Forum menu
I could bang on and on about 2+2 making 79, legally, but if I waded into a debate about arithmetic with that one, I'd be considered wrong on quite a few levels.
And that would be fine.
You would be wrong, people would tell you, and you would either change your mind, or you wouldn't.
Define 'fine'
I'm sure you don't need my help to know what "fine" means. 🙄
Fine is a subjective term.
Science is all about finding truth. So if you join in a scientific debate but disregard the steps necessary to establish truth, your contributions may not be worth very much. So I would assert that it's not 'fine' to join in a scientific debate without observing the principles of science.
Science is all about finding truth.
Science is more about proving old truths are wrong. Science doesn't just stop. Luckily as it happens, or we'd all be still preparing for the imminent ice age.
Fine is a subjective term.
Science is all about finding truth. So if you join in a scientific debate but disregard the steps necessary to establish truth, your contributions may not be worth very much. So I would assert that it's not 'fine' to join in a scientific debate without observing the principles of science.
Fine.
this "scientists were telling us we the next ice age was about to descend on us" meme.
Which scientists - I've done a admittedly rather brief literature search on google scholar and not turned up much.
...or is someone just getting about confused about timescales and Milankovich-Croll cycles? (which are still running - and will soon (that's a "geological" soon....not a "human" soon) push earth into another ice age...assuming a few preconditions are met (eg cool enough for summer snow cover persistence across northern hemisphere etc).
Those preconditions themselves may of course be negated by anthropic carbon cycle short circuting.
Science is more about proving old truths are wrong. Science doesn't just stop. Luckily as it happens, or we'd all be still preparing for the imminent ice age.
Finding new truths and proving old ones wrong, yes - there's a lot of overlap.
Afaik the only reason for suggesting there was an ice age imminent, incidentally, was that they tend to happen every 100,000 years or whatever the number is (recently) and it'd been about that long since we had the last one. [b]I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.[/b]
Which scientists - I've done a admittedly rather brief literature search on google scholar and not turned up much.
No idea, I was 7.
There was a documentary on it while back.
Afaik the only reason for suggesting there was an ice age imminent, incidentally, was that they tend to happen every 100,000 years or whatever the number is (recently) and it'd been about that long since we had the last one. I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.
Yeah, that's the one.
Bloody good job we're pumping co2 into the air. An ice age would be a lot worse than a bit of warming.*
*Doctor Lovelock says the UK will be fine.
I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.
ah....see...that's called science that is
No idea, I was 7.There was a documentary on it while back.
brilliant
considered stand up comedy?
I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,
but like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it
In any case, it's the pace of change that's the problem. If/when the natural ice age comes in, it'll likely take thousands of years, allowing us to adapt.
like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it
No doubt.
I don't doubt that there's a 95% chance they're right.
In any case, it's the pace of change that's the problem. If/when the natural ice age comes in, it'll likely take thousands of years, allowing us to adapt.
No worries. We fixed that problem.
temperatures remain static for the past 15 years!
Static?
Lets have a look at the most reliable, longest set of direct instrumental data we've got, something thats pretty much beyond reproach:
[img] 
[/img]
Static?
Its only static if you cherrypick your starting year
Otherwise we're quite clearly on trend for a regression to mean
kimbers - MemberI saw the same doc as 5thelephant,
but like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
[img] 
[/img]
n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
Static?Lets have a look at the most reliable, longest set of direct instrumental data we've got, something thats pretty much beyond reproach:
careful
That's the CET - and is only valid for a small part of the planet...so you can't draw planet wide inferences from it(albeit it is the best long period observation sequence we've got)
but it is no more valid to cherry pick one small spot on the planets surface than it is for someone to cherry pick eg start and end dates of a sequence...eg why last 15 years and not 20 or 10 years
here's a better illustration showing the wider context
[img] 
[/img]
n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
There you go. The period I was in primary school.
Quite why climate change was such a big topic is a mystery but at least I was paying attention.
heres the guardian extrapolating from the IPCC data
kimbers - Memberheres the guardian extrapolating from the CET data
I don't think that's an extrapolation of the CET - they are simply stating what the likley global mean temp (not Central England Temp) will be as you get older based on a the IPCC projections.
Central England temp may not behave the same as global temp over that time period (why should it in a complex system)
sorry corrected
Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 95% sure its caused by humans! Hmmm.... will it be 90% next year?
I was going to write something a bit more intelligent about statistical interpretation, but then I realised that wasn't necessary. I can just rewrite the above:
[i]Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 5% sure its not caused by humans! [/i]
And:
Fine.
Who let the four year old in the room? Because that's about the level your 'fine' argument is at.
what level of certainty do politicians need to act on anything ...bedroom tax/Iraq WMD/parking cameras.
I'm guessing it's 110%
About climate change? Not going to happen. Not in a democracy.
Climate change may be a priority for lots of people, but it's not the highest priority. Those high priority things are the ones that will suffer if any government tries to tackle climate change.
He's right.
some bloke on radio (biz news - really early) made the point that some insurance co's were now getting shirty re downstream value of fossil fuel companies share prices and were considering selling out...as cost of cleanup weren't built into fossil fuel share prices...an interesting angle.
It may be that pressure comes from there not politicos.
I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,
Me too
I see Zulu is still mixing up energy and temperature.
Climate change may be a priority for lots of people, but it's not the highest priority. Those high priority things are the ones that will suffer if any government tries to tackle climate change.
The trouble with this argument is that by the time it becomes the highest priority, it will already be far too late
Proof of global warming scaremongering
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-computer-models-collapse/
Who let the four year old in the room? Because that's about the level your 'fine' argument is at.
You made your point, and I was agreeing with you and leaving it there. 😐
But if you want to be insulting that's your choice I suppose.
Just so you know though, it does make you look a bit of a clown.
Ummm, the scientific consensus is that human activity is leading to a warming of the atmosphere. a small minority disagree, and get ALL the press.
why? because we like to bury our heads in the sand. The planet should have cooled, but it didn't; those processes were used up maintaining the plateau in temperatures.
If you disagree, you're welcome to your opinion, but that's all that it is; your opinion. Your opinion will have no effect on the warming atmosphere and climatic effects.
Your opinion will have no effect on the warming atmosphere and climatic effects.
I can't help wondering whether the amount of hot air emitted by frothing deniers (and that's what they are, by and large, as 'skeptic' implies a strong understanding of a topic) does directly result in increased global temperatures.
And @6079smithw: if you're happy believing anything this guy writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
well, more fool you
Alex Jones, gotta love him
The only one thing we know about the Earths climate is that is isn't static. Its very dynamic. I'd like to see a temp trend over 350 million years. I suspect it would show that the Earth has been a hell of alot warmer in the past as it is now. Also the Ice Age was a new phenomenon, and largely influenced by the growth of the Himalayas, so since the Ice Age has started the global temps have been lower than they had in the past.
I'm all for changing our lifestyle to reduce our impact on the planet - that's just common sense, but this whole environmental catastrophe stuff is getting a bit tiresome. Lets accept the earths climate is dynamic and put all our efforts in accommodating it. If the sea levels are rising, then lets focus on relocating the populations that are affected. If fertile farming lands are going to become dry arid deserts then lets focus on installing irrigation systems, genetically modified crops etc.
But ultimately we need to be working out how we're going to reduce the population of the world. IF it is the case that global warming is man-made, then the rise in the worlds population over the next 20yrs and the energy and food demands that will create will completely and utterly wipe out any improvements or reductions in CO2 emissions we can possibly make over that period of time. It is impossible to halt the process and we're back to the suggestions I made earlier about accommodating the effects.
One question though - CO2 is a powerful gas and you only need a small increase in CO2 in the air we breathe before the effects of asphyxiation take hold. Also CO2 is heavier than air - there are loads of mass dinosaur fossil sites near volcanic areas where CO2 pumped out has suffocated them, so if we're pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere then why is it not sinking to ground level and suffocating us all??
so if we're pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere then why is it not sinking to ground level and suffocating us all??
If the atmosphere was perfectly static, then all things being equal, it would. But, thanks to this phenomenon knows as weather (and a whole load of complex physics), it isn't, so it doesn't.
Given the concentrations needed to asphyxiate us all, we'd have a lot to be worrying about before it gets to that level anyway.
I think we're approaching 400ppm at the moment and we'd need to be at 10,000 ppm just for us all to be feeling a bit drowsy. So, it might be best to get back to worrying about the other effects of CO2 concentration increase and forget about the risk of asphyxiation for now.
If the Climate Changers would stop burning the Denier heretics, Global Warming would stop overnight. 🙂
I'll repeat my so far unanswered question:
Can anyone point to a prediction of today's climate from 10 years ago that was correct? (from any side)
climate
10 years ago
😕
The only one thing we know about the Earths climate is that is isn't static. Its very dynamic. I'd like to see a temp trend over 350 million years. I suspect it would show that the Earth has been a hell of alot warmer in the past as it is now. Also the Ice Age was a new phenomenon, and largely influenced by the growth of the Himalayas, so since the Ice Age has started the global temps have been lower than they had in the past.
Excellent stuff, why not consider doing a degree in Earth Sciences...it will cover all that. Open University would be the way to go.
A few points to consider though - the relevance of global temperatures in deep geological time may be of little relevance to a species that has only been around for what 1-2 million years, or to a complex ordered society that has only been around for 2000years tops and is dependendant on highly temperature/precipitation constrained monoculture crops for feeding itself
The speed at which global temperatures change is usually more important than the temperatures themselves...fast global temp changes have a tendency to be associated with mass extinction events in the geological record.
Ice Ages are a fascinating topic....there's pretty good evidence (science speak for - "**** yeah they happened") for ice ages as far back as the Precambrian era....they (and there have been many) are not just a recent (whatever recent means in the context of the earths history) phenomena
One question though - CO2 is a powerful gas and you only need a small increase in CO2 in the air we breathe before the effects of asphyxiation take hold. Also CO2 is heavier than air - there are loads of mass dinosaur fossil sites near volcanic areas where CO2 pumped out has suffocated them, so if we're pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere then why is it not sinking to ground level and suffocating us all??
erm......the CO2 concentrations aren't projected to become enough to cause asphyxiation it's not an issue, and over deep geological time CO2 levels have likley been much higher than they currently are (or are projected to be in the near future).
Co2 is heavier than air, (but as mentioned above) doesn't concentrate at the ground as the atmosphere is extremely well mixed (stirred up) by the weather
there may be some occasional poisionings of wildlife (and man) from natural CO2 sources where a local concentration can temporarily build up usually these events occur in a very sheltered environment under particular weather conditions - this is extremely rare and quickly clears - see Lake Nyos as an example from 1986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Climatologicallly though these events (lake outgassings and volcanic Co2 releases) are insignificant compared with the amount of CO2 people emit driving the kids to school.
Climate change skeptics are retards. They read this kind of crap and think green taxes and any other incentive to reduce impacts on the environment are useless.
See the bigger picture! There are hundreds of other pollutants that we are pumping into our environment. Soil air and water. This effects us. Im pretty sure that there will be a few people on this forum (male) who have tits, these are the kind of effects you should be aware of. We have used almost all our resources up onthis planet. Stop being retards and see the bigger picture!
also CO2 is heavier than air - there are loads of mass dinosaur fossil sites near volcanic areas where CO2 pumped out has suffocated them,
Aha - so that explains why some dinosaurs had really long necks then!
zokes - MemberYour opinion will have no effect on the warming atmosphere and climatic effects.
I can't help wondering whether the amount of hot air emitted by frothing deniers (and that's what they are, by and large, as 'skeptic' implies a strong understanding of a topic) does directly result in increased global temperatures.
And @6079smithw: if you're happy believing anything this guy writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
well, more fool you
Climate change is a stupid phrase because that's what climates do anyway.
BTW, Alex Jones didn't write that article. It's just on his site.
In case you didn't read it, the BBC were saying how the ice caps could be non-existent by 2013. Hahahaha! And you pay £150 a year for that crap...
Like you say, the actuality of whether man-made activity is making the planet warmer is simply not a democratic process - the truth is what it is. No amount of Bilderberg/elite bank-rolled propaganda can change that.
Do you not know what 'could' means?
You apparently have no idea how science operates so you are clearly not that bright.