in Ireland. If it is cold here, it is generally colder to the highly populated east of us.


  • Options
    #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,025 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    walk from Ireland to England on the ice...hmm

    croation scientist reckons ice age could start in 5 years.

    http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-02-10/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years


  • Options
    #95
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    4gun wrote: »
    yeah,that most scientists have to agree on it but it can be changed if new information is found
    No, that's not a theory, that's a consensus.
    A theory is basicly a model for how something works, so it includes the abstractions you use to do that modelling, the mathematical and physical rules for that model, and the testable predictions that that model produces. The theory should be able to explain all current observational data and predict results that have not as yet been either observed and/or explained. So Newton's theory of gravity modelled gravity as a force acting on objects at a distance according to a set formula; it explained all existing data, including the planetary orbits as then observed, with greater accuracy than any theory at the time. And while a theory can be supplanted by better theories (such as Einstein's theory of General Relativity supplanting Newton's theory with different abstractions and different formulae in the model), that doesn't mean the older theory is useless and wrong - you still learn Newton's equations of motion in school, for example, because they're so accurate in day-to-day life that we didn't even spot the errors until we started looking at extreme cases (such as the orbit of the planet Mercury, where you only see the errors because of it's proximity to an enormous mass, ie. the sun). The point is, just because Newton was supplanted by Einstein, the planets didn't fly off on wild tangents and we didn't all suddenly levitate as gravity was cancelled like a good TV show on Fox. And if someone, somewhere, someday shows that evolution is wrong, it will be supplanted by a theory that says pretty much everything evolution currently does and more; not by one that says the exact opposite of evolution; because what it will have to explain will not have changed.
    scientific law?
    No such thing, in any area of science.
    Yes, there are things you're taught about in school that have the name 'law' attached to them (like the laws of thermodynamics) but they're not actually laws, they're just observations that have never been contradicted. Outside of mathematics, you can't have laws in science in the usual meaning of the word, because nobody knows how anything works absolutely. We have successively more accurate models.
    global warming is not an absolute prediction can any of you say with absolute certainty what global temperatures will be in 20 or 30 years time
    Nope, but the consensus is, looking at the observations, that the average global temperature - averaged over both time and geography - will be 2-4 degrees higher than it is now.
    Your garden might still be colder than what you remember as normal. That won't affect the overall average global temperature for the decade as much as you might feel it should, however.


  • Options
    #96
    thetonynator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭thetonynator


    Jake1 wrote: »
    walk from Ireland to England on the ice...hmm

    croation scientist reckons ice age could start in 5 years.

    http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-02-10/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years

    Theres always one . . .:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    sharper wrote: »
    The graph you posted includes various proxies, you can't just pick the ones showing the highest temperatures (and even then few of the proxies show any higher value than 2004) unless you're also prepared to accept 2004 is much warmer than many of the other proxies.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

    look at the graph that shows the antartic temperature it shows a regular trend in global temperatures both hotter and cooler
    who are we to believe?
    this is why I will continue to draw my own conclusions based on my own expierience I have not personally seen any evidence for this cautostrophic climate change that we are led to believe is happening


  • Options
    #98
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, that's not a theory, that's a consensus.
    A theory is basicly a model for how something works, so it includes the abstractions you use to do that modelling, the mathematical and physical rules for that model, and the testable predictions that that model produces. The theory should be able to explain all current observational data and predict results that have not as yet been either observed and/or explained. So Newton's theory of gravity modelled gravity as a force acting on objects at a distance according to a set formula; it explained all existing data, including the planetary orbits as then observed, with greater accuracy than any theory at the time. And while a theory can be supplanted by better theories (such as Einstein's theory of General Relativity supplanting Newton's theory with different abstractions and different formulae in the model), that doesn't mean the older theory is useless and wrong - you still learn Newton's equations of motion in school, for example, because they're so accurate in day-to-day life that we didn't even spot the errors until we started looking at extreme cases (such as the orbit of the planet Mercury, where you only see the errors because of it's proximity to an enormous mass, ie. the sun). The point is, just because Newton was supplanted by Einstein, the planets didn't fly off on wild tangents and we didn't all suddenly levitate as gravity was cancelled like a good TV show on Fox. And if someone, somewhere, someday shows that evolution is wrong, it will be supplanted by a theory that says pretty much everything evolution currently does and more; not by one that says the exact opposite of evolution; because what it will have to explain will not have changed.


    No such thing, in any area of science.
    Yes, there are things you're taught about in school that have the name 'law' attached to them (like the laws of thermodynamics) but they're not actually laws, they're just observations that have never been contradicted. Outside of mathematics, you can't have laws in science in the usual meaning of the word, because nobody knows how anything works absolutely. We have successively more accurate models.

    Nope, but the consensus is, looking at the observations, that the average global temperature - averaged over both time and geography - will be 2-4 degrees higher than it is now.
    Your garden might still be colder than what you remember as normal. That won't affect the overall average global temperature for the decade as much as you might feel it should, however.


    Interesting that you reference Newton and Einstein. Newton's laws works, everything else being equal and constant. Einstein showed that not everything else was equal and constant. A gross over-simplification but what-the-heck, everyone else on boards is guilty of one of those sooner or later.

    We have the theory that in a closed system, increased CO2 emissions lead to higher global temperatures. Nothing wrong with that..........except we are not in a closed system. The earth depends on an external heat source, the oceans (and the atmosphere?) are affected by the gravitational pull of the Moon. Lesser agreement on the electro-magnetic effects of the solar system but nonetheless, whether these influences are minor or major, they mean that we do not have a closed system.

    Economics assumes people behave rationally. Global warming assumes a closed system. Each of them is good enough to a point, until people behave irrationally or an external influence takes hold.

    I do not doubt the principles underlining the effects of increased CO2 emissions, I doubt the degree of their influence as compared to the external influences on our climate. To put it another way, acceptance of global warming theory as a small influence on our climate. To put it simpler, imaging how bad the winter would have been (Liffey freezing over?) if it wasn't for the effects of global warming.


  • Options
    #99
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    It's the whole testable part of the hypothesis which is failing. This winter is outside the predictions, the lack of temperature growth in the last decade another.


  • Options
    #100
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    4gun wrote: »
    look at the graph that shows the antartic temperature it shows a regular trend in global temperatures both hotter and cooler
    who are we to believe?
    The entirety of human civilization isn't even a blip on that graph, we're talking about what's happening on the scale of decades and "It looks like temperatures sort of go up and down over hundreds of thousands of years" isn't an argument.


  • Options
    #101
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    It's the whole testable part of the hypothesis which is failing.
    I'm sure the hypothesis concerning how the northern hemisphere reacts to a warming world in winter will change but the idea that you can pick any regional prediction (which were given with high degrees of uncertainty in the first place) and use it to throw out the entirety of climate science would be like throwing out all of modern biology because a lifeform based on arsenic (maybe) was discovered.

    Winters in the northern hemisphere are warmer when the arctic wind isn't suddenly blowing over it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    Godge wrote: »
    I do not doubt the principles underlining the effects of increased CO2 emissions, I doubt the degree of their influence as compared to the external influences on our climate. To put it another way, acceptance of global warming theory as a small influence on our climate. To put it simpler, imaging how bad the winter would have been (Liffey freezing over?) if it wasn't for the effects of global warming.
    If you want to show the external factors are dominating climate change you need two things:

    1. To show that those external factors are changing and by enough to explain the observed warming.

    2. To explain why C02 emitted by humans isn't having the predicted effect i.e. why we aren't seeing the effects of #1 and increased C02.

    You can't simply declare that it might be some other factor, why that guy dead on the ground with a bullet hole in his head might just have died of something else!


  • Options
    #103
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, that's not a theory, that's a consensus.
    A theory is basicly a model for how something works, so it includes the abstractions you use to do that modelling, the mathematical and physical rules for that model, and the testable predictions that that model produces. The theory should be able to explain all current observational data and predict results that have not as yet been either observed and/or explained. So Newton's theory of gravity modelled gravity as a force acting on objects at a distance according to a set formula; it explained all existing data, including the planetary orbits as then observed, with greater accuracy than any theory at the time. And while a theory can be supplanted by better theories (such as Einstein's theory of General Relativity supplanting Newton's theory with different abstractions and different formulae in the model), that doesn't mean the older theory is useless and wrong - you still learn Newton's equations of motion in school, for example, because they're so accurate in day-to-day life that we didn't even spot the errors until we started looking at extreme cases (such as the orbit of the planet Mercury, where you only see the errors because of it's proximity to an enormous mass, ie. the sun). The point is, just because Newton was supplanted by Einstein, the planets didn't fly off on wild tangents and we didn't all suddenly levitate as gravity was cancelled like a good TV show on Fox. And if someone, somewhere, someday shows that evolution is wrong, it will be supplanted by a theory that says pretty much everything evolution currently does and more; not by one that says the exact opposite of evolution; because what it will have to explain will not have changed.


    No such thing, in any area of science.
    Yes, there are things you're taught about in school that have the name 'law' attached to them (like the laws of thermodynamics) but they're not actually laws, they're just observations that have never been contradicted. Outside of mathematics, you can't have laws in science in the usual meaning of the word, because nobody knows how anything works absolutely. We have successively more accurate models.

    Nope, but the consensus is, looking at the observations, that the average global temperature - averaged over both time and geography - will be 2-4 degrees higher than it is now.
    Your garden might still be colder than what you remember as normal. That won't affect the overall average global temperature for the decade as much as you might feel it should, however.

    Thanks Sparks, as you would have probabaly guessed by now I'm not a scientist :o so I'm not going to argue the fundamentals of scientific fact
    I will put it down to the misintrepretation of the meaning of the word "Theory"

    and if sharper wants to know where I stand on the Theory of evolution then sharper can engage me on another forum relation to that particular body of science.. I'm not sure which one but I know it has no place on the weather forum ;)


  • Options
    #104
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    Godge wrote: »
    Interesting that you reference Newton and Einstein. Newton's laws works, everything else being equal and constant. Einstein showed that not everything else was equal and constant. A gross over-simplification but what-the-heck, everyone else on boards is guilty of one of those sooner or later.

    We have the theory that in a closed system, increased CO2 emissions lead to higher global temperatures. Nothing wrong with that..........except we are not in a closed system. The earth depends on an external heat source, the oceans (and the atmosphere?) are affected by the gravitational pull of the Moon. Lesser agreement on the electro-magnetic effects of the solar system but nonetheless, whether these influences are minor or major, they mean that we do not have a closed system.

    Economics assumes people behave rationally. Global warming assumes a closed system. Each of them is good enough to a point, until people behave irrationally or an external influence takes hold.

    I do not doubt the principles underlining the effects of increased CO2 emissions, I doubt the degree of their influence as compared to the external influences on our climate. To put it another way, acceptance of global warming theory as a small influence on our climate. To put it simpler, imaging how bad the winter would have been (Liffey freezing over?) if it wasn't for the effects of global warming.

    right now I want to drop the last two letters from your user name and say thank you :D


  • Options
    #105
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    rccaulfield wrote: »
    rccaulfield....stupid boards.ie wrote: »
    This old chestnut :rolleyes: just watch one of the many vids out there giving an explanation from actual; scientists, not tin foil hat merchants. H. H. lamb who came up with the premature medieval warming graph has admitted it was off and he was wrong. So please don't embarrass yourself elsewhere by bringing up pseudo science in other threads.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU


    And eh millions of years ago our ancestors were burning what exactly? How many millions of years ago were this fire inventing eh humans doing this exactly? Our species is only around 100'000 years roughly in its current form, 6 million years ago we were chimp like creatures? Do you make it up as you go along?

    No old chestnut, by the way I was joking about our ancestors but I guess the apes or hominids or whatever were around then.
    I hate the way the weather can start fires in a bid to destroy the climate with fire, I mean fire was invented by humans according to you, imagine in the past when there was great heat and a lightning strike starts a fire in a vast forest many times bigger than today, do you think the apes were working to stop the fire to save their homes, their en suite bedrooms and their lovely holiday homes in the other trees?
    I would guess those fires were worst than today and the apes probably did feck all to stop them.

    The medieval warm period existed unless humans liked living much higher up in the Alps than they do today, explain this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm
    What fascinates scientists about the age of the finds is that they correspond to times when climate specialists have already calculated the Earth was going through an especially warm period, caused by fluctuations in the orbital pattern of the Earth in relation to the Sun.
    At these times, historians now speculate, the high mountain regions became accessible to humans

    Shock, horror, it is natural for warming and for glaciers to melt. These days everything is blamed on the humans and it is not based on hard evidence.

    This is from NOAA - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
    Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 13th Centuries

    Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse going back in time prior to the last four centuries.

    I use science, don't tell me the medieval warm period never existed whcih is what you are claiming, it is not backed up by science.

    This is from Nature, a recognised science journal: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406695a0.html
    Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

    I don't make things up, I look at the science and I remain sceptical that CO2 going from 0.028% in the atmosphere to 0.038% now has been responsible for any warming.
    When in the past the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was over 0.2%.

    I think CO2 is being used to create jobs, create new streams for tax collection and to help people move away from oil which is a limited resource. I cannot believe a minute rise in CO2 is causing climatic chaos, it didn't happen in the past and I don't see it happening now.


  • Options
    #106
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    sharper wrote: »
    The entirety of human civilization isn't even a blip on that graph, we're talking about what's happening on the scale of decades and "It looks like temperatures sort of go up and down over hundreds of thousands of years" isn't an argument.


    but it is, because Global warmists only show one portion of the graph, which supports their claim. but take global climate over longer periods and their upward curve becomes a blip in the over all picture


  • Options
    #107
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    you have attributed a quotation to me which I did not make can you fix this


  • Options
    #108
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    4gun wrote: »
    but it is, because Global warmists only show one portion of the graph, which supports their claim.
    Which portion of the graph do "Global warmists" and where is this truncated version shown?
    but take global climate over longer periods and their upward curve becomes a blip in the over all picture

    Your own graph of the last 12,000 years shows modern temperatures as higher than any point previously, now you're saying we have to go back 450,000 years and only for a particular region.

    All of this still avoids your basic problem: If you want to say modern warming is natural then what's the mechanism? You've thrown out argument after argument and when one is refuted you simply switch to another, contradictory one.


  • Options
    #109
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    I think people who believe all this global warming carbon bs are mentally ill.


  • Options
    #110
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    4gun wrote: »
    you have attributed a quotation to me which I did not make can you fix this

    Fixed, sorry about that, boards.ie fault, not sure why it said it was you.


  • Options
    #111
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    sharper wrote: »
    If you want to show the external factors are dominating climate change you need two things:

    1. To show that those external factors are changing and by enough to explain the observed warming.

    2. To explain why C02 emitted by humans isn't having the predicted effect i.e. why we aren't seeing the effects of #1 and increased C02.

    You can't simply declare that it might be some other factor, why that guy dead on the ground with a bullet hole in his head might just have died of something else!


    1. read the thread on this board on the sunspots
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055544236

    Hope I copied it right, it shows how the number of sunspots are declining and it's potential relationship to temperature.

    2. My theory is that CO2 increase is happening and correlated temperature increase is happening but this winter is showing that it is being counteracted by the solar decrease. We might not reach the stage of the Liffey freezing thanks to increased CO2 emissions.

    The next few years will tell a lot. The original global warming activists said ten years ago that we would never again see serious snow in northwestern Europe in winter. They have changed their theory to reflect the reality of three increasingly cold European winters to say that it is caused by global warming. All that does is show that their original theory was incomplete. It is not too much of a jump to wonder if it was incomplete in one aspect, was that the only aspect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    sharper wrote: »
    Which portion of the graph do "Global warmists" and where is this truncated version shown?



    Your own graph of the last 12,000 years shows modern temperatures as higher than any point previously, now you're saying we have to go back 450,000 years and only for a particular region.

    All of this still avoids your basic problem: If you want to say modern warming is natural then what's the mechanism? You've thrown out argument after argument and when one is refuted you simply switch to another, contradictory one.

    all the graphs touting GW have been for the last couple of hundred to two thousand years ,

    some of the posts on here keep telling me to look at the bigger picture I have given you one that shows an even larger time scale and you say its only for a particular region .. so the Antartic is also not influenced by global climate along with my back yard

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

    it also goes back 450k years to me is shows the current trend to be a normal cycle in global climate

    how am i contradicting my self :confused:


  • Options
    #113
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    4gun wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

    it also goes back 450k years to me is shows the current trend to be a normal cycle in global climate

    how am i contradicting my self :confused:

    Take a look at that CO2 level in those graphs. It cycles from a minimum of 180ppm to a max of 280-300ppm on each cycle, a range of about 100-120ppm. The current CO2 level in our atmosphere is 389ppm and rising without any sign of slowing down. So the current situation is already 90ppm - almost the entire range of past oscillations - past the maximum levels we've seen for the past 450,000 years.

    There's being alarmist 4gun, and then there's being alarmed. The two are not the same, and the data supports being in the latter camp.


  • Options
    #114
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    Godge wrote: »
    1. read the thread on this board on the sunspots
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055544236

    Hope I copied it right, it shows how the number of sunspots are declining and it's potential relationship to temperature.
    I've been reading the thread on sunspots however low spots are correlated with low solar activity which is correlated with lower temperatures. We also measure solar TSI directly and it's dropped slightly since 1980 while temperatures have risen.

    2. My theory is that CO2 increase is happening and correlated temperature increase is happening but this winter is showing that it is being counteracted by the solar decrease. We might not reach the stage of the Liffey freezing thanks to increased CO2 emissions.

    Temperatures are about 0.5 degrees higher than they used to be an normal solar activity let alone reduced activity. I would agree that the inactive solar cycle is counter acting C02 temperature increases but it appears that it's simply reducing the rate of warming, not cooling.
    The next few years will tell a lot. The original global warming activists said ten years ago that we would never again see serious snow in northwestern Europe in winter. They have changed their theory to reflect the reality of three increasingly cold European winters to say that it is caused by global warming. All that does is show that their original theory was incomplete. It is not too much of a jump to wonder if it was incomplete in one aspect, was that the only aspect.

    You're taking a single quote from one guy the UK Met office and attributing it to people generally.

    As for the theory being incomplete, well of course it is or else climate scientists would have all retired or gotten other jobs. Predicting regional climate changes is still basically impossible (and the uncertainty around this is described in the IPCC reports).

    Remember "we don't know" and uncertainty works both ways. A warmer world might have no impact at all on one region and widespread changes in another. The Dipole Anomaly is not something that would have been predicted yet it's having a major impact on both the Arctic and winter in the Northern Hemisphere. It could be what was an anomaly in the early 2000s becomes a regular feature from now on.

    Given that the policy recommendation of the IPCC and governments generally is to limit C02 emissions precisely because changing the global climate can have unpredictable and unfortunate effects it really is a bit funny to dismiss it all when we start having more extreme weather that nobody saw coming.


  • Options
    #115
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    4gun wrote: »
    all the graphs touting GW have been for the last couple of hundred to two thousand years ,
    Er yes, those are generally showing the modern instrumentation record. Proxy reconstructions which go back further than a thousand years or two generally lack the kind variability we're interested in.

    You're actually arguing with the fact temperatures which have actually been measured are shown in place of reconstructions going back hundreds of thousand of years?
    some of the posts on here keep telling me to look at the bigger picture I have given you one that shows an even larger time scale and you say its only for a particular region .. so the Antartic is also not influenced by global climate along with my back yard

    The "bigger picture" is the current climate for the entire planet. Instead you're going with particular regions across enormously long time periods.
    it also goes back 450k years to me is shows the current trend to be a normal cycle in global climate

    Your entire argument is "Climate has changed naturally before, therefore any observed change now must also be natural".

    People die of natural causes therefore everyone who dies does so of natural causes.


  • Options
    #116
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    and if you can get an Ice core to show that then we will have like for like data
    do actual ice cores give an exact quantity or are the just an indicator which would be more accurate for calculating athmospheric carbon an ice core or satelite imaging ?

    Personally i have done all i can on the carbon front my home heating is 100% renewable And I planted more trees in my garden than many preachers on this forum
    my basic arguement is the current changes in out modern claimate are part of natural cycles. mankinds part in it is insignificant we can no more affect the weather that we can the tides

    what is the point of all this arguing and debate if i threw my hands up and said I believe, I believe... what difference would it make? it certinly wont change the weather
    all we can do is wait to see the out come...
    when I was at school 30 odd years ago we were told that the world oil supply would have run out by now..I pretty sure that was based on models drawn up from the data on stocks available at the time ... we are still burning it..


  • Options
    #117
    sharper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    4gun wrote: »
    and if you can get an Ice core to show that then we will have like for like data

    Ice core data can go far back into the past but it also stops quite far into the past, in the case of the Vostok cores it stops at about 2,500 years ago hence there's no overlap.
    do actual ice cores give an exact quantity or are the just an indicator which would be more accurate for calculating athmospheric carbon an ice core or satelite imaging ?

    Ice cores can only tell you about the region in which the ice formed. C02 is generally well mixed in the atmosphere so levels in one place are a good indicator of global levels.
    my basic arguement is the current changes in out modern claimate are part of natural cycles. mankinds part in it is insignificant we can no more affect the weather that we can the tides

    I understand that's your argument and my point is that position is not supportable.
    what is the point of all this arguing and debate if i threw my hands up and said I believe, I believe... what difference would it make? it certinly wont change the weather
    all we can do is wait to see the out come...
    when I was at school 30 odd years ago we were told that the world oil supply would have run out by now..I pretty sure that was based on models drawn up from the data on stocks available at the time ... we are still burning it..
    Sure they found more oil to burn but it's still finite. Predicting the future is never easy but that doesn't mean we should act as if that means we can do whatever we want because it might all turn out ok anyway.


  • Options
    #118
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    sharper wrote: »
    Er yes, those are generally showing the modern instrumentation record. Proxy reconstructions which go back further than a thousand years or two generally lack the kind variability we're interested in.


    [B]so Ice cores are not reliable [/B]


    You're actually arguing with the fact temperatures which have actually been measured are shown in place of reconstructions going back hundreds of thousand of years?

    [B]been measured only for the past couple hundred years which is where all the GW data is coming from. the further back we go in time shows that we are expieriencing nothing out of the ordinary you are saying that "the world had warmer periods in the past" is irrelivant, [/B]

    The "bigger picture" is the current climate for the entire planet. Instead you're going with particular regions across enormously long time periods.

    this particular region as you call it is the Antartic


    Your entire argument is "Climate has changed naturally before, therefore any observed change now must also be natural".

    took you long enough :p


    People die of natural causes therefore everyone who dies does so of natural causes.



    depend on your defination of natural causes


  • Options
    #119
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    sharper wrote: »
    Ice core data can go far back into the past but it also stops quite far into the past, in the case of the Vostok cores it stops at about 2,500 years ago hence there's no overlap.

    ok



    Ice cores can only tell you about the region in which the ice formed. C02 is generally well mixed in the atmosphere so levels in one place are a good indicator of global levels.

    but would modern lce core readings taken for say 10 years ago correlate with satillite for the same period or is there a margin for error



    I understand that's your argument and my point is that position is not supportable.

    well we will just have to agree to differ

    Sure they found more oil to burn but it's still finite. Predicting the future is never easy but that doesn't mean we should act as if that means we can do whatever we want because it might all turn out ok anyway.

    now i never said we could continue to burn willynilly, one thing i absolutely
    like about all this mularky is that it is forcing people to become more concerned about the envoirnment


  • Options
    #120
    isle of man
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭isle of man


    Thing is.
    Is GW such a bad thing:eek:.

    No really the earth as it is today is only like it because the earth warmed to give us trees and green things.

    With out GW we would not be living where we do.
    And its safe to say in 1000years we wont be living where we are now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    4gun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭4gun


    isle of man wrote: »
    Thing is.
    Is GW such a bad thing:eek:.

    No really the earth as it is today is only like it because the earth warmed to give us trees and green things.

    With out GW we would not be living where we do.
    And its safe to say in 1000years we wont be living where we are now.

    in a 1000 years from now we won't be living :D


Advertisement