Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

So there's you're evidence. Now, refute that.

[north]

Wikipedia!

 

Hahahahaha. The font of all knowledge. If it says it on Wikipedia it must be true!

[ArabiaTerra]

Wikipedia!

 

Hahahahaha. The font of all knowledge. If it says it on Wikipedia it must be true!

There's always one. Why don't you try reading the post before you slag it off?

 

Particularly this bit:

... all the articles contain comprehensive references to the original research which is quoted. Follow these for more info.

[paulb]

lets see science theories are just that. what the scientist do is weigh up the evidence and come to a view. when most are agreed that then becomes scientific fact. so its either most of the scientists or mr bush. thhe scientist maybe wrong but there are very few indepentent scientist that have this view. so if grobal warming is in fact manmade then we have to try and sort it out. people claimed that the ozone layers could not be fixed it was to late. but by banning cfc its repairing itself. let nature heal or we will all go the way of the dodo.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth.

 

Just because it's not the Sun causing it. that dont mean it's Co2 either.

I would take it as evidence that it's neither.

 

Now I know I'm not meant to say this kind of stuff as there is some unwritten rule against these opinions and they make mods blub.

So I'll ignore them and stick it in anyhow.

 

While we focus on reducing our carbon footprint to avoid global warming, there is a larger threat not publicized by the media. That threat is silent and invisible. Wave technology is saturating the aether around our planet with frequencies that may not be in harmony with Earth’s pulse: microwaves, satellite transmissions, powerlines, cell towers and ionospheric heaters.  We should take a serious look at the historical evidence of the ancients, their technology and potential for having triggered an apocalypse. If we continue to stay in denial and limit our perception of the consequences of our technology, we will not see that the present global warming is merely a harbinger of the major planetary changes only a few years away.

The ancient prophecies may be right. We are

entering a cosmic asteroid field (the dark rift) that exists in a portion of the Milky Way. In December 2012 our solar

system will be in a specific alignment that may exert a strong pull on Earth’s stability. Our electromagnetic pulses

may just be the straw that broke the camel’s back and cause a weak and wobbling planet to flip

[PJ of Hildisvik]

And of cause the end result of Global warming will be the shut down of the Gulf stream and Shetland freezing over. Get the skis and sledges out , yippee!!!

[paulb]

Nina Anderson wrote:

While we focus on reducing our carbon footprint to avoid global warming, there is a larger threat not publicized by the media. That threat is silent and invisible. Wave technology is saturating the aether around our planet with frequencies that may not be in harmony with Earth’s pulse: microwaves, satellite transmissions, powerlines, cell towers and ionospheric heaters. We should take a serious look at the historical evidence of the ancients, their technology and potential for having triggered an apocalypse. If we continue to stay in denial and limit our perception of the consequences of our technology, we will not see that the present global warming is merely a harbinger of the major planetary changes only a few years away.

The ancient prophecies may be right. We are

entering a cosmic asteroid field (the dark rift) that exists in a portion of the Milky Way. In December 2012 our solar

system will be in a specific alignment that may exert a strong pull on Earth’s stability. Our electromagnetic pulses

may just be the straw that broke the camel’s back and cause a weak and wobbling planet to flip

oh dear we had better call the doctor, who knows the daleks maybe coming. run and hide.

torchwood it won't happen

[KOYAANISQATSI]

If you can find me any evidence of Dalek intervention, I would love to hear it.

 

Meanwhile I will stick to basing my opinion on reasoning around things that are known (albeit misunderstood).

 

The 'pole shift theory' is the hypothesis that the axis of rotation of a planet has not always been at its present-day locations or that the axis will not persist there; in other words, that its physical poles had been or will be shifted. The Pole shift hypothesis is almost always discussed in the context of Earth, but other solar system bodies may have experienced axial reorientation during their existences.

It is now established that true polar wander has occurred at various times in the past, but at rates of 1° per million years or less. However, in popular literature many theories have been suggested involving very rapid polar shift.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory

 

If you dont trust this wiki link for scientific fact you can always phone "The Doctor" to check. If he has any proof poles cannot shift, do come and tell me but incoherant babble as your method of reasoning in a debate is also fine till you get something better.

It is Shetlink after all.

 

National geo helpful hints:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clip—25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

"It's moving really fast, We're seeing something that hasn't happened for at least 500 years."

Lorne McKee, a geomagnetic scientist at Natural Resources Canada, says

"The movement of the pole definitely appears to be accelerating,"

Reassurence bit:

"People like to think something special is happening in their lifetimes, but despite the dramatic changes, I don't see any evidence of it," Stoner said. "It's probably just a normal wandering of the pole."

 

'PHEW' that's a relief; no global warming, no pole shift, no nowt.

[ArabiaTerra]

The 'pole shift theory' is the hypothesis that the axis of rotation of a planet has not always been at its present-day locations or that the axis will not persist there; in other words, that its physical poles had been or will be shifted.

Otherwise known as the HAB theory.

[paulb]

apart from gps and compasses pole shift is not a big issue its aways happened and will do. the only thing to shift will be the magnetic pole. hey that means we will be crossing the equator lets wave to the aussies as we pass them on the way down. it is used to monter the spread of the alantic spread each shift comes at roughly equal gaps and this can be detected by running a magnetomiter across the mid atlantic ridge. the distance is then messured and you can work out much further away the US is.

the cybermen told me it was the daleks but who can trust strange men in funny costumes.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

In 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

 

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

 

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

[ArabiaTerra]

In 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

 

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

 

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Interesting, but flawed. The fact that there is no smoking gun hotspot does not prove that there is no CO2 warming, it simply shows that the warming is not occurring where we thought it would. This could mean that there is no CO2 warming or, more likely, it could mean that we don't fully understand the atmosphere yet.

 

As for the reported cooling, this has been explained by the actions of known climate oscillations such as the El Nino/La Nina system which is currently in the cooling phase of it's cycle and the Pacific Decadal oscillation which coincidently is also in the cooling phase of it's cycle. Despite this, every one of the last 14 years (1994-2007) is one of the warmest 20 on record.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

[paulb]

how much C02 could we save if we bumped off all our farty sheep they must produce tons every day.

[ArabiaTerra]

More evidence that the current glacier melting is unprecedented:

"The fact that we still find these 5,000-year-old pieces of leather tells us they were protected by the ice all this time, and that the glaciers have never been smaller than in the year 2003 and the years following."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7580294.stm

[Carlos]

Interesting look at the differences between the science and the reporting

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/earth/29clim.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin