MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Global Warming (Geophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What's the AE position on global warming and that humans are to blame for it?
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What Global Warming?
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is plenty of evidence of past cooling and warming.... the earth is ALWAYS either getting cooler or warmer - it NEVER stays static, it just moves slowly so that it is barely noticeable in one lifetime. We can all be concerned about our 'carbon footprints' but the Earth will carry on doing what it's gonna do!!
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

True but hardly the point this time round (unless you can show that changes happen with such dizzying speed in the past).
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But there are recorded changes in climate in a short space of time....

"A careful examination of the climate record reveals that Europe experienced a prolonged warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (hereafter referred to as MWP) between the years 600 and 1150, cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460, a brief warming between the years 1460 and 1560, followed by dramatic cooling known as the Little Ice Age (hereafter referred to as LIA) between the years 1560 and 1850." http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html

I remember in the 70's they feared we were slipping into another Ice Age.....

If they can't predict tomorrow's weather then how can they pin climate change on to one of the millions of factors involved (ie carbon emmissions) without some sort of scientific controlled experiment? Doesn't some other scientist think that C02 FOLLOWS warming rather than CAUSES warming?? Only time will tell if the warming phase will last and even then how can we be so sure as to blame it on Co2?
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Welcome Tessles. I see from your biographical notes that you are Secretary of State for Scotland, clearly a non-job since the parliament was set up, so we shall expect plenty from you. Most of us find putting our children into care frees up even more time.

The problem, I accept, is to measure the rate of temperature changes in the past -- though we should discount the volcanic stuff since we know the present changes are not volcanically-induced. At least I presume they can....I don't think our climate science is so robust as to rule Mount St Helens (or whatever) as the agent for certain sure.

However the chief difficulty is an Applied Epistemolgical one. All the evidence is currently collected by very pronounced uniformitarians. If one of our current glaciologists looked at today's Greenland core samples I very much doubt that he would pronounce 'global warming', he would either stretch the evidence (as they do with ice ages, small or large) or claim it as proof of volcanic disturbance (or somesuch 'acceptable' cause for dizzying change).
Send private message
Rocky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

...the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wait wait wait! I know! I know!

Global warming exists but we can't see it -- because its effects are currently being masked by the negative PDO!

What do I win when this argument becomes the new mantra of the Global Warming movement?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Al Gorbie.

A newly introduced yearly award for new and creative ways of prolonging the Myth of Gorebull Warming
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've decided to start up a new company to take advantage of the coming Gorebull Warming Crisis.

I'll be selling Stupidity Offsets.
The more you pay me the less stupid you'll become.


Send private message
Rocky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wait a minute...we're saving ourselves from the next ice age:

PARIS - Scheduled shifts in Earth's orbit should plunge the planet into an enduring Ice Age thousands of years from now but the event will probably be averted because of man-made greenhouse gases, scientists said Wednesday.


http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/maritimes/story.html?id=fbf9726d-e6a6-402b-8fb6-8cdfd85863d0
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Let's put this entire CO2 debate into perspective with actual physics.
Imagine a 60 cm (2 foot) cubic box. This represents a typical 'grab' of atmosphere.
Now fill it to the brim with golf balls -- you'll get 2,744
This represents all the molecules in the atmosphere.

Guess how many golf balls represent CO2?

ONE Golf Ball.

Water vapour has 190.

Guess how much we humans contribute to the volume of the ONE Golf Ball?

A 4mm diameter ball bearing.

This is the physical reality of Global Warming

If you want to be scientific look at the physics.

If you want to play with computer models watch Shrek!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Get a bucket with a two cubic feet capacity. Put a 4 mm ball bearing in it. Shake the bucket. Noisy, ain't it? If you want to be scientific, get a hearing aid.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Get an empty oil drum. Put 2,744 golf balls and a 4mm ball bearing in it. Get a really big bloke to shake it vigorously. Monitor noise level.

Let the big bloke have a rest. Remove 4mm ball bearing, leaving only 2,744 golf balls. Get big bloke to shake oil drum again with equal vigor. Monitor noise level.

Notice the difference? .... No? .... I can't either.

Now that's proper scientific!
Send private message
Rocky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why was Venice built in a marsh? It says this on wiki about Venice:

From the ninth to the twelfth century Venice developed into a city state (an Italian thalassocracy or Repubblica Marinara, the other three being Genoa, Pisa, and Amalfi). Its strategic position at the head of the Adriatic made Venetian naval and commercial power almost invulnerable. The city became a flourishing trade center between Western Europe and the rest of the world (especially the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic world).


What is uniquely strategic about that exact location? Isn't there somewhere near Venice they could have built Venice that was drier? It's expensive and distracting to maintain a city built in a lagoon.

I know I'm not supposed to believe in global warming, but I wonder if Venice was drier when it was founded. Either that or Venice's importance has been exaggerated and its main function back then was the same as its main function right now, which is to bring in tourist dollars.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 60

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group