Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Yes my child?
Global warm.. wait, what?
- Thread starter Sawell
- Start date
I thought that was the correct spelling of Havoc, noted.
Anyway, my point was not about incorrect spelling but about misuse of a word - you never know the guy might have misheard "Tiny blip" as "Tiny Blimp".
Rich
Yes my child?
It is a 'wafer-thin' analysis, almost completely unreferenced, using misunderstanding of the oposing viewpoint to further its agenda.
It doesn't get much worse than that.
sweet
it always iritates me as my meaning was obvious and it was merely a typo. I was thinking 'blip' but typed 'blimp' happens all the time I'm just not sure why people have to be so picky.sweet
read my post above on this - wasn't me picking at your spelling - was the use of the word. to be honest I wasn't even picking.
Rich
sweet
I am pretty sure he was quoting me when rather than you and so when I replied I had a light hearted poke at his spelling at the same time.
I am pretty sure he was quoting me when rather than you and so when I replied I had a light hearted poke at his spelling at the same time.
Exactly - honestly I thought you had actually misheard it as a phrase! Made me giggle.
Rich
I looked into this a few months ago as it keeps being brought up. This idea that scientists thought we were heading into another ice age some from a 1974 Time Magazine article. It said:
There wasn't a consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on a coming ice age, it isn't comparable to today's understanding of climate change.
However we now know their observations were simply wrong. The mean global temperature didn't fall by 2.7° F over the three decades from the 1940s. The thing about science is that it's always up review, if someone comes along with a better idea it takes over. However we can't just sit around doing nothing because scientific understanding isn't final - it'll never be final. We have to respond to scientific understanding based on the confidence level and ramifications. With climate change we have a high confidence level (the IPCC tells us there is only a 5% chance the observed changes aren't largely anthropogenic) and the ramifications are serious so it's only sensible to respond.
It's like a very poorly written university essay. He spends the first third arguing semantics in that because of the common misunderstanding regarding the term 'climate change', the science consequently much be a incorrect.
I got about two thirds in before giving up. It's far too easy to pick holes in his reasoning. Why someone as dubious as this has been employed is certainly a source of contemplation.
Don't believe in global warming one bit! not with weather like this for sure. Might be a good thing anyways help us last out the next ice age without to much trouble. Personally pumping out as much electristy and co2 as possible since paying some fixed electric bill i can have some fun ways of using it .
.
That article is comprehensively debunked here, by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
It is interesting to note that Harold Ambler is a musician, not a scientist. His qualifications in the field of climatology are non-existent.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
Do these huge blooms of algae not also suck all the oxygen out of the sea, thereby killing all the nearby aquatic life. Im pretty sure this happens with freshwater algae, so surely doing this is just going to create a massive feedback loop, damaging the oceans massively?
I don't think this is a problem, maybe because the mixed layer is 10s of meters deep and the phytoplankton only grows in the top few meters? The anoxic risk is associated with decomposition in deep water. Oh, I guess the anoxic problem in fresh water is also due to decomposition - only because fresh water isn't thousands of meters deep the surface waters become anoxic?
MooMoo444 said:
Yeah, it's the bacteria that feed on the dead algae that cause the anoxia, due to a massive increase in their numbers as well. In my understanding the algae is drawing the CO2 in and photosynthesising it, thus creating oxygen, so there is no risk of anoxia in the top layers, in fact the opposite (plenty more oxygen).
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
I'm overwhelmed by the amount of references his article makes.
He then has the cheek to write;
"PS- you need citations for your many claims. The internets make this easy. Your one link does not work."
I'm pretty sure in a hypothetical situation if we were to create the biggest and/or detonate nukes around the entire planet, outside of an asteroid of mega proportions we'd beat anything the weather system of this planet can doa nd wipe out all life.
But, it'd never happen because it's a stupid thing to do, but we have the power.
Sorry, wrong link. Correct one is here.
The other url was still in my clipboard, and I'd forgotten to clear it.
Good article. I'd be interested to see what response, if any, Yamaha has to that.
We would seriously struggle to wipe out all life from the planet, the scale your talking about is vast. We could maybe make the planet unrecogniseable to ourselves but if you go back far enough most of the planet was covered with ice and at other times there have been no polar ice caps.
The human response to climate change has so far been laughable and will continue to be so unless you get world wide agreement which seems unlikely. Developed countries like the uk are wasting time and money on eco cars and daft uneconomic windmills while the CO2 output of India grows by the equivalent of adding an extra Germany every year. Either the planet will solve the crisis, a new technology will solve the problem or we will have to adapt to a harsher new environment. Oh and heaven forbid there should be any unexpected large volcanic eruptions to speed the process up significantly.
I believe that our Climate is changing and I'm sure we are somewhat responsible but I am equally sure that we can do little or nothing about it with existing technologies baring nuclear and hyrdogen which exist but are not viable.
Last edited:
That's just killing the life on the planet though, not the planet.
And it would still probably be able to sustain life. Nukes would strugle to affect deep sea life, the type that lives off the core rather than the sun.