Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: omega3000 on 28 December 2012, 18:33:54
-
Looking quite bad out there , we normally get the snow after them ??? ...
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc41/milleblack/1930052-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
Usually the Americans deal very well with large snowfalls, so must be huge amounts.
-
slow news day
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
Lizzie, some idiots changed/played with data.. and some tried to abuse weather change.. but this doesnt mean nothing happened.. trust me I know what I'm talking about.. this temperature belongs to april or even may.. not december.. besides if some scientists spending multi millions just to stop earth heating, I would take this serious.. as far as I see seasonal temperature fluctuations are more severe to say the least.. and I wont be the one who puts the head in the sand ;D
-
12 Celcius this morning here cem :y
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
Lizzie, some idiots changed/played with data.. and some tried to abuse weather change.. but this doesnt mean nothing happened.. trust me I know what I'm talking about.. this temperature belongs to april or even may.. not december.. besides if some scientists spending multi millions just to stop earth heating, I would take this serious.. as far as I see seasonal temperature fluctuations are more severe to say the least.. and I wont be the one who puts the head in the sand ;D
I understand and agree with what you say Cem, but the Earth's climate is going through a natural change and there is nothing man can do about it. What will be will be! ;D ;D ;)
-
slow news day
Spot on. The British public like nothing more than watching X factor or the (biaised) News showing the "terrible" things happening in other English speaking places. The Foreign Correspondents have to earn their wad somehow! No news on Guatemala Fuego or how the Philipines are recovering. But then no reporters there.
-
12 Celcius this morning here cem :y
dont know too much about UK weather except my very "rare" visits.. but you live on an island which the sea currents may change temperature .. but winter in my country was always a winter before this year.. ???
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
Lizzie, some idiots changed/played with data.. and some tried to abuse weather change.. but this doesnt mean nothing happened.. trust me I know what I'm talking about.. this temperature belongs to april or even may.. not december.. besides if some scientists spending multi millions just to stop earth heating, I would take this serious.. as far as I see seasonal temperature fluctuations are more severe to say the least.. and I wont be the one who puts the head in the sand ;D
I understand and agree with what you say Cem, but the Earth's climate is going through a natural change and there is nothing man can do about it. What will be will be! ;D ;D ;)
I am not that sure Lizzie.. as far as I know there was no big explosion from sun in last months.. besides if there was magnetic anomalies it would be recorded and seen imo..
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
Lizzie, some idiots changed/played with data.. and some tried to abuse weather change.. but this doesnt mean nothing happened.. trust me I know what I'm talking about.. this temperature belongs to april or even may.. not december.. besides if some scientists spending multi millions just to stop earth heating, I would take this serious.. as far as I see seasonal temperature fluctuations are more severe to say the least.. and I wont be the one who puts the head in the sand ;D
I understand and agree with what you say Cem, but the Earth's climate is going through a natural change and there is nothing man can do about it. What will be will be! ;D ;D ;)
I am not that sure Lizzie.. as far as I know there was no big explosion from sun in last months.. besides if there was magnetic anomalies it would be recorded and seen imo..
Rip out all gas boilers and go back to burning coal....back to the good ol' days i reckon :y ;D
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
Lizzie, some idiots changed/played with data.. and some tried to abuse weather change.. but this doesnt mean nothing happened.. trust me I know what I'm talking about.. this temperature belongs to april or even may.. not december.. besides if some scientists spending multi millions just to stop earth heating, I would take this serious.. as far as I see seasonal temperature fluctuations are more severe to say the least.. and I wont be the one who puts the head in the sand ;D
I understand and agree with what you say Cem, but the Earth's climate is going through a natural change and there is nothing man can do about it. What will be will be! ;D ;D ;)
I am not that sure Lizzie.. as far as I know there was no big explosion from sun in last months.. besides if there was magnetic anomalies it would be recorded and seen imo..
Rip out all gas boilers and go back to burning coal....back to the good ol' days i reckon :y ;D
in any case natural gas wont las long.. then we will start to burn whatever we find ;D
-
The earth went through similar peak temperatures to the last peak in 2008 in 1000 and 1760. Now we are past the 2008 peak the earth is cooling again, with cooler summers and colder winters, lets hope we don't get an ice age as it will end northern civilization. ::) :o :o :o :o
Since the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 4 million years a go (it is thought their methane production, mass eating of plant material and CO2 production helped keep the earth much warmer than now with much higher CO2 levels), CO2 levels have been steadily dropping.
We entered our current ice age 2.6 million years a go and for much of the last 800,000 years the earth has been in an ice age crisis, with short 10,000 to 35,000 warm periods like we are in at the moment. The last thing we need are big drops in CO2 to make the earth cooler and the triggering of another ice age. An ice age can start i n as little as one year, as the snow and ice, reflect so much heat it quickly reinforces itself, so it takes 1000's of years to get out of. ::) :o :o :o :o
The climate change scientists who were funded by Governments to PROVE climate change, so they can keep us under their thumbs, tax us to death and pay big subsidies to members of their families (The ex PR spiv, EU lackey and Selfridges towel refolder Camoron, Clegg and Osborne's families all have their snouts in this trough), that they only consider temperatures from 1880, the end of the last cold spell, you get the hockey stick shaped temperature graph, that they like to beat us with. Unfortunately one of the world's top experts on using tree rings for climate data has gone back to 600AD and proved that our current climate's peaks and troughs are little different now to then!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/)
The biggest influences on our climate we have no control over: Sun cycles and random fluctuations, changes in the earths orbit and axis (movement of the iron core, earthquakes, continental drift and volcanoes all affect this), volcanic eruptions can also have major effect due to atmospheric clouds, asteroids and other factors, many of which I'm sure we don't know due to the short time we have been on earth, compared to the age of the earth.
The time period taken to prove climate change is like an alien measuring light hitting London for 2 minutes and concluding how it has light 24 hours a day and the human population is largely based there where they cleverly use a liquid coolant (River Thames) to keep to area cool as it is much cooler than expected from 24 hours a day sunlight. They then write a computer program that by tweeking the flow and heat capacity of the observed cooling inflow and outflow systems that are in every building (water and sewage pipes), this shows how this ecosystem works. It is at this level of knowledge that the whole global climate change politico rubbish is rammed down our throats at great expense to us. ::) :o :o :o
Anybody for another subsidised whining bird killer windmill. ::) :o :o :o :o
-
Looking quite bad out there , we normally get the snow after them ??? ...
we would normally get the snow but too warm still so we just have rain instead, but imagine if all that rain had turned into snow :o :o :o
anyway got into car at 5:30pm after work and it was 11c :o
-
today at 20 pm I saw 14 celcius ??? in Omega mid..I didnt trust and called a friend ...he said its ok.. :o
its 28 december and 14 celcius :o :o 2 weeks ago it was -5 in daytime.. if this weather is normal I'm a prophet ;D
But how do you or me really define "normal" Cem?
The Earth has gone through climatic cycles since time began (well once there was an atmosphere and the volcano's had stopped erupting with life evolving) and we are going through another change. So, yes Turkey's extreme temperature range is now normal, as it is in fact in the UK and elsewhere. We just have to live with it. ;) ;)
Lizzie, some idiots changed/played with data.. and some tried to abuse weather change.. but this doesnt mean nothing happened.. trust me I know what I'm talking about.. this temperature belongs to april or even may.. not december.. besides if some scientists spending multi millions just to stop earth heating, I would take this serious.. as far as I see seasonal temperature fluctuations are more severe to say the least.. and I wont be the one who puts the head in the sand ;D
I understand and agree with what you say Cem, but the Earth's climate is going through a natural change and there is nothing man can do about it. What will be will be! ;D ;D ;)
I am not that sure Lizzie.. as far as I know there was no big explosion from sun in last months.. besides if there was magnetic anomalies it would be recorded and seen imo..
Rip out all gas boilers and go back to burning coal....back to the good ol' days i reckon :y ;D
in any case natural gas wont las long.. then we will start to burn whatever we find ;D
India's first commercial Thorium power station goes live in 2013. A few more years of tweeking, while they build their next 5 or 6, means they will be selling the technology and building power stations all round the world where there is enough Thorium for 1000's of years at current and future energy consumption levels. Unfortunately, third world wannbe countries like the UK are unlikely to want them (against the yogurt knitting, tree huggers, religion) and UK politicians don't do contentious decisions, they just commission a report to be published after the next election. ::) :o :o :o :o
-
Cem, your post prompted me to look through some of the old UK records. When you think about it, there is no reason to suggest that UK weather is more or less consistent than the weather you experience over there. Yes, we live on an island, but it is the Atlantic systems/jetsteams that drive Europe's weather patterns, so you can bet your boots that Turkey has had just as colourful a weather history.
Here's what I trawled up:
1658/59 (winter): Possibly a very mild (and perhaps windy?) winter across England. Some reports suggest that January in particular was stormy, which would tie in with a highly zonal type, enhanced westerly jetstream and frequent cyclonic disturbances moving in off the North Atlantic.
1660 (November & December): Significant flooding is recorded in the Thames Valley on the 11th November(OS); taken together with the entry below (re: winter warmth), this implies a markedly zonal type (or high NAOI), with the associated mean jet translated far enough south to propel cyclonic disturbances across southern Britain in quick succession. [What we have this week in the UK]
Based on contemporary reports from London [Pepys], Yorkshire & Edinburgh, it seems as if the month of December 1660 was often windy/stormy; [this unsettled/zonal weather possibly extended into early January 1661, which would tie in with the remarks at note above]. In particular, around the 8th December(OSP), from late afternoon through the night, high winds caused considerable damage to thatch, windmills, trees etc., across the north of England at least.
1660/61 (winter): A mild winter - using the (early) CET record (nearest whole degC only), the average comes out at 5degC, or roughly one-and-a-quarter C above the all-series mean. Pepys mentions in late January that there had been a general lack of cold weather, and that it was 'dusty' (implying a warm & dry winter), with plants well ahead for the season.
1661/62 (early to mid winter): A mild winter (second one in a row), and to judge by some accounts (see below), a wet one too (unlike the previous winter across the southeast of Britain - it was apparently wet over north & west Britain). Using the CET record (to nearest degC only at this early stage), the DJF mean CET was 5.7degC, or roughly 2C above the all-series average.
According to Evelyn .. "there having falln so greate raine without any frost or seasonable cold ..."; suggests mild, cyclonic, wet & windy regime much of the winter until at least the middle of January (1662). Reported at the time as … "like May or June".
Then, we had oranges in Hackney (E. London): On 5th July, 1666(OS), Pepys writes: "extremely hot ... oranges ripening in the open at Hackney".
I wonder if they were all wandering around saying "This ain't normal"!
Well, if they did, they needn't have worried too much as, just 21 years later, the winter brought this:
The 15th December 1683 saw the onset of a great frost in England & central Europe: Thames frozen down to London Bridge by 2nd January 1684, with booths on the ice by 27th January and for more than a fortnight thereafter - coaches were observed on the ice and the royal court (King Charles II) visited the fair held on the frozen Thames. Other rivers across Britain were so affected, e.g., the Tees in NE England - they didn't get the attention of the Thames! Many birds perished. This great frost was claimed to be the longest on record; the Thames in London was completely frozen for about two months and the ice was reported to be 11 inches (circa 28 cm) thick. Sea ice was reported along the coasts of SE England and many harbours could not be used due to ice: according to some sources, ice formed for a time between Dover & Calais, with the two sides ' joined together '! Severe problems for shipping accessing such ports on either side of the North Sea. Near Manchester, the ground was frozen to a depth of 27 inches and in Somerset to more than 4 feet. The winter was 'incredibly severe' according to John Evelyn and a Frost Fair was held on the ice. "No vessels could stir out or come in while a thick fog occurred towards the end of January which made it difficult to see across the streets". (This latter due to warm advection no doubt, as a thaw set in over snow/ice covered surfaces).
HH Lamb has constructed a tentative mean seasonal pressure pattern with High pressure in the Faeroes area, an arctic northerly from Spitzbergen to the Baltic, thence an anticyclonic east or northeasterly over NW Europe / British Isles. See also 1739/40; 1813/14 and 1962/63.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm (http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm)
The point I'm making is that there is no "normal", merely average. The weather systems are so chaotic that anomalies logically appear with high frequency. As Lizzie rightly points out, there's nothing we can do about it and, in any event, warm is better than cold. :y
-
If one stops thinking about temperature, and considers extremes of precipitation and strength/frequency of storms instead, I wonder if the evidence for (manmade) climate change suddenly looks much more convincing.
Best regards,
Pete
I may not be posting much more, the Thames is coming to get me. ;D
-
If one stops thinking about temperature, and considers extremes of precipitation and strength/frequency of storms instead, I wonder if the evidence for (manmade) climate change suddenly looks much more convincing.
Best regards,
Pete
I may not be posting much more, the Thames is coming to get me. ;D
Not to me, at least. Take a look at the link I posted and read about the extreme weather events which have beset our country in the past. Note, also, that in days gone by there was no 24/7 reporting. We're inundated with news stories that would never have seen the light of day back then. People just got on with life. ;)
-
Nick I just want to remind one point.. checking history is ok, but we are talking about now.. there were no serious fossil fuel consumption in those times except our ancestors burning smelly horse/cow sh*t ;D but now there is a "bit" difference.. world population is many x times bigger and energy consumption and co2 release may be xxxxxx.... times more..
and I will tell you what.. this serious temperature fluctuations will kill me long before any disaster happens anyway.. I cant adaptate 20-25 celcius change in few days..
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
-
If one stops thinking about temperature, and considers extremes of precipitation and strength/frequency of storms instead, I wonder if the evidence for (manmade) climate change suddenly looks much more convincing.
Best regards,
Pete
I may not be posting much more, the Thames is coming to get me. ;D
Not to me, at least. Take a look at the link I posted and read about the extreme weather events which have beset our country in the past. Note, also, that in days gone by there was no 24/7 reporting. We're inundated with news stories that would never have seen the light of day back then. People just got on with life. ;)
I'll have a look tomorrow, cheers. (If I can rig up wifi on my ark :y)
-
if you think about it the realy cold winters used to kill all the nasty bugs off these warm winters let them thrive
thats why we get thigs like the sicnessbug norro virus all ways in winter [scuse spelling]
-
When america gets snow normally we get it 2 weeks later , the amount of rain we have got since they declared a drought here in the summer has been unreal . The week we did see the sun it was overpowering and humid , nothing like the summers of years ago when it was hot but not overpowering for weeks and weeks on end :) Cars in the uk dont need air con anymore ;D
-
..... the amount of rain we have got since .... Cars in the uk dont need air con anymore ;D
Keeps my windows condensation free ;)
-
..... the amount of rain we have got since .... Cars in the uk dont need air con anymore ;D
Keeps my windows condensation free ;)
Not mine :'( No air con means opening the rear windows to get rid of the condensation in winter .. works pretty good though :)
-
Whatever did we do before aircon?
-
Whatever did we do before aircon?
Use our hands to wind down the windows to let air in ;D
-
Iam in the KING Jeremy Clarkson thinking here
burn the tree hugging leftist do gooders and burn more fuel, aswell as use more solar panels on all these large warehouse roofs,. Windmil farms are not efficient enough,
. And yes i believe in recycling...
-
If one stops thinking about temperature, and considers extremes of precipitation and strength/frequency of storms instead, I wonder if the evidence for (manmade) climate change suddenly looks much more convincing.
Best regards,
Pete
I may not be posting much more, the Thames is coming to get me. ;D
No, like Nick states I am far from convinced that the weather is being affected by man. Extending backwards Nick's great research on 17th Century weather changes I would add the following vital information for understanding the very natural change we are experiencing with our weather.
As the historian J.M.Roberts writes in his History Of The World Pelican (1980) Page 22-23. there were four distinct ice ages, each lasting between 50,000 and a 120,000 years apiece. The last one that affected Europe was just 14,000 years ago, and now we are considered to be in a "warm Period". We know that the ice sheet for the last ice age reached what is now central London. After that the climate warmed to the extent that what we now consider African wild life roamed at least southern England, with grapes, oranges, and other fruits of warmer climates growing readily.
We fast forward now to a later age when climatic change was causing real concern, in the 13th and 14th centuries. Prestwich, M. in his book Plantagenet England Clarendon Press (2005) Page 4 and 6. writes of the chronicles that record "England appears to have been prone to very variable and sometimes extreme weather conditions". In the 1250s the St.Albans chronicler Matthew Paris noted each year "brought problems".
In May 1251 a violent thunderstorm brought down 35 oaks in Windsor Forest.
January 1252 brought a severe gale that "did much damage".
From April until July 1252 there was a severe drought, followed by a further drought in the Spring and Summer of 1253.
Then there was a period of heavy rains during the Autumn with floods.
In 1254 a "severe frost" began on the 1st January and "did not end" until 12th March.
During the Summer of 1254 there were continuous strong winds for three months.
1255 saw a drought in April.
1256 witnessed a "severe storm" in June "did much damage".
The year 1257 began with floods and from February until May the weather "was very bad".
It was noted as of significance that in 1258 there was "severe cold" from February through to March.
If you are wondering about the evidence of the effects of this weather, well it was recorded the harvest had been "severely damaged", with grain and fodder in short supply. People were forced to sell their flocks and to leave the land uncultivated. The famine caused "many deaths", with corpses being so numerous they had to be thrown into common pits.
Hard winters were notable at this time, with one chronicler stating particularly that in 1280 there was a hard frost and lying snow for 7 weeks up to the 12th March. He expressed the interesting and revealing statement "No one could remember such weather".
In 1283 wind and rain for two nights and one day in Lincolnshire "caused many animal deaths" , with extensive flooding after sea defences were breached.
The pattern followed into the 14th century, with the Thames freezing over in the winter of 1309-10. Appalling weather in 1315 and 1316 was recorded by many chroniclers, with constant rain. This is recorded as being by far the most serious climatic episode , with the rains of "unprecedented" proportion. Wide spread flooding of low lying areas was not the only problem, as fields "everywhere were turned to mud and topsoil was washed away". The whole of the late Middle Age period was noted as a period of "climatic deterioration" with lower temperatures and higher rainfall than in the 13th century and earlier. One result of this recorded was the abandonment of cultivation in areas such as Dartmoor, where settlements had been abandoned by 1350. Of course the affects on agriculture were far greater then, and thus numerous poor harvests led to severe suffering for the population of England. Harvests fell by as much as 64% on the yield of 1315.
In summary, after yet another long post by me which I apologise for, you will hopefully understand that severe climatic change is not unusual and completely natural. The early period of English history that I have roughly covered (I could write a book on it!) added to Nick's excellent summary of later climatic events, hopefully outlines what has happened, and may well indicate what will transpire next with the World's / UK's weather. In short it will never stay the same, and will challenge mankind for decades / millenium to come. What man does has nothing to do with it! ;)
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950? Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950. How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?
In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted. Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart? What caused the high C02 then?
You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view. NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.
So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man ;)
-
I remain unconvinced by any of these arguments. We just have not been gathering accurate evidence for long enough. Rods2's analogy was perfect.
Don't forget that it was only 10,000 years ago that Britain was in an Ice Age.
However I do subscribe to the theory/statement that man is having a disastrous effect on the climate. In David Attenboroughs lifetime the population of the planet has TRIPLED. Imagine how much heat , body gasses and exhalations three times as many people in your sitting room as yesterday would have on your well being, now throw in a new car every few weeks. The problem is that the effects and necessary measures to counter mans exponential influence on the planet are not being well thought out. Instead you have knee jerk reactions propagated by vested interests.
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950? Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950. How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?
In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted. Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart? What caused the high C02 then?
You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view. NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.
So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man ;)
Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph! its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 .. and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum for all those long years..
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing.. but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone.. ;D
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..
-
please check those links..
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html (http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071)
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950? Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950. How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?
In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted. Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart? What caused the high C02 then?
You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view. NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.
So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man ;)
Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph! its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 .. and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum for all those long years..
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing.. but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone.. ;D
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..
The point I was trying to make Cem, is each of those segments of the graph is calculated at 50,000 years. In the segment which is meant to show "0" (1950) to 50,000 years it is compressed, so that the rate of C02 climb from what should be, if it can be believed, 48,000 years is virtually alongside the "0". That compression means the rate of climb has been exaggerated to produce an almost vertical rise! If you were to place "0" in the correct place, i.e. 50,000 years back from the previous 50k segment you would have a climb steadily rising from that time, 48,000 from it's lowest point, through to say 1,000 years and thus see an amount of CO2 at a so called high point well before man could have had impact on that figure. The CO2 rate may still climb further to 1950, but I suggest not that far off from the 1,000 year figure, so would show no where near the dramatic (inflated??) climb NASA would have you believe. They frankly have manipulated the chart. ;) ;)
-
please check those links..
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html (http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071)
Yes, exactly Cem. Those statistics indicate the Earth is warming - no arguments - but that is a natural phenomenon repeated over the centuries / millenium with constant climatic change as I and Nick have demonstrated in our historical data. You will also note that there is argument among scientists about the exaggeration going on about what their data really means.
-
I remain unconvinced by any of these arguments. We just have not been gathering accurate evidence for long enough. Rods2's analogy was perfect.
Don't forget that it was only 10,000 years ago that Britain was in an Ice Age.
However I do subscribe to the theory/statement that man is having a disastrous effect on the climate. In David Attenboroughs lifetime the population of the planet has TRIPLED. Imagine how much heat , body gasses and exhalations three times as many people in your sitting room as yesterday would have on your well being, now throw in a new car every few weeks. The problem is that the effects and necessary measures to counter mans exponential influence on the planet are not being well thought out. Instead you have knee jerk reactions propagated by vested interests.
Yes, sorry Rods2 I did not intend to ignore your excellent summary, but got rather caught up in discussing historical milestones with our climate after Nickbat's great piece.
However, noting one piece of your post:
"Since the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 4 million years a go (it is thought their methane production, mass eating of plant material and CO2 production helped keep the earth much warmer than now with much higher CO2 levels), CO2 levels have been steadily dropping.
We entered our current ice age 2.6 million years a go and for much of the last 800,000 years the earth has been in an ice age crisis, with short 10,000 to 35,000 warm periods like we are in at the moment. The last thing we need are big drops in CO2 to make the earth cooler and the triggering of another ice age. An ice age can start i n as little as one year, as the snow and ice, reflect so much heat it quickly reinforces itself, so it takes 1000's of years to get out of."
First the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, at a time considered likely that an asteroid hit the earth, and was well before mankind's existence.
Secondly historians consider that there have been four distinct Ice Ages, each lasting between 50 to 120,000 years. The last one it is reckoned ended about 14,000 years ago (J.M.Roberts History Of The World Pelican (1980). Since then we have been in a "warm period", but in historical terms been quite regularly entering periods of extreme climatic change with dramatic weather conditions. (Please see my summary post #29 for full details: http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=110503.15#lastPost
;) :y
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950? Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950. How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?
In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted. Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart? What caused the high C02 then?
You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view. NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.
So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man ;)
Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph! its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 .. and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum for all those long years..
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing.. but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone.. ;D
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..
The point I was trying to make Cem, is each of those segments of the graph is calculated at 50,000 years. In the segment which is meant to show "0" (1950) to 50,000 years it is compressed, so that the rate of C02 climb from what should be, if it can be believed, 48,000 years is virtually alongside the "0". That compression means the rate of climb has been exaggerated to produce an almost vertical rise! If you were to place "0" in the correct place, i.e. 50,000 years back from the previous 50k segment you would have a climb steadily rising from that time, 48,000 from it's lowest point, through to say 1,000 years and thus see an amount of CO2 at a so called high point well before man could have had impact on that figure. The CO2 rate may still climb further to 1950, but I suggest not that far off from the 1,000 year figure, so would show no where near the dramatic (inflated??) climb NASA would have you believe. They frankly have manipulated the chart. ;) ;)
No.. you may search for some mistake ;D but the rise is obvious at the last part of 25K year interval because the value shows 390 ppm which you cant ignore ;)
-
please check those links..
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html (http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071)
Yes, exactly Cem. Those statistics indicate the Earth is warming - no arguments - but that is a natural phenomenon repeated over the centuries / millenium with constant climatic change as I and Nick have demonstrated in our historical data. You will also note that there is argument among scientists about the exaggeration going on about what their data really means.
No.. as NASA graph shows it goes beyond natural maximum.. :y
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
The only problem is Cem that, can anyone explain why C02 levels were heading towards, and at one time, virtually on, 300 parts per million in 320, 220, and 105,000 years since 1950? Also the graph appears to have an error; "0" in my reading of the chart should be 25,000 years ago, and not 1950. How does 1950 truly match the high reading in the graph?
In addition I would refer to my previous post about climatic changes throughout history with extremes noted. Why should the 'apparent' high C02 level not be a natural occurrence as in previous, pre-industrial revolution, periods noted by the chart? What caused the high C02 then?
You can also refer to data and statistics to paint the picture you want, to explain your own point of view. NASA is a government backed authority with it's own political pressures, lacking independence. There are others out there who do not believe those figures, and I must confess I am one of them.
So sorry Cem, but as I stated before, World climatic change has, and will, continue to happen without any action by man ;)
Lizzie, nothing wrong with the graph! its fluctuatiing between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for all those years normally..
0 time is a reference which is year 1950 .. and from that point CO2 value goes up beyond its maximum for all those long years..
and if you scroll the page other evidences are listed.. I can also share independant scientists views that say the same thing.. but unfortunately they dont share the same politicial views with you..
and as for NASA.. they may be a govt organization but they have lots of brilliant man and woman scientists who dont owe a lie to anyone.. ;D
I must add that, mankinds effecting this planet can not be ignored anymore.. its the rich classes who own and earn from those factories, industries who wants us to believe that they dont effect anything.. but NASA and many scientists is not in that ship.. besides, USA didnt sign any international conference agreement on that subject..
The point I was trying to make Cem, is each of those segments of the graph is calculated at 50,000 years. In the segment which is meant to show "0" (1950) to 50,000 years it is compressed, so that the rate of C02 climb from what should be, if it can be believed, 48,000 years is virtually alongside the "0". That compression means the rate of climb has been exaggerated to produce an almost vertical rise! If you were to place "0" in the correct place, i.e. 50,000 years back from the previous 50k segment you would have a climb steadily rising from that time, 48,000 from it's lowest point, through to say 1,000 years and thus see an amount of CO2 at a so called high point well before man could have had impact on that figure. The CO2 rate may still climb further to 1950, but I suggest not that far off from the 1,000 year figure, so would show no where near the dramatic (inflated??) climb NASA would have you believe. They frankly have manipulated the chart. ;) ;)
No.. you may search for some mistake ;D but the rise is obvious at the last part of 25K year interval because the value [highlight]shows 390 ppm [/highlight]which you cant ignore ;)
;
Ok Cem so if I accept that in 1950 (62 years ago) the C02 measurement reached that 390 per million after, they state. the start of the Industrial Revolution, how did it reach between 290 to 300 ppm tens of thousands of years before the IR? Let's face it it is only a difference of, at best, 90 parts per million; what is that in real terms? I suggest not enough to cause great panic, when apparently naturally three times the earth had reached the 290-300 ppm every 100,000 years approx. Why should a fourth large rise, once again after around 100,000 years ( note the pattern there!) to around the 300 ppm mark be such a surprise, if not to exaggerate the C02 situation without any reference to earlier large rises before human activity.
As you can tell Cem, sorry but I am unconvinced. :) :) ;)
-
Lizzie , here is a link
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=29448.570 (http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=29448.570)
and I think I cant convince you even if I post 39 pages ;D
-
Sitting here in a vest top , its bloody roasting here ;D
-
....................and as an additional point, Before 1950, the time of the high C02 rise, in 1947/48 Britain had an Arctic winter for months with the Thames freezing over. Then again in 1963/64 another Arctic winter hit the whole country.
So why if the C02 rates were so high in 1950, and obviously cause concern now, did Britain experience the worst winters since around 1715?
I would also be more impressed if the "latest" C02 readings could be of a far later date than in 1950. What does that tell us now? ??? ??? ??? ;)
-
Lizzie , here is a link
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=29448.570 (http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=29448.570)
and I think I cant convince you even if I post 39 pages ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
No, you never will Cem! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
The missus is flying mostly to LA this month so no harm there but the plane she flies out of comes in from DC. They called her at 5am this morning to tell her is was delayed and thus she had 50 minutes more to sleep.....rather idiots!
-
The missus is flying mostly to LA this month so no harm there but the plane she flies out of comes in from DC. They called her at 5am this morning to tell her is was delayed and thus she had 50 minutes more to sleep.....rather idiots!
Yep, that is the real affect on humans of climatic change by natural means! ;)
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/)
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/)
I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. ;D
minorities ;D
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/)
I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. ;D
minorities ;D
That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/)
I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. ;D
minorities ;D
That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.
mistake ;D problem is some people ignore scientic evidences and they go after what their political beliefs tell them.. I bet you have to wait looong time to see its false ;D
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/)
I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. ;D
minorities ;D
That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.
mistake ;D problem is some people ignore scientic evidences and they go after what their political beliefs tell them.. I bet you have to wait looong time to see its false ;D
Rubbish. Pure and simple. I tell you again that this is NOT about politics, even though you would want it to be so. It is about science and the quest for quantifiable evidence, not the anti-capitalist, anti-US, anti-humanity theories you espouse.
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Nick I think you will accept this organization as serious!
ehem..
It would appear that Nasa does not speak with one voice.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/)
I bet those people have the same political view same with you and Lizzie.. ;D
minorities ;D
That's where you make the mistake, Cem. It's NOT about politics, it's about science. Every scientific theory demands scepticism. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable and the theory that CO2 causes warming is not yet falsifiable. Correlation is NOT proof of causation.
mistake ;D problem is some people ignore scientic evidences and they go after what their political beliefs tell them.. I bet you have to wait looong time to see its false ;D
Rubbish. Pure and simple. I tell you again that this is NOT about politics, even though you would want it to be so.
It is about science correct!
and the quest for quantifiable evidence correct! and the measurable data those organizations collect proove there is warming above natural
, not the anti-capitalist anti capitalist , yes
, anti-US no , nothing to do with anti-US.. there are rights and wrongs.. and I'll criticise whatever I see wrong..
, anti-humanity theories you espouse. now thats rubbish!
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
all being rightwings crap.. carrying more water to capitalist bankers/=*nk*rs ;D they will stop only when earth will be completely damaged and no one can breathe!
I never simply accept anything until it is proven.
NASA put the evidence in your eyes what you want extra!
I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.
May be you also dont believe they landed on moon ;D
-
and one more point, what surprises me is ,
while a handful of greedy blood suckers destroy earth , human kinds future, abuse all workers
for more money,
you are defending them, ignoring evidences and burrying the head in sand..
well , go on.. :y
-
you two need to get a room ;D ;D ;D
-
and one more point, what surprises me is ,
while a handful of greedy blood suckers destroy earth , human kinds future, abuse all workers
for more money,
you are defending them, ignoring evidences and burrying the head in sand..
well , go on.. :y
Methinks it is the other way round. One day, you will be surprised to learn that it is you who is inadvertently defending the blood suckers.
-
and one more point, what surprises me is ,
while a handful of greedy blood suckers destroy earth , human kinds future, abuse all workers
for more money,
you are defending them, ignoring evidences and burrying the head in sand..
well , go on.. :y
Methinks it is the other way round. One day, you will be surprised to learn that it is you who is inadvertently defending the blood suckers.
here you go then..
"The U.S. signed the Protocol, but did not ratify it. Before the Protocol was agreed on, the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd-Hagel_Resolution) unanimously preventing ratification of any international agreement that 1) did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 2) “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”.[99] Therefore, even though the Clinton administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_administration) signed the treaty,[100] it remained only a symbolic act and was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.
When George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senator) Hagel what his administration's position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously,"[101] but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty, because "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy".[102] Almost all world leaders (e.g., China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific islands) expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision not to support the treaty.[103]
The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990, and without US ratification, only an EU+Russia+Japan+small party coalition could place the treaty into legal effect. A deal was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[104]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)
and from bbc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/kyoto.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/kyoto.shtml)
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence". My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence. It is flawed.
1. That last 50,000 years of the graph is compressed to exaggerate NASA's argument. It goes from 50,000 years ago to 1950 in one quick compressed leap. The graph showing C02 parts per million if read correctly shows it leap to a high about 1,000 year ago before man could have had any affect.
2. The "evidence" produced by NASA themselves in this graph shows three distinct peaks of C02 near on 300 ppm every 100,000 years, with the latest fourth peak about 100 thousand years after the last one.
3. The last peak is in 1950 - why is nothing shown for a more recent date? That is not empirical, comprehensive evidence.
4. Nick's link to Business Insider has the revealing paragraph:
"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question."
5. So why should we believe a graph that produces more questions than answers, when NASA's own stance on how to read the graph and the understanding of it, when so many from the NASA fold appear to be questioning how that organisation is "neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory [of C02 and it's true effects] into question"?
6. If I produced work at Canterbury Christ Church university that ignored empirical evidence I would receive a definite "fail" mark. So why grant so much creditability to NASA for their work?
7. I, and I am sure Nick, is not backing the capitalist system. I for one am a strong critic of that system when necessary. No as Nick states it is about science and the correct evaluation of ALL available evidence. So far NASA, and all others, have failed to convince me of their argument about C02, and especially when it seems to contradict their beliefs! Put simply man was not able to affect the C02 levels when previous peaks were recorded at 100,000 year intervals, and even the latest peak is doubtful if the true timing of it STARTING is taken into account, but due to a dodgy graph segment the casual observer could miss what I believe is a manipulation by a party who want to prove their argument at any cost.
8. Give me a graph, properly laid out, with a reading for the year 2000 approx., and an explanation as to how previous peaks of C02 occurred and then I may start to listen to NASA's argument.
:y :y :y :y :y :y
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence". My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence. It is flawed.
Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph ;D please think twice.. :y
-
As for the snow storms in America, and all the "extreme" weather elsewhere, it is not unusual if you review all the evidence produced over hundreds of years of history. :y :y :y
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence". My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence. It is flawed.
1. That last 50,000 years of the graph is compressed to exaggerate NASA's argument. It goes from 50,000 years ago to 1950 in one quick compressed leap. The graph showing C02 parts per million if read correctly shows it leap to a high about 1,000 year ago before man could have had any affect.
2. The "evidence" produced by NASA themselves in this graph shows three distinct peaks of C02 near on 300 ppm every 100,000 years, with the latest fourth peak about 100 thousand years after the last one.
3. The last peak is in 1950 - why is nothing shown for a more recent date? That is not empirical, comprehensive evidence.
4. Nick's link to Business Insider has the revealing paragraph:
"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question."
5. So why should we believe a graph that produces more questions than answers, when NASA's own stance on how to read the graph and the understanding of it, when so many from the NASA fold appear to be questioning how that organisation is "neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory [of C02 and it's true effects] into question"?
6. If I produced work at Canterbury Christ Church university that ignored empirical evidence I would receive a definite "fail" mark. So why grant so much creditability to NASA for their work?
7. I, and I am sure Nick, is not backing the capitalist system. I for one am a strong critic of that system when necessary. No as Nick states it is about science and the correct evaluation of ALL available evidence. So far NASA, and all others, have failed to convince me of their argument about C02, and especially when it seems to contradict their beliefs! Put simply man was not able to affect the C02 levels when previous peaks were recorded at 100,000 year intervals, and even the latest peak is doubtful if the true timing of it STARTING is taken into account, but due to a dodgy graph segment the casual observer could miss what I believe is a manipulation by a party who want to prove their argument at any cost.
8. Give me a graph, properly laid out, with a reading for the year 2000 approx., and an explanation as to how previous peaks of C02 occurred and then I may start to listen to NASA's argument.
:y :y :y :y :y :y
Yes. I think I agree, in the main, with what Lizzie says.
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence". My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence. It is flawed.
Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph ;D please think twice.. :y
Only if you can answer my questions about it in full Cem :y :y :y ;)
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence". My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence. It is flawed.
Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph ;D please think twice.. :y
Only if you can answer my questions about it in full Cem :y :y :y ;)
Lizzie, look at the link about Kyoto protocol.. where too many countries have already signed and have spent big budgets because someone lied to them with a flawed theory ;D just multiply the number scientists per country .. and all of them stupid ??? ::)
-
question is there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?
Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.
I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.
The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? ;) ;D ;D
Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence". My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence. It is flawed.
Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph ;D please think twice.. :y
Only if you can answer my questions about it in full Cem :y :y :y ;)
Lizzie, look at the link about Kyoto protocol.. where too many countries have already signed and have spent big budgets because someone lied to them with a flawed theory ;D just multiply the number scientists per country .. and all of them stupid ??? ::)
The "Emperors Clothes" comes to mind, with a large chunk of countries and their politicians who have been politically "persuaded" to go along with the rest, especially by the USA and Europe, based on what? Politically manipulated figures and theories, and them wishing to be part of the crowd?
Frankly I do not care how many countries and people try to transmit the C02 argument, as I need empirical evidence, as I do for historical matters, to understand the worth of the "Facts". In history many have been "persuaded" to support what was inherently wrong and later proved to be so. I will not make that mistake, even if millions of others follow like sheep!
Sorry Cem, still not convinced! ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
you dont like Nasa graph.. here you go Lizzie
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html)
-
and here is a page for skeptics ;D
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ (http://grist.org/series/skeptics/)
‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is By Coby Beck (http://grist.org/author/coby-beck/) (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (http://grist.org/skeptics) guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
- NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
- CRU direct surface temperature analysis (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
- Satellite Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements)
- Radiosondes (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html)
- Borehole analysis (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html)
- Glacial melt observations (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html)
- Sea ice melt (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html)
- Sea level rise (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)
- Proxy Reconstructions (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html)
- Permafrost melt (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500)
-
you dont like Nasa graph.. here you go Lizzie
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cem, that graph just shows temperature change over 145 years approx., with no more than the fluctuations that have been apparent over thousands of years. That graph is taking a small snapshot on a limited window in time. It starts about 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, but the chart shows a steady average rate until 1940 of all years, when we had the Summer of the Battle of Britain when the country experienced hot weather. But of course this graph is for the World as a whole, not Britain, so what do those reading really represent?
Oh, before you answer that read the script (disclaimer!!) at the side of the graph:
"These data have been analyzed by scientists to show a 0.5 degrees C increase in global temperatures. However, this finding is under dispute because some claim that the amount of error in the data is too large to justify the conclusion."
ERROR then; another set of dodgy figures trying to justify an argument! ;)
-
and here is a page for skeptics ;D
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ (http://grist.org/series/skeptics/)
‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is By Coby Beck (http://grist.org/author/coby-beck/) (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (http://grist.org/skeptics) guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
- NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
- CRU direct surface temperature analysis (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
- Satellite Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements)
- Radiosondes (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html)
- Borehole analysis (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html)
- Glacial melt observations (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html)
- Sea ice melt (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html)
- Sea level rise (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)
- Proxy Reconstructions (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html)
- Permafrost melt (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500)
Lizzie, please spend some time on the link I provide :y
-
and here is a page for skeptics ;D
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ (http://grist.org/series/skeptics/)
‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is By Coby Beck (http://grist.org/author/coby-beck/) (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (http://grist.org/skeptics) guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
- NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
- CRU direct surface temperature analysis (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
- Satellite Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements)
- Radiosondes (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html)
- Borehole analysis (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html)
- Glacial melt observations (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html)
- Sea ice melt (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html)
- Sea level rise (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)
- Proxy Reconstructions (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html)
- Permafrost melt (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500)
I appreciate all that data Cem :y :y
But, what is the bottom line conclusion? The Earth is warming. Ok, it has warmed, then cooled, then warmed, and cooled, over numerous millenium when man was not in a position to influence the temperatures, and probably still is not in the context of our massive Earth hurtling through the universe. Earth warming is obviously the empirical evidence of certain scientist to justify their conclusions. Fair enough, but it does not convince me. It still does not explain historical peaks in C02 or temperature. Just 0.5, or at most, 1 degree to 2012 according to scientists. Is that not what the Earth has witnessed before after the Ice Ages? ;)
-
and here is a page for skeptics ;D
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ (http://grist.org/series/skeptics/)
‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is By Coby Beck (http://grist.org/author/coby-beck/) (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (http://grist.org/skeptics) guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
- NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
- CRU direct surface temperature analysis (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
- Satellite Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements)
- Radiosondes (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html)
- Borehole analysis (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html)
- Glacial melt observations (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html)
- Sea ice melt (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html)
- Sea level rise (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)
- Proxy Reconstructions (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html)
- Permafrost melt (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500)
Lizzie, please spend some time on the link I provide :y
Ok Cem, I have spent some time going through the data you provided via the various links. You have been busy on this subject! ;D ;D :y
Thank you for that and of course I do note the continual theme of Global Warming being evident throughout. IT is convincing stuff if you ignore other arguments, but obviously you support the Warming message, and I respect that. :y :y
However, none of these charts really shows the World history on climatic change that we know from historical evidence did transpire. Yes, ok man MUST have some effect on the Earth just by having 7 billion of us living as we do. But the Earth will always adapt to whatever effect man has, and that is the big question; what effect can even 7 billion have on one giant planet with vast areas of desolation, plus the oceans?
All I see in all the graphs and other "scientific data" is a panic about the short term warming of the Earth's weather, and rising C02 levels. But zoom out of all that, and see the wider picture over the world's history, and you see no surprises, as with those three, or even four, previous peaks of C02 over hundreds of thousands of years. The Earth is always changing; as indeed everything is in the Universe. Nothing stays the same. Even the mountains we see today will be gone in time to come. The Earth is adapting to not only human activity, but to nature itself and forces we will only one day understand.
If the climate change argument is right, and action is being taken now on that one (with all of us paying for the privilege in $'s, £'s, or whatever your currency) will produce the results some scientist seek.
However, with the critics, such as me, of the argument of climatic change, we are waiting for clear indisputable evidence that all, or at least the vast majority, of scientists support. That evidence must take into account even the facts that counter their argument as much as that for it. The anomalies need to be explained, and flawed information should not be released.
Whatever happens the truth will out, and God's children will continue to inhabit the Earth. ;)
-
Apparently they are going to create a man made black hole , scientists and math magicians are claiming it will be the ultimate killing of mankind where the black hole will blow the earth up from the inside out to oblivion :-\
Happy New Year ;D
-
and here is a page for skeptics ;D
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ (http://grist.org/series/skeptics/)
‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is By Coby Beck (http://grist.org/author/coby-beck/) (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (http://grist.org/skeptics) guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
- NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
- CRU direct surface temperature analysis (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
- Satellite Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements)
- Radiosondes (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html)
- Borehole analysis (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html)
- Glacial melt observations (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html)
- Sea ice melt (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html)
- Sea level rise (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)
- Proxy Reconstructions (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html)
- Permafrost melt (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500)
Lizzie, please spend some time on the link I provide :y
Ok Cem, I have spent some time going through the data you provided via the various links. You have been busy on this subject! ;D ;D :y
Thank you for that and of course I do note the continual theme of Global Warming being evident throughout. IT is convincing stuff if you ignore other arguments, but obviously you support the Warming message, and I respect that. :y :y
However, none of these charts really shows the World history on climatic change that we know from historical evidence did transpire. Yes, ok man MUST have some effect on the Earth just by having 7 billion of us living as we do.
problem is not this 7 billion.. if they were living in ancient times technology.. the industries and the transportation release high amount of CO2 , methane and other gases..
But the Earth will always adapt to whatever effect man has, and that is the big question; what effect can even 7 billion have on one giant planet with vast areas of desolation, plus the oceans?
this is what we are Lizzie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwtADH2t2vA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwtADH2t2vA)
All I see in all the graphs and other "scientific data" is a panic about the short term warming of the Earth's weather, and rising C02 levels. But zoom out of all that, and see the wider picture over the world's history, and you see no surprises, as with those three, or even four, previous peaks of C02 over hundreds of thousands of years. The Earth is always changing; as indeed everything is in the Universe. Nothing stays the same. Even the mountains we see today will be gone in time to come. The Earth is adapting to not only human activity, but to nature itself and forces we will only one day understand.
If the climate change argument is right, and action is being taken now on that one (with all of us paying for the privilege in $'s, £'s, or whatever your currency) will produce the results some scientist seek.
However, with the critics, such as me, of the argument of climatic change, we are waiting for clear indisputable evidence that all, or at least the vast majority, of scientists support. That evidence must take into account even the facts that counter their argument as much as that for it. The anomalies need to be explained, and flawed information should not be released.
Whatever happens the truth will out, and God's children will continue to inhabit the Earth. ;)
scientists have already determined that this global warming debate will take long time which earth dont have this luxury.. o they developed those projects.. and I'm afraid if those projects fail, even we may see the catastrophic results together and gods children will have no place to live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300o0RbUSf4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300o0RbUSf4)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVwLrAavyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVwLrAavyA)
its a long video please check those
8:28
14:17
23:18
23:50
24:28 effects are irreversible!
a shorter one with an explanation of graph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pYA_wvpT80&playnext=1&list=PL4009DDC72ABDE042&feature=results_main (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pYA_wvpT80&playnext=1&list=PL4009DDC72ABDE042&feature=results_main)
and NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROZJmX73FF4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROZJmX73FF4)
-
The Environmentalists lobby their cause to raise money with which to line their own pockects using tax breaks and incentives to further their goal. This is simply to make themselves richer.
Governments are quite happy to feed this approach to the population as a whole for a variety of reasons:
1. The more expensive 'green' products we buy, the more VAT the government earns.
2. The more demand for 'green' products, the more people are employed in designing/producing/selling/installing and maintaining these products, the more income tax revenue the government earns.
3. The more we are forcefed dubious climate claims, the guiltier we feel. This allows taxes to be increased on things such as fuel and food, as their production and use are 'un green'. It also conspires us to force ourselves to spend more money on 'green' products and services. The net result of this is that the government earns yet more revenue.
Anyone spot a pattern yet?
Climate change has happened, is happening and will continue to happen whether we buy into it or not. Time and time again, playing with nature only bites us on the yaris. Everytime we try to influence the natural world, nature always compensates. Better off letting it take its course and adapting our way of life to the changes as they occur :y
As for snow storms... Bring them on :y much prefer -5, clear skies and snow on the ground than +10 and grey drizzly crap :y
-
The key question is how an increase in a non-toxic gas (which is actually essential for life on earth) in the atmosphere, from .00035% to .00039%, is supposed to affect the jetstreams and ocean currents. And of course that gas has been at far higher concentrations in the past. The latest data shows that there is now an increase in average global temperature which is below even the best IPCC projections. How can that possibly be so, if CO2 is supposedly the great demon? Of course, it may not be any such thing, but there is so much money tied up in it all now, facts are disregarded.
Incidentally, Cem, this is the sort of video you should spend your time watching. REAL, yes real, scientists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ) :y :y
-
From what I remember of A level Geography:
Jetstream over the North Atlantic is further south that it has been traditionally, having been influenced by several significant weather systems in recent years. It has settled in its current track, and will take a series of further significant weather systems to push it north again.
Whether these weather systems are caused by man or not is anyones guess, (just don't pay for it). The Environment is a fluid machine with several variable influences, all balanced. Change one little detail, and the whole system adapts automatically. Interfere with it and expect it to change.
Interfering by guess work and assumption is alot more dangerous than letting the system regulate itself.
-
The key question is how an increase in a non-toxic gas (which is actually essential for life on earth) in the atmosphere, from .00035% to .00039%, is supposed to affect the jetstreams and ocean currents. And of course that gas has been at far higher concentrations in the past. The latest data shows that there is now an increase in average global temperature which is below even the best IPCC projections. How can that possibly be so, if CO2 is supposedly the great demon? Of course, it may not be any such thing, but there is so much money tied up in it all now, facts are disregarded.
Incidentally, Cem, this is the sort of video you should spend your time watching. REAL, yes real, scientists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ) :y :y
‘What about mid-century cooling?’–No one said CO2 is the only climate influence By Coby Beck (http://grist.org/author/coby-beck/) (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic (http://grist.org/skeptics) guide)
Objection: There was global cooling in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.
Answer: None of the advocates (http://grist.org/story/article/there-is-no-consensus) of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady — nor would it be expected to be.
(http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/giss_2005.gif)
If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/), you’ll notice a sharp drop in ’92, ’93, and ’94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo) eruption. That doesn’t mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing.
The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the ’40s and ’50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the ’60s and ’70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over. Below, courtesy of Global Warming Art (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png), is an image of the current understanding of the factors and their influence for the climate of the past century.
(http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/20th_attribution.png)
As the graph shows, in addition to aerosol pollution (the sulphate line), volcanic influences were increasingly negative during the period of global cooling, and solar forcing slightly declined. All forcings taken together and run through the model are a very good match for the observations. (Please see the source page (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png) for details of what model and what study this image is derived from.)
Rather than confounding the climate consensus, mid-century cooling is actually a good test for the climate models, one they are passing quite convincingly.
Addendum: The opposing effect of cooling from airborne pollutants is often referred to as “Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming)“, and Real Climate has a couple of articles on it:
- Global Dimming? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105)
- Global Dimming II (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110)
One emerging concern is that as the pollution causing this effect is gradually cleaned up, we may see even greater greenhouse gas warming.
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
-
Nice try Cem :y still a billion years light though ;)
The climate is as old as the planet and you simply cannot guess what it will do next based on propeganda.
Imagine a warehouse with every surface covered by electrical sockets which switched on truly randomly one at a time, and a kettle plugged into one of them.
Would you assume that that particular socket worked just because the kettle was plugged into it and happened to boil water at the precise moment you turned it on.
Without knowing which socket was working before, and which one will work next, all you can say for certain is that, at that given moment that one socket was working.
You would just fire up a generator and plug the kettle into that. ;)
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect. You, or no one else can so far answer my queries.
Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case. ;)
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect. You, or no one else can so far answer my queries.
Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case. ;)
I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time ;D and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least.. ;D
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as linears..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one ;D trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it.. :y
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect. You, or no one else can so far answer my queries.
Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case. ;)
I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time ;D and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least.. ;D
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one ;D trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it.. :y
Stop swearing at me Cem! :o :o :o Logarithms! I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels! ;D ;D ;)
Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument ;D ;D ;)
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect. You, or no one else can so far answer my queries.
Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case. ;)
I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time ;D and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least.. ;D
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one ;D trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it.. :y
Stop swearing at me Cem! :o :o :o Logarithms! I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels! ;D ;D ;)
Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument ;D ;D ;)
Lizzie, that may be valid sor some particular cases.. but for NASA no.. remember, comrades are also watching their data and they wont excuse any mistake ;D
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect. You, or no one else can so far answer my queries.
Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case. ;)
I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time ;D and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least.. ;D
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one ;D trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it.. :y
Stop swearing at me Cem! :o :o :o Logarithms! I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels! ;D ;D ;)
Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument ;D ;D ;)
Lizzie, that may be valid sor some particular cases.. but for NASA no.. remember, comrades are also watching their data and they wont excuse any mistake ;D
So what about the 49 who have questioned NASA's case then? ??? ??? ;)
-
This is all Nick's fault. Again.
-
The problem is Cem, that all the data to which you refer is no more than a hundred and fifty years old, a mere gnats fart in the context of a billion year old planet.
Being this far out of context makes it irrelevant. Trying to understand climatic evolution using such a limited window of understanding is, quite simply pissing in the wind.
To predict change one needs to have a reasonable idea of the original composition of the atmosphere, and also a knowledge of every atmospherically influencing event since the dawn of time. Only then could we even begin to hazard a guess as to what might happen next. This would still be a guess.
But seeing how this depth of detailed data doesn't exist, nature should be left to run its course. All our energies should be spent adapting rather than trying to influence that which we cannot possibly.
Not sceptical, or doom mongering, merely realistic :y
how about this one ? (first graph)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Oh, Cem, I know you are working hard to convince us all, but you are quoting that graph again which I have deeply questioned during my earlier posts, that clearly shows a flaw, and high peaks of C02 ppm when man could have had no affect. You, or no one else can so far answer my queries.
Then of course there is those 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts questioning NASA's stance and their ignoring of empirical evidence that argues another case. ;)
I'm not working hard Lizzie.. May be using some spare time ;D and besides I found interesting things about the subject.. but more interesting than that I'm watching members responses and behavour type..
But to say the least , the group denying the evidences are desperate to say the least.. ;D
as an engineer , I have spent long time on graphs, curves.. there are logarithmic ones, as much as lineers..
And I wish I could see your comments on a logarithmic one ;D trust me (or not!) there is nothing wrong with it.. :y
Stop swearing at me Cem! :o :o :o Logarithms! I hated them at school and could never understand their purpose ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
However, as a senior business manager give me balance sheets, P&L accounts, and graphs and I will show you how to manipulate the so called facts to give your company the best result as far as paying tax and showing the right level of profits to third parties as required, but not the true levels! ;D ;D ;)
Therefore all data and statistics can, and is, manipulated to suit a certain parties argument ;D ;D ;)
Lizzie, that may be valid sor some particular cases.. but for NASA no.. remember, comrades are also watching their data and they wont excuse any mistake ;D
So what about the 49 who have questioned NASA's case then? ??? ??? ;)
they are the man from cold war era ;D and definitely dont represent NASA..
seriously Nasa is one of the most reputable organizations in that subject.. they have lots of satellites.. please watch my 3rd video..
-
Dont think im ever going to mention the weather in a thread :-X ;D
-
Dont think im ever going to mention the weather in a thread :-X ;D
+1
Personally I think scientists should be looking at the increased incidence of TB visiting Tiffins with the the temperature data not CO2 per se ;D ;D
-
they have lots of satellites..
I have lots of teeth, doesn't make me a dentist though :y
-
they have lots of satellites..
I have lots of teeth, doesn't make me a dentist though :y
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
Dont think im ever going to mention the weather in a thread :-X ;D
+1
Personally I think scientists should be looking at the increased incidence of TB visiting Tiffins with the the temperature data not CO2 per se ;D ;D
Tho probably generates quite a bit on the way home ;D ;D
-
Statistically you can find the evidence to support and oppose an argument for anything with enough time ;) ;)
For me, there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove climate change with 100% certainty ;)
That said, there's a lot of talk about CO2 levels... Perhaps we should slaughter all the cows and stop breeding them? After all, the animal population create far more CO2 than man ::)
-
"First, the easy part: Most Americans who responded to a Gallup poll on weather agree it's been unusually warm lately. When asked whether the unseasonably high temperatures were the result of global warming, however, there was less consensus.
Gallup asked 1,024 adults (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153365/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Causes-Warmer-Weather.aspx) if, in the event they said it was warmer where they lived, "do you think temperatures are warmer mainly due to -- global warming (or to) normal year-to-year variation in temperatures?"
The group found Americans' answers broke down along political lines:
Overall, Americans tilt toward the latter explanation; 46% say the winter was warmer than usual due to normal temperature fluctuations, compared with 30% who attribute it to global warming.
However, these views are strongly related to political orientation. Specifically, 51% of both Republicans and independents say it has been warmer than usual due to normal temperature variations, while 19% and 28% of the two groups, respectively, say it was warmer due to global warming.
Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to say the warmer-than-usual temperatures have been due to global warming rather than to normal temperature fluctuations, by 43% to 37%.
In general, Republicans were less likely to agree, in the first place, that it has been warmer than normal. Gallup attributes this to geography -- most of the unseasonable warmth has been in the Midwest and the East, where there generally are more Democrats.
Also, Americans' ages and educational levels do not appear to influence their views on the causes of the heat as much as their politics do. All age groups and educational groups were more likely to say the heat is the result of something other than global warming. Gallup summarizes the poll as follows:
It is fair to say that most Americans do not have the scientific background or available resources to make an accurate assessment of the cause of what they perceive to be this winter's warmer-than-usual temperatures. Thus, Americans, when asked to speculate on the cause of the warmer temperatures, must rely on what they have read, heard, or seen. The types of discussions Americans read, see, or hear on this issue, in turn, are clearly related to their political orientations."
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I was curious why some members were so stubborn in that subject but reason seems to be political rather than being scientific!! ;D ::)
-
I think that the truth lies somewhere in between the two arguments!! ;)
I believe that the earth does have a natural climate cycle and it has been changing for billions of years. It warms up and cools down naturally and this is influenced by many different factors, including in recent years mans activities on the planet.
I also think that mankind should pursue clean/renewable energy sources, (ie wind, solar, hydro) and recycle as much as we can! I disagree with the way we are going about it at the moment, particularly subsidies with public money. A farmer near here has recently filled a large field with solar panels, presumably he'll get better subsidies from solar than he does sheep!! :-\
These are just my thoughts! I have no scientific evidence to back them up nor are there any links for obscure websites! ;D
Happy New Year!! :y :y :y
-
We can argue about this forever.
You like facts, Cem, well here's one: The British Isles pumps out 2% of what China does every year, and China is accelerating. They have no intention of scaling back and neither does the US, despite all the noise.
So.........be as green as you like, it won't make a jot of difference.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/chinese-economic-miracle-fuels-surge-in-carbon-emissions-6257556.html
-
...And regardless of the country we live in, there's cock the "man in the street" can do about it anyway!
Mind you, if it wasn't this subject it would be something else. Go on, knock yourselves out. And when your done, there's always the What's the colour of shite argument to fall back on. :)
-
That will be brown, Chris.
Although Dogs is white if they are fed on bones.
-
That will be brown, Chris.
Although Dogs is white if they are fed on bones.
Varche you are aware. Your now arguing with yourself, about the colour of shite. ::)
-
We can argue about this forever.
You like facts, Cem, well here's one: The British Isles pumps out 2% of what China does every year, and China is accelerating. They have no intention of scaling back and neither does the US, despite all the noise.
So.........be as green as you like, it won't make a jot of difference.
You miss one point STMO.. you are the father of Australia and USA.. ;D erm.. mostly.. ::) Happy new year ;D :y
-
;D ;D ;D
-
We can argue about this forever.
You like facts, Cem, well here's one: The British Isles pumps out 2% of what China does every year, and China is accelerating. They have no intention of scaling back and neither does the US, despite all the noise.
So.........be as green as you like, it won't make a jot of difference.
You miss one point STMO.. you are the father of Australia and USA.. ;D erm.. mostly.. ::) Happy new year ;D :y
I hope Mrs steve doesn't find out! ::) ;) ;D ;D