climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[sanctuary 19]

It always amaze me to see that some people are making the choice of listening and approving the propaganda of non scientific representatives that are known to work hand in hand with most of the corporations responsibles of the major part of the world pollution and so are making the choice of disregarding the warnings from scientific researchers.

well, when i think about it and look at most of the world recent events, it should not amaze me that much, people are usually their government sheep.

At least the 60% i see in this poll give me some hope for the future of our children.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

When you are at sea it is not the depth of the ocean that sinks your boat it is the size of the waves on the surface that count. The variance and velocity of variance in CO2 is the key factor not how much there is as a steady state.

Love ya metaphore - permission to steal ?

[Kode 0]

Ok, we both agree the CO2 level increases. But not on what it does.

Quote[/b] ]Having proved the causal link we now know CO2 contributes to paleoclimactic temperature changes.

Now that is the first point, it's the other way around. Temperature contributed to CO2 in the paleclimatic changes. To be more precise they did even react on eachother, sometimes CO2 changing and then temperature or the other way around.

quoted from this site.

Will the increased CO2:

-Have little effect on our temperature because of effects that compensate by rejecting more heat - like an increase in reflective clouds?

-Cause our climate to get substantially warmer?

-Result in a runaway greenhouse effect like that on Venus?

If you want more info about the greenhouse effect on Venus you might want to go here.

My point is, nothing says that CO2(or greenhouse gases) is causing the temperature to rise, or will it let it rise in the future. My goal is to let people see, that the global warming thing is completely hyped, and that most scientists (working in global warming) gladly have the lot of money support they are getting(and increasing each year).

As stated before, I would prefer governements spent more to other, also vital research. And what I hate the most is that these days, all politicians use it to promote themselfes (that's all I'm saying off politics before I get     )

[Baff1 0]

It always amaze me to see that some people are making the choice of listening and approving the propaganda of non scientific representatives that are known to work hand in hand with most of the corporations responsibles of the major part of the world pollution and so are making the choice of disregarding the warnings from scientific researchers.

It's them or governmental propaganda.

One side in the political pocket of industry, the other in the political pocket of the green voters.

Both sides have scientific researchers.

Scientific researchers that give "warnings" should lose their scientific status.

The goal of scienctific research is to compile quantifiable and repeatable scientific evidence not to make predictions.

That isn't science, it's science-fiction.

[Journeyman 0]

@Walker I did not mean to rattle your cage so hard and I certainly don’t underestimate the intellectual abilities of many forum members here either. Please excuse me if that is how it came across! I do not see this debate as a competition and am not trying to break the moral of your opinion! I just want to be convinced that what you say is correct so I can join you in your belief just like I was a few years back!    

I am aware of all the other climatic influencing factors such as ElNino, LaNina, the Earths oscillation around the sun and so on, but I am trying to keep this simple as these events can easily be counted out of this debate at present. The Earths climate through the ages is indeed complex as it is at present, but we need to focus a bit on more recent events and try and see if this new sudden temperature increase has happened in the more recent geological past long before we became a contributing factor in this complex system.

For the past 2 million years, the earth has been experiencing 100,000 year long cycles of glaciations followed by 10,000 year long interglacial periods. We are currently about 10,000 years into the last interglacial period (known as the Holocene). These cycles are due to changes in the earth's orbit, mainly as a function of its eccentricity.

Within the last 10,000 year period, there have been periods of time that were 1.3°C to 4°C warmer than present. Cycles of warm periods followed by cooler periods seem to occur at around 1,500 year intervals. Since we have just finished the cooler period known as the "Little Ice Age", at least part of the current warming is due to cyclical variation in the earth's climate pattern the rest can clearly be linked to the recent sunspot activity. We do have a sudden increase in temperature in this century but it fits the wrong time for the same period of co2 increases as a result of our emissions (this is very clear in that graph of mine that you continually parade here! ).

Temperature history reveals the existence of a number of recent climatic highs and lows, including the "Holocene Optimum 4000-6000 years ago, Medieval Warm Period with a culmination about 1000 years ago and Little Ice Age 200-500 years ago." Furthermore, the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period was determined to be more elevated above the mean temperature of the past century than the mean temperature of the Little Ice Age was reduced below that of the past century.

There is documented real-world evidence for the reality of the Medieval Warm Period, as well as its dominance over the past century in terms of its much greater warmth, which flies in the face of claims that make current temperatures appear "un-precedent" over the past millennium!

As for the co2 hockey stick graph of the 20th century I am still studying as to whether or not it has any real implications for our future temperatures as it seems that it is this most recent event that all the pro ‘man mad disaster’ forecasters are clinging on to in order to support their claims! It is all down to whether there can be a PROVEN link between a rise in co2 and that of temperature. At the moment I have not seen any! I guess we will have to wait and see!  

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Within the last 10,000 year period, there have been periods of time that were 1.3°C to 4°C warmer than present.

There are no degree accurate temperature measurements to the decimal point prior to the last hundred years.

No instruments capable of recording it. And no great abundance of innaccurate measurements available to give us a reliable statistical mean.

Temperature history, of over 50 years old is unreliable data, with the bulk of reliable enviromental data being compiled in the last 25. Where "reliable" is a mathemetical term refering to the expected accuracy of a statistic.

Temperature maps of the past are merely predictions. While giving us a better insight into how things might have been, they should not be taken as accurate sciencific examples of how things actually were.

Accurate planetary temperature measurement began only 18 years ago with the introduction of satelitte technology.

When you see one of those world temperature graphs through the ages, it is important to remember that it's not just the future part of the line that they have predicted. It is also the past.

The further back or the further forward you go the less likely you are to get a reliable score. The science has limitations.

[Journeyman 0]

There are no degree accurate temperature measurements to the decimal point prior to the last hundred years.

No instruments capable of recording it. And no great abundance of innaccurate measurements available to give us a reliable statistical mean.

You are right that there is no reliable data and all measurements are estimations based on what things were known to be happening at that time. The medieval period is part of our recorded history and there are sufficient clues and pointers to give us a reasonably accurate account of temperatures of the time and an approximation of how long they lasted for. Using your hypothesis there are no temperature measurements before the invention of the thermograph full stop! This isn’t how historians and geologists record temperatures prior to the invention of measuring instruments! They instead try and piece together what events took place at that time. In early geological periods it would be through fossil research but for the medieval period we have much more written and documented facts about how warm it was and what they would have been growing during that period (grape vines in Northern England for example! ) Most botanists would be able to tell you the minimum winter temperature for successfully growing grape vines!

It is an estimation that is why I quoted 1.3°C to 4°C! No source is reliable either and we all get our data from suspect research whether we like it or not!  

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

You do fail to mention that solar activity does not explain the last three decades, though.

I think we all are aware of the link between temperature rise and solar activity as seen the past many hundred years - but the last three decades do not have this link, why?

In a closed system (Vostock), CO2 clearly holds the energy in the 'athmosphear', and as Earth athmosphear (if seen in a shorter period of time) does work as a closed system with the sun as the energy source, the Vostock experiement is quite telling.

The question is, why does Earth holds more energy compared to solar activity now, than it did earlier when the CO2 levels were lower?

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ] am aware of all the other climatic influencing factors such as ElNino, LaNina, the Earths oscillation around the sun and so on, but I am trying to keep this simple as these events can easily be counted out of this debate at present. The Earths climate through the ages is indeed complex as it is at present, but we need to focus a bit on more recent events and try and see if this new sudden temperature increase has happened in the more recent geological past long before we became a contributing factor in this complex system.

For the past 2 million years, the earth has been experiencing 100,000 year long cycles of glaciations followed by 10,000 year long interglacial periods. We are currently about 10,000 years into the last interglacial period (known as the Holocene). These cycles are due to changes in the earth's orbit, mainly as a function of its eccentricity.

Within the last 10,000 year period, there have been periods of time that were 1.3°C to 4°C warmer than present. Cycles of warm periods followed by cooler periods seem to occur at around 1,500 year intervals. Since we have just finished the cooler period known as the "Little Ice Age", at least part of the current warming is due to cyclical variation in the earth's climate pattern the rest can clearly be linked to the recent sunspot activity. We do have a sudden increase in temperature in this century but it fits the wrong time for the same period of co2 increases as a result of our emissions (this is very clear in that graph of mine that you continually parade here! ).

Temperature history reveals the existence of a number of recent climatic highs and lows, including the "Holocene Optimum 4000-6000 years ago, Medieval Warm Period with a culmination about 1000 years ago and Little Ice Age 200-500 years ago." Furthermore, the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period was determined to be more elevated above the mean temperature of the past century than the mean temperature of the Little Ice Age was reduced below that of the past century.

There is documented real-world evidence for the reality of the Medieval Warm Period, as well as its dominance over the past century in terms of its much greater warmth, which flies in the face of claims that make current temperatures appear "un-precedent" over the past millennium!

As for the co2 hockey stick graph of the 20th century I am still studying as to whether or not it has any real implications for our future temperatures as it seems that it is this most recent event that all the pro ‘man mad disaster’ forecasters are clinging on to in order to support their claims! It is all down to whether there can be a PROVEN link between a rise in co2 and that of temperature. At the moment I have not seen any! I guess we will have to wait and see!

It's fine for me if other people try to find

a different explanation but seriously I don't see the point.

you can try to explain this with earth magnetic field changes or solar cycles, but don't you think that Co2 properties

are well known now,

that an immense majority of scientists, intellectuals and

politician agree to make changes to protect the planet while most of time they tend to privilege industries ?

Don't you think that since the beginning of 20th century people have thought about the impact of industries on ecosystem and latter started to devellop mathematical and informatical tools to anticipate the changes ?

wth even Bush admits green house effect on the planet !

So now, we should believe this possibly wrong explanation, reduce Co2 emissions as much as possible and if the future it appears that it wasn't global warming we would still be winners !

walker is a terrorist he knows how to make large quantities of H2 with nearly no fossile or nuclear fuel but he doesn't want to explain how !!!

Angela Merkel said 50% co2 reduction, she gonna be in trouble at G8

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite, Kode et al.

A simple question:

What caused the paleoclimactic temperature changes shown in the Vostok and Antarctic Deep Core Survey to continue to be high for tens of thousands of years after the trigger event?

Kind Regards walker

[Journeyman 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite, Kode et al.

A simple question:

What caused the paleoclimactic temperature changes shown in the Vostok and Antarctic Deep Core Survey to continue to be high for tens of thousands of years after the trigger event?

Kind Regards walker

Ok so let’s start to assume then that co2 is a major greenhouse gas since there are sufficient claims in both directions I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt! There were no humans around during the period that the paleoclimactic temperature changes shown in the Vostok and Antarctic Deep Core Survey was based, so any co2 generated over this period was entirely natural. Much of this co2 would have been released from the oceans, as the warmer seas would not be able to hold as much during their warmer spell.

Likewise right now we have a warming period. Whether we are in agreement or not that it is solar induced the resultant increase in the ocean temperatures would (as in the paleoclimactic period) be releasing co2. So this would still represent a purely natural event. Unless of course you are going to go one step further and show me the proof I need that this ‘additional’ co2 is entirely man made instead!  

And I mean ‘entirely’ because if only a percentage of this increasing co2 is man made we are still wasting resources in trying to cut it down. How much do you seriously believe we could possibly cut and continue with our present economic way of life? Even if we were able to completely cut out all of our emissions (which would be impossible) so long as you still have a natural process going on producing what almost certainly would be the lion’s share of co2, we would be simply pissing in the wind of inevitable climate change!

….And all this when there are people dying unnecessarily in Africa because the West is denying them the right to develop their resources!  

[Baff1 0]

There are no degree accurate temperature measurements to the decimal point prior to the last hundred years.

No instruments capable of recording it. And no great abundance of innaccurate measurements available to give us a reliable statistical mean.

You are right that there is no reliable data and all measurements are estimations based on what things were known to be happening at that time. The medieval period is part of our recorded history and there are sufficient clues and pointers to give us a reasonably accurate account of temperatures of the time and an approximation of how long they lasted for. Using your hypothesis there are no temperature measurements before the invention of the thermograph full stop! This isn’t how historians and geologists record temperatures prior to the invention of measuring instruments! They instead try and piece together what events took place at that time. In early geological periods it would be through fossil research but for the medieval period we have much more written and documented facts about how warm it was and what they would have been growing during that period (grape vines in Northern England for example! ) Most botanists would be able to tell you the minimum winter temperature for successfully growing grape vines!

It is an estimation that is why I quoted 1.3°C to 4°C! No source is reliable either and we all get our data from suspect research whether we like it or not!  

Thanks Red, The use of your quoted data was more of a trigger that brought my attention to the subject of accurate measurement more than a specific dig at your actual data which I did notice provided for variance.

Medieval data sets are not reliable. There simply aren't enough sources or any accurate measurement devices to guarentee or provide a good mean.

With only 1 or 2 universities per nation, (monastries?) even the compiled global data for this period can be written on one side of a piece of A4 paper.

Neither can we provide any scientific control to recreate the circumstancial evidences on which many of our assumptions preside.

While the example of grapes is an excellent source for extrapolating temperature, it is not a particularly accurate one.

We have no accurate modern control to recreate their conditions and growing grapes is a notoriously precarious business.

Do strains of those particular grapes even still exist today? Or have they Darwinianly evolved to better suit any current change in ecology.

Have those grapes been tinkered with or transplanted by successive grape growers to provide to different tastes and culinary fashion.

I keep a little vinyard myself. I grow 20 different types of grape.

I have imported and cross bred strains and varieties to find ones most suited to the (comparatively very cold) English climate and also to my taste.

Not many Standard Spanish strains would bear fruit here,

although all of mine survived temperatures of -27 in the winter of 1980.

There are also other factors in survival of grapes from predators to disease, drought, poor irrigation...

even war or a farmer too drunk to tend to them.

We know from archaelogy that grapes have been grown here for the last 2,000 years, we might even have found the odd seed to let us know some of the strains, but professional vinyards won't have been keeping written documentaton at all before mass education.

Further to this particular example, I do not believe that the number of different sources from archaelogical, geological or any other form of circumstancial research are very high in number, when compared for example to the number of sources we use today.

If you add up every period study of every kind ever made and get a statistical mean from those, you are still predicting from an almost ignorable amount of sources, each of those being no more than a prediction in itself.

It's very poor science.

The variables here are altogether too large to provide a great degree of accuracy. It's akin to Chaos Theory in it's complexity.

I think we really have to move into the sail age before weather is scientifically recorded with any worldwide degree of regularity or accuracy at all.

Go back more than 300 years and the figures commonly provided are nothing more than (inspired) guess work.

My hypothesis is not that historical temperature cannot be measured, your example provides an excellent insight into one of the many methods we can get an idea.

My hypotheisis is that the degree of accuracy with which it can be predicted leaves a wide margin for error.

Far too wide for any discussion centring on changes measured in only one's and two's of degrees.

Given that most of our data is as we agree from unreliable sources it is important not to take too many inferences from it.

Predictions must always be treated as such and never as solid evidence.

[jakerod 254]

I haven't read this entire thing yet but it seems to me that a lot of arguments are based on the fact that nature emits a lot of CO2 and such and that it always has. Thus at some point there was a balance. Just because they release it doesn't mean that they are causing it. We have screwed up the balance and we should try to rebalance it.

Maybe we can't. Maybe we're screwed but it doesn't mean that we can't try.

Don't bother responding to this. It was just something to get people thinking and I probably won't be reading this topic again. I just got bored and needed something to read so I stopped by here.

[chops 111]

One of the very few things I remember from my beer fueled university days (Environmental Science) was the Precautionary Principle. I also remember this one chick with great tits, in biology class, but that's another story

If the SCIENTIFIC community is 90% sure about the greehouse effect and climate change, surely we should take action, given the catastrophic nature of the predicted results of inaction. We should change our habits anyway, the risks of not doing so are too great, even if the small chance it's not the result of CO2 emissions turns out to be true.

Imagine talking to your grandson in 50 years and saying "Well, there was a 10% chance it wasn't from CO2, so we thought that was good enough reason to do nothing". He wouldn't bring his beautiful girlfriends around to meet his foolish old grandpa anymore

Edit: Spelling

[Freshman 0]

I think the whole manmade climate change is bullshit.

For me as chemist it is pretty easy to obtain data about historic climate changes from universities and institutes and what I can see is that there is no proof of a climate change.

There is one thing that is pretty funny about CO2:

Somewhere in Russia is a forrest where such a load of CO2 comes out of the ground that everything the industry produces seems to be quite rediculous.

I can't give you numbers but maybe someone here knows more about it?

There's a video which I hope it hasn't been posted here before:

The Great Global Warmin Swindle

It says everything about this issue that I think of it's true.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]One of the very few things I remember from my beer fueled university days (Environmental Science) was the Precautionary Principle. I also remember this one chick with great tits, in biology class, but that's another story

exactly.

Quote[/b] ]For me as chemist it is pretty easy to obtain data about historic climate changes from universities and institutes and what I can see is that there is no proof of a climate change.

no offence, but you are chemist at 18 or your personnal data are corrupted ?

Quote[/b] ]Somewhere in Russia is a forrest where such a load of CO2 comes out of the ground that everything the industry produces seems to be quite rediculous.

this carbon dioxyde is in the cycle since millions of years unlike the carbon contained in petrol.

Lot's of intellectual masturbation in this thread !

[Freshman 0]

Sorry I did not say it the way it should be.

I am about to become chemist (one year left) but I am not yet.

Edit:

It's chemical technician. I'm not a native english seaker... Sorry for that.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Sorry I did not say it the way it should be.

I am about to become chemist (one year left) but I am not yet.

Edit:

It's chemical technician. I'm not a native english seaker... Sorry for that.

The video u provided have already been posted here.

I can still not take it serously as it hypes their oppinions up, and hides data away that isn't 'convenient'.

Red Kite:

Quote[/b] ]And I mean ‘entirely’ because if only a percentage of this increasing co2 is man made we are still wasting resources in trying to cut it down. How much do you seriously believe we could possibly cut and continue with our present economic way of life? Even if we were able to completely cut out all of our emissions (which would be impossible) so long as you still have a natural process going on producing what almost certainly would be the lion’s share of co2, we would be simply pissing in the wind of inevitable climate change!

Lol, of course the CO2 incriese isn't entirely man-made, but as stated several times now, it's a positive feedback system. If you produce more CO2, the sea will eventually heat up thus producing more CO2. The eco-system, probably has an enormious buffersystem, which means that we can produce much more CO2 on the planet than it's natural limit without any problems. But as we know, buffersystems tend (always) to have limits as well, and when that limit is crossed, we will be seing signifficant climate changes over a small period time which makes the planet produce more CO2 by itself and the balance is tipped over.

This means that the CO2 buffer wont function anymore, and we will be seing CO2 levels rise at an exponential rate. By then it will probably already be too late to do anything about it.

That is why we have to do something about it now.

[karantan 0]

There's a video which I hope it hasn't been posted here before:

The Great Global Warmin Swindle

It says everything about this issue that I think of it's true.

No, not axsactly this one, but a few pages behind some other video from this 'collection' was presented, and watching it I was sceptical right away (the 'reasons' presented in it, the 'facts/arguments' out of/for those 'reasons', just the way/principle how the video is maked and so on), but when I heard the 'argument' that the super novae are like responsible for the creating of clouds ,,, that moment I was convinced it's a hoax, and I stopped watching it. And I think I'll skip yours also.

Btw, why some of these 'documentaries' are not presented on some serious channel like Discovery Channel or somwhere else for that matter?

[Baff1 0]

If the SCIENTIFIC community is 90% sure about the greehouse effect and climate change, surely we should take action, given the catastrophic nature of the predicted results of inaction. We should change our habits anyway, the risks of not doing so are too great, even if the small chance it's not the result of CO2 emissions turns out to be true.

The scientific community is 90% behind any continued research that keeps them employed.

How many were you expecting to say, er no it's all a complete load of codswallop please cut my funding and allow me to find a nice job in MacDonalds.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

If the SCIENTIFIC community is 90% sure about the greehouse effect and climate change, surely we should take action, given the catastrophic nature of the predicted results of inaction. We should change our habits anyway, the risks of not doing so are too great, even if the small chance it's not the result of CO2 emissions turns out to be true.

The scientific community is 90% behind any continued research that keeps them employed.

How many were you expecting to say, er no it's all a complete load of codswallop please cut my funding and allow me to find a nice job in MacDonalds.

I guess that's the reason why wars make such big science & technology development promoters - scientists work by sheer necessity to keep their lives, threatened either by the enemy, or the faction they are working for...

[Journeyman 0]

Lol, of course the CO2 incriese isn't entirely man-made, but as stated several times now, it's a positive feedback system. If you produce more CO2, the sea will eventually heat up thus producing more CO2. The eco-system, probably has an enormious buffersystem, which means that we can produce much more CO2 on the planet than it's natural limit without any problems. But as we know, buffersystems tend (always) to have limits as well, and when that limit is crossed, we will be seing signifficant climate changes over a small period time which makes the planet produce more CO2 by itself and the balance is tipped over.

This means that the CO2 buffer wont function anymore, and we will be seing CO2 levels rise at an exponential rate. By then it will probably already be too late to do anything about it.

That is why we have to do something about it now.

In that case the 'CO2 buffer' has not functioned many times in our geological history either, and I quote walker:

Quote[/b] ]What caused the paleoclimactic temperature changes shown in the Vostok and Antarctic Deep Core Survey to continue to be high for tens of thousands of years after the trigger event?

This assumption that our climate has always been stable and self-levelling is probably one of the biggest misconceptions of this whole debate!  

[Average Joe 0]

Im not ignorant, but I dont care half as much as people whining about it all the time.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Lol, of course the CO2 incriese isn't entirely man-made, but as stated several times now, it's a positive feedback system. If you produce more CO2, the sea will eventually heat up thus producing more CO2. The eco-system, probably has an enormious buffersystem, which means that we can produce much more CO2 on the planet than it's natural limit without any problems. But as we know, buffersystems tend (always) to have limits as well, and when that limit is crossed, we will be seing signifficant climate changes over a small period time which makes the planet produce more CO2 by itself and the balance is tipped over.

This means that the CO2 buffer wont function anymore, and we will be seing CO2 levels rise at an exponential rate. By then it will probably already be too late to do anything about it.

That is why we have to do something about it now.

In that case the 'CO2 buffer' has not functioned many times in our geological history either, and I quote walker:

Quote[/b] ]What caused the paleoclimactic temperature changes shown in the Vostok and Antarctic Deep Core Survey to continue to be high for tens of thousands of years after the trigger event?

This assumption that our climate has always been stable and self-levelling is probably one of the biggest misconceptions of this whole debate!

Ehhhh, what?

If it wasn't self-leveling there would be no such thing as life on this planet.

Jesus Red Kite, you are killing me!

Or maybe you simply believe God is responsible for climate regulation!?

[Freshman 0]

Quote[/b] ]super novae are like responsible for the creating of clouds

This is indeed ... well.. lets say it's a controversial opinion

I totally disagree with this point but the most of the rest is pretty likely to be true. All these correlations between sunactivity and temperature on earth are right. I have tested it myself.

But when I lay the lines of CO2 and temperature over each other I could not find this cooling effect. It did more seem like there was no correlation between these two factors at all.