What happened to global warming?

thecremeegg said:
Exactly. I'm pretty sure I read that whilst the polar icecaps are "melting", there are other icecaps that are becoming larger so its swings and roundabouts
Click to expand...

Or not... Warming and melting of the polar Ice Caps is increasing all the time, however glaciers all over the world (the second largest reservoir of fozen water) are also melting at an alarming rate, with major visibe shrinking (mainly receading up valleys) within the last 20 or so years (in places like the alps, where descriptions/studies and drawings/photographs have been available for the last couple of hundred years or so). There are a few glaciers that have increased in size, i think mainly in south America, however their increase is no where near enough take up all the melt water...

atpbx said:
Thats quite a good article, it shows up just how stupid climate change lobbyists are.
On the one hand the pretty much all agree with the sceptics that the earth is going to cool for anywhere between 15 to 30 years, they also agree with the sceptics its going to warm up again.
But that isnt because its part of a warming and cooling cycle like the sceptics say their evidence proves , no no, its because of honda civics.

They are just completely closed minded and set on a one track thought process and are completely unwilling to do anything other than find stats to fit their predictions.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that those scheptics are usually the ones employed/paid to study by large companies/governments with vested interests in showing we are not causing global warming. A large majority of "independent" scientists (especially from universities) agree that we are causing an increase in the rate of global waming (yes, money has to come from somewhere and the sources can cause bias even among independents, however most money comes from unbias sources themselves).

The thing that scheptics miss is that most scientists aknowledge that the climate is getting naturally warmer (due to Milankovich cycles for one) however the RATE of change is increased due to our pumping of nasties into the atmosphere. Scientists havent just looked at the last 100 or so years change in CO2 release and looked at the temperature and gone "oooh look there seems to be a correlation" they have also looked at past events and done geochemical analysis and used that as an analogy to the present (The most used saying in Geology is Huttons "the present is the key to the past", which just means past and present are very similar and one can be used to analyse the other).

One good example is the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), a rise of 5 degrees over around 100ka, doesn't sound much, but in fact is a massive change in that time period. The climate of the planet changed massively, extinctions were quite high and the atmosphere changed a lot too. Geochemical analysis shows a massive increase of carbon dioxide, at the same time. While there is still a lot of discussion as to how and why the large majority of scientists who study it agree that a slight increase in the global temperature, caused by an increase of CO2 (possibly from a meteor or massive increase in volcanism/other "cataclysmic event"). This created a feedback loop, which made things much worse, and caused the temperature to increase massively. This feedback is the thing that worries scientists the most. Our pumping of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere may start a runaway reaction, caused by feedback, and make things a lot worse.

There are thousands of scientists studying Global warming, and the VAST majority agree that we are influencing it, the small minority however seem to be heard a lot more, and strangely... usually work for certan companies/governments (US being a major one) that don't want it to be true...

That was a bit of a rubbish article IMO, didn't tell us anything new, and appeared rather bias to the sceptics.
 
twist3d0n3 said:
meh it's all scare mongering at the end of the day, yes we need to reduce emissions, but moreso for the sake of peoples' health imo
Click to expand...

I agree with this too, even in the very unlikely event of global warming increase is not the case then we should be decreasing our emissions for other sakes anyway (both for ourselves and moreso the rest of the planet). Less rubbish, less deforestation, less impact..
 
rypt said:
iceages.png

image157.gif


What do you notice?
We are NATURALLY at the "end" of an ICE AGE, meaning that we are at peak temperature.
So surprise, surprise we have warm temperatures ... and will have another ice age in about 100k years.
Click to expand...

Actually we are not. We are at the "end" of an ice age yes, however we still have a long way to go before we actually get over the peak temperatures.

Where did you get those diagrams btw? I'd be interested to know what the author thinks of the jumble of dots from ~15ka to now, you can't really tell which way they are going, and on that diagram they seem totally different to the rest of the cycles. Also with the second diagram you can't tell just by looking at a change in δ O-18 what the temperature is (there are a large number of factors in play), has the graph been calibrated for those or is that the raw δ O-18 data?:)
 
Dolph said:
There's less money to be made from pushing the climate change agenda at the moment due to the global economic crisis.

Once it becomes financially viable to push the perceived issue, it will start again in Ernest.
Click to expand...

Virtually word for word what I was going to say :).
 
Dolph said:
They are, but it's less popular to tax cows than expensive cars... Remember, face over effectiveness is the order of the day with Labour (and indeed many governments)
Click to expand...
How exactly would you tax cows? "Excuse me Daisy, you haven't filled in your tax return this year yet."

Ok facetiousness aside you make more money taxing cars then cows.
 
platypus said:
How exactly would you tax cows? "Excuse me Daisy, you haven't filled in your tax return this year yet."

Ok facetiousness aside you make more money taxing cars then cows.
Click to expand...

nope but you could tax the farmer. Obviously this could only work in the UK as if they tried it France for example, the French would probably just set light to the cows in protest :D

edited
 
Last edited:
zytok said:
nope but you could tax the farmer. Obviously this could only work in the UK as if they tried it France for example, the French would probably just set light to them in protest :D
Click to expand...

What? The farmers, tax forms, cows or farts?:p

We should just stick pipes up their bums, win win situation, less methane entering the atmosphere and free gas for all!
 
Amp34 said:
What? The farmers, tax forms, cows or farts?:p

We should just stick pipes up their bums, win win situation, less methane entering the atmosphere and free gas for all!
Click to expand...

you might be on to something though I understand it's the burps that do the most damage. Maybe the English could set fire to the French farmers in protest. Seems a waste of cow unless there's some horseradish on standby.....
 
What happens when the melting polar ice caps disrupt the North Atlantic Current?

WHAT HAPPENS THEN!?!?!
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
Where did you get those diagrams btw? I'd be interested to know what the author thinks of the jumble of dots from ~15ka to now, you can't really tell which way they are going, and on that diagram they seem totally different to the rest of the cycles.
Click to expand...
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html

We are more likely to have far more data over for the more recent years due to it being far easier to extract the ice cores (as you do not have to go as deep) - which can explain we we see this jumble - meaning that were to have a lot more older data we could see similar things (there are certainly indicators of this with some of the outliers and thicker bands seen in older data).
 
They changed it to climate change as global warming is misleading. Oh wow the climate is changing. Never would have guessed that.
 
on a fiction level, the book "A state of fear" by Michael Crichton is decent, blends a story in with actual facts about the whole "global warming debate" the book is very anti Global warming though
 
Dolph said:
There's less money to be made from pushing the climate change agenda at the moment due to the global economic crisis.

Once it becomes financially viable to push the perceived issue, it will start again in Ernest.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I think.

I doubt there is a single person on this planet that could tell us how the weather system/climate will be in ten years let alone 100's of years.
 
The BBC article doesn't refer to the overall increase in temperature since the industrial revolution. And the point about global warming is that while the world may go through natural periods of minor temperature fluctuation, the greenhouse gases we now produce are increasing the rate at which temperatures rise as well as causing the greater unpredictability (and extremes) of the weather we have.
 
anticonscience said:
Pretty much what I think.

I doubt there is a single person on this planet that could tell us how the weather system/climate will be in ten years let alone 100's of years.
Click to expand...

Its not hard to work out we're going to be completely screwed.

We should be creating more clean energy sources in this country regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom