Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Climate change.

Recommended Posts

Guest

Who is saying 64ft rise?

 

Go here OC. It has all you want to know about the ice cores including the data that is represented in that graph plus more. If that's too hard I can post a range of other graphs that use the exact same data and show the exact same results but they aren't as easy to read for most. There are a multitude of links off that page that goes deeper into all that stuff if you want to go real deep. That CD I talked about can be got from that page also. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html

 

Some things you and others may interested in if you have a spare moment. But so as knot to plant anything in the pre-concieved dept I'll just drop some things and leave it to whoever to decide themselves if there is any merit in them and where that may or may knot lead them.

 

What's happening with the Temps on Mars?

 

Does the IPCC research Climate Change?

 

Suss a fella called Nic Lewis in relation to the IPCC?

 

Suss the amount of green vegetation on earth and any changes?

 

There are plenty more if you are genuinely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

64 meters from present day high tide marks is the highest the sea level the sea has been in the past.

 

Also latest authority wrote if all the ice melted in antartica it would represent a 64 meter rise in sea levels.

 

So u can fathom a rise on about 3 meters - not much ice has to melt.

 

O.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So there ya go OC and others. That far higher water level meant a motherload less ice than there is today. So the earth has been way hotter than it is today and as that time was more than a few 1000 years ago we can safely assume it wasn't caused by the exhaust of a SSS Commodore's nor the farts of huge flocks of cows.

 

Is it doing exactly that again at the moment??

 

What 'authority' are you referring to OC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

there you go again not you.

 

 

As stated previously the previous meldown was thought to be caused by the greenhouse affect which is now happening and repeating itself again, but this time caused by man made greenhouse gases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OC, where on earth do you get your facts from.

The first thing that has to be understood is that the Poles are not the only place that holds ice. Our Planet has had numerous hot and cold periods with it's Climate over it's past. The last ice age was ruffly 21000yrs ago. It ended about 14,650yrs ago. But the time between that 14650yr mark and present day has not been a linear rise. There has been some very rapid rises called "meltwater Pulses, with the most significant one being called 1A. The Sealevel has risen some 120M from then 21000yrs ago to it's present day level.

Pulse 1A started pretty much precisely 14650yrs ago and the Sea level rise 14M in just 350yrs. That's 40mm/yr. Much faster than current predictions for our future are stating. Another MWP occured about 8200yrs ago.

It has been pretty much established that the Polar caps only contributed about 50% of the water. There is one hell of a lot of ice held in places other than the Polar Icecaps.

Interestingly, Coral Reefs around the world coped OK with the rapid rise.

When the Earth is viewed in Millions of years, the Sea Level has risen and fallen in hundreds of metres. Ruffly 450 to 500 million years ago, the Sea was some 400M lower than it is at present. Of course, the Continents and their positions looked very different back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sea level has been pretty stable the last 6500 years, after rising rapidly the 4000 years before that. This includes the entire period of what we call civilisation.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/past-current-future-sea-level-rise-graphs/

Then we started to burn huge amounts of coal and oil and gas, and we're now seeing steady temperature increase and sea level rise of 3mm per year.

 

To say "its happened before, so it must be nature", is like saying "bush fires happen naturally" even when you saw the bastard with the can of petrol and the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, be careful of what you read. (Not saying he is wrong or right) But Note the heading, "my view of climate change" and Author is who?? Not saying he is wrong, but it is all these "views" that is making the debate such a noise of info. I am also not saying that just because a Scientific study has been carried out by a scientific organisation thus they must be correct, either. But you have to look at many credible sources, how it stacks up and just what is being told. For instance, one hole drilled into some ice sheet does not tell the entire story. But many holes along with findings around the Globe and History and so on and so on starts producing a bigger picture. I truly believe that one of the biggest issues at the mo is that a "Finding" suddenly gets pushed forward as "truth" when really we have discovered only one paragraph of our entire Earths Story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My problem with the "academics are making it up to get rich " theory, is that in other fields (economics, business, political studies, to name a few) big corporations have spent billions to corrupt those academics to create legislation and environment that allows them to make more money.

If big business stands to loose from this they would surely pay off more and bigger and "own" the academics - who would then write papers saying climate change is good for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

 

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

 

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

 

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

 

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

 

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

 

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

 

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

 

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

 

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Related Video

 

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

 

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

 

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

 

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

And that was signed by -

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Seeing it seems to be the thing to do to back up your argument I'll put the link to the random website that came from.......... Oppps maybe this one is knot quite so random - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

 

Who are people to believe?

Share this post


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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...