Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Interesting post, Gorgo, but a trifle misleading I would say. As you can see from the graph below, there has been no recovery of the Arctic ice cover, it is still tracking the lowest levels seen in 2006-2007, however it does seem that there has been growth of Antarctic sea ice which is balancing out the loss in the Arctic.

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png

 

From here.

 

As for the other report, the first four paragraphs are typical denier lies and bullshit, then there is a distorted report of a potentially important new paper which has found a possible negative feedback in the lower stratosphere.

 

However, this finding is from a single paper and the paper draws no conclusion about whether this is as a consequence of a CO2 feedback or is a natural cycle. If it is a feedback then it could potentially slow down global warming, though there are limits to the amount of slowing possible from this effect and it wouldn't stop global warming entirely as the report claims.

 

On the other hand, if this is a natural variation (linked to ENSO for example) then it could just as quickly reverse and increase global warming by just as much.

 

As the paper says, more research is needed.

 

Edit: More on the paper here.

 

Oh and an amusing aside to this is the fact that this cooling effect was noticed when the observed decrease in water vapour was plugged into climate models. It's funny how the deniers suddenly believe in computer models when they support their case, yet call them useless when they don't. Another example of the blinkered, hypocritical viewpoint of the deniers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.   Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocaly

This guy went to Princeton University and Harvard Law School for goodness sake! Please tell me he knew the Paris Climate Agreement was named after the location the meeting took place and had nothing t

Anyone else getting a little fed up with being told that we have to "cut this, and cut that" when in truth, the one thing that we MUST cut is the global population.  Anything else is just "fiddling wh

More direct effects of climate change found

 

Dr Brodie cannot be sure why wolverine numbers are falling, but he has his suspicions.

 

Seems your opting for tactic rather than truth there AT.

 

"Fortuitously, Canada has good records of both snowpack trends over time as well as trends in the harvest of all sorts of fur-bearing animals."

 

How do they know it's not just that the amount of trapping that's on the increase; there is a recession on you know and besides; I bet a coat made from a few of them bugers hides would work a treat in these freezing temperatures.

 

Cant we get all these "deniers" into groups for clarity instead of you just lumping everybody in together if they don't agree with your view?

We got folk who deny any climate change.

We got you, denying all reason and we got those who know fine well the climate will do as it bloody well pleases.

The best scare you've sent out for global warming effects in Scotland so far; is longer growing seasons and less snow. :shock: Yeah; now I'm shaking in me boots but then again, that could be down to the sub zero tropical conditions your global warming has us bathing in.

 

Claims that human activity was, or was even capable of measurably affecting the Earth's climate made little sense to begin with. For as far back as patterns can be reconstructed, the climate has always cycled between being warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, stormy or settled, and the changes observed during the industrial era have been well inside the swings that have taken place in the past. So there's no reason to suppose that anything, human-induced or otherwise, is affecting the climate abnormally. Compared to water vapor and the activity of the Sun, carbon dioxide plays a minor role in determining temperature, and the amount generated by Nature dwarfs anything that humans add. In any case, the times of rising temperature recorded over the ages have all happened first, not the other way around, so increases in CO2 levels are a consequence not a cause. And even if humans were having the influence that has been claimed, the results would be overwhelmingly beneficial. Living things thrive in warmer environments, not frigid ones. Far more people die in winter from the effects of cold than from heat waves. Carbon dioxide is plant food, the basis of all life. Crops and flora of every kind grow more luxuriantly with a richer supply of it.

 

While I'm here; could people posting graphs, find ones that fit the bloody page for once? to save me having to scroll back and forth non-stop to read the page and no doubt increasing my carbon footprint by vast amounts while doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While I'm here; could people posting graphs, find ones that fit the bloody page for once? to save me having to scroll back and forth non-stop to read the page and no doubt increasing my carbon footprint by vast amounts while doing so.

That's funny, it fits fine on my monitor. :?

 

(I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow, a bit pissed right now.) :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html

 

As I have stated before , I have know real idea what data is true / false , exact / approximate or what ever ...

I have noted the use of the term "peer reviewed" used here many times as a claim that a certain peice of information is perfectly true , but I still take it all with a pinch of salt ...

It must be a very difficult time for all the " Co2 release will trigger catastrophic warming " alarmist brigade what with :-

1.) The complete failure of the Copenhagen Climate summit

2.) China's Environmental Minister publically stating " we are keeping an open mind on climate change " ( the fossil fuelled industrial giant of over 1 billion people.)

3.) The climate scandal of east anglia university - clear evidence of manipulation of data .

4.) The himalayan melting claim , (some bloke made it up?)

5.)The coldest 2 consecutive months in Scotland in the last 100 years

6.) The coldest winter in most of northern eurasia in quite a while ( no exact figures )

7.) Antartic sea ice measured at levels the same as 1979

8.) Arctic sea ice showing significant advances since recent record lows

9.) No more significant warming in last 10 years even though manmade co2 release significantly higher per year than previous 10 years .

10.) Arabia Terra managing to put more people of the idea than he wins over to the cause with his crude style of debating ... mmm ?

 

Whilst I state all these facts I am at the same time very much in favour of the advancement of green / clean energy technologies and very much in favour of trying to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels .

Sadly this debate is not really helping the advancement of that goal very much anymore it would appear .

One quite funny posted I read regarding the correlation between co2 and global warming was " Has anybody noticed how dangerous to human health carrots are ? If you look at the number of all the people who have ever died and the number of those amongst them who had eaten carrots you could assume that carrots were very dangerous indeed " silly i know but also slightly amusing .

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was a political debate, you might have a point, but it isn't, it's a scientific debate.

 

So it is based on facts rather than opinion, right?

 

It was in response to 58 requests received in one week from the same moron, Steve MacIntyre of Climate Audit,

 

mo·ron n.

1. A stupid person; a dolt.

2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

 

Got any evidence you'd like to share to show Steve MacIntyre is a moron? Or is everybody who disagrees with you a moron?

 

I keep hoping for a civilised discussion about the science

 

Really? Because your childish insults suggest otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
More direct effects of climate change found:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8494000/8494397.stm

 

Although I don't disagree that changing climate could be responsible, I just wonder how accurate this study is. As the author notes:

 

"Unfortunately, we don't actually know what the populations are like," said Brodie. "It's quite difficult to get good numbers on a rare and elusive species like a wolverine."

 

http://news.globaltv.com/technology/Melting+snowpack+thins+wolverine+population/2518338/story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
What resolution are you running it at, Claudias? Mines running at 1920x1200.

 

At 1280 X 1024 on my 19" screen (max resolution) the graph is too big unless I scroll across. I've been tempted in the past to complain about graphics being too big. Can posters please remember that not everyone is accessing this site on high resolution wide screens and adjust their pictures accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can posters please remember that not everyone is accessing this site on high resolution wide screens and adjust their pictures accordingly.

 

I'll second that! I enjoy following this thread, but it is exceedingly frustrating to have to keep scrolling back and forward. I don't have a wide screen, I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Objection sustained! :P

 

But seriously, any graphics posted should be reasonably sized in consideration that a baseline of perhaps 17" monitors(1024x800) should be catered for. There may even be users using smaller screens on netbooks or the like.

 

There is also the consideration that even those with wide screens may have several windows open and Shetlink may be viewed on half, or less of a 1920.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the forum template size is totally fluid - and a consequence of that is that if someone puts in an image that is 1500px wide, that is the minimum width of the forum's right hand column. There are other threads that have been similarly widened by wide images, but this one is prone to it with all these delightful graphs. Note though, when the page rolls over after 25 posts, normal conditions return.

 

 

(ps I should have said, 1024px total width is reasonable, but that should include the left column too, so about 800px is as wide as a graphic should be)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...