Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

today I watched (after washing and waxing both cars in 2 celcius and shopping) national geographics DVD serials  about space,stars, earth events etc, I clearly understand one subject.. Our lifetime is no more than a butterfly in comparison to nature,earth,space events ..
although some serious measurements/calculations can be made within that period, I do believe its not that easy to  calculate exact long term effects when those parameters are so complex.. But its our responsibility to protect our world in every possible way for the next generations.. Regardless from endless debates and egoistic cost analysis of some..

[albitz]

today I watched (after washing and waxing both cars in 2 celcius and shopping) national geographics DVD serials  about space,stars, earth events etc, I clearly understand one subject.. Our lifetime is no more than a butterfly in comparison to nature,earth,space events ..
although some serious measurements/calculations can be made within that period, I do believe its not that easy to  calculate exact long term effects when those parameters are so complex.. But its our responsibility to protect our world in every possible way for the next generations.. Regardless from endless debates and egoistic cost analysis of some..

[/highlight]
Completely agree with you on that Cem. Pollution of the seas,rivers,air and deforestation must be strictly monitered and controlled. Its a shame the whole subject has been hijacked by the warmists and will therefore undoubtedly be given less serious attention than it should.

[Nickbat]

today I watched (after washing and waxing both cars in 2 celcius and shopping) national geographics DVD serials  about space,stars, earth events etc, I clearly understand one subject.. Our lifetime is no more than a butterfly in comparison to nature,earth,space events ..
although some serious measurements/calculations can be made within that period, I do believe its not that easy to  calculate exact long term effects when those parameters are so complex.. But its our responsibility to protect our world in every possible way for the next generations.. Regardless from endless debates and egoistic cost analysis of some..

I have no problem with those that truly wish to protect our environment; indeed, I applaud them. However, my grinding axe concerns the whole theory of man-made global warming by CO2. Apart from being a theory which appears to be unfalsifiable (which renders it unscientific), it is clearly being used as an instrument to de-industrialise the West, specifically the US, but also the UK and Europe. Legislation is put in place to prevent new power stations here, whilst China is building a new coal-powered station every week. Cem, it is not a debate about science (otherwise it would be conducted in a normal scientific manner). Rather it is a politically evangelist movement which will cause our children untold damage in the future. If global warming were true, a few centimetres (or even feet) of sea level rise would be easily addressed. If our economies were able to continue to grow, new cleaner sources of energy would be found. Without economic growth, stifled by "green" legislation, we are at the mercy of the elements and, given the current state of the solar cycles, it would not be pretty. Cold kills far more than warm. And that truly is a fact. I want a world for my children that is clean, free and happy - and that is why I bang on so much about subject so much, for I feel that we many are being hoodwinked into a future which is the reverse.

[cem_devecioglu]

glad to hear your are also sensible about the future that we will prepare for next generations..

now just think about the nature equilibrium conditions and when we human kind demonstrate another forcing vector to this equilibrium.. it will shift to another state of equilibrium

[Banjax]

I know it's a bit of a bu**er to the leftie warmists on here, but the global temperature at the end of Jan 2011 was the same as it was 30 years ago. Worse, it's headed South rather rapidly.That global warming seemed such a neat theory, too. Shame.

Got any links to that info Nick ? I am currently in discussion with a couple of mates who think my assertions on this subject, render me close to certifiable.

But, of course, Albs.

http://www.heliogenic.net/2011/02/03/earth-the-same-temperature-now-as-30-years-ago-and-decreasing/

how does that graph show the temperature is the same now as it was 30 years ago Nickbat? If anything it looks like the graph starts at a point in '79 (january i guess) -  and finishes at january 2011.........if thats the case your graph actually shows its now warmer at the same point in the relevant years (or at least the difference in temp is higher), which is certainly an odd argument for you to make - Albs was asking for proof that temperatures are the same, you've only gone and shown him an increase - lets hope he hasn't printed it out and taken it down the pub, better yet, lets hope he didnt place a cheeky wager on winning the argument :-?

[Nickbat]

how does that graph show the temperature is the same now as it was 30 years ago Nickbat? If anything it looks like the graph starts at a point in '79 (january i guess) -  and finishes at january 2011.........if thats the case your graph actually shows its now warmer at the same point in the relevant years (or at least the difference in temp is higher), which is certainly an odd argument for you to make - Albs was asking for proof that temperatures are the same, you've only gone and shown him an increase - lets hope he hasn't printed it out and taken it down the pub, better yet, lets hope he didnt place a cheeky wager on winning the argument :-?

In January 1981, the anomaly was about 0.00, now, thirty years later in 2011, it is -0.01. Thus, the statement that the temperature is the same as 30 years ago is correct. Can't you read graphs? 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Phew! That was close shave! I didn't look closely enough.

The report was dated [size=18]1922[/size]! 

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Ok, here we go again on one side arguing against the other on the subject of climate change and warming!

!922 was only 89 years ago Nick; a mere blink in the eye of the Earth's existence.  1922 was post the British Industrial Revolution, and the start of mankind pumping out CO2 like there was no tomorrow; in fact then "tomorrow" was an irrelevance as man ruled nature as it had nature firmly under control.  Masters of the Universe "we" were.

1922 was also pre-the world's population arriving at 6 billion, and China joining the industrial club requiring far greater degrees of energy, and pushing out ever increasing amounts of CO2.

1922 was a year when the effects of mans activity was obviously noticed by those very knowledgeable about their Arctic environment, and were concerned enough to mention the changes being observed that were extraordinary.  89 years later the vast majority of environmental scientists are again very concerned about the rapid changes, and dramatic weather events transpiring at an increasing rate.  From 1922 to 2011 nothing has improved, and this world is heading for a population of 9 billion by 2050, so it is clearly rational to believe a world society of that number will create even greater changes to our surroundings.  Just living as organic creatures will create far greater demands on nature, let alone mankind's desire for energy to power an ever increasing electromechanical existence that will keep the factories working overtime, and polluting the atmosphere.

1922 was obviously your joke Nick, but actually it reveals how this World is on a path of change that will accelerate, and mankind really must bring its effects on this in line, as since 1922 little has been achieved in the vast scheme of things.  I just hope that man will make the right decisions to ensure 2022 or 2122 is witnessed!  

[feeutfo]

I don't know, Nick.  I don't disagree that there is evidence of climate change  I don't believe that it is, however, the result of man made global warming.

It has happened before and will happen again.

Was the Ice Age the result of the dinosaurs driving too many cars

It could be a natural cycle and we should be concentrating our efforts into devising ways to live with it rather than ways to stop or slow it.

i agree. will we all fit in guffers boat?

We will if there's pie. 

[Nickbat]

1922 was obviously your joke Nick, but actually it reveals how this World is on a path of change that will accelerate, and mankind really must bring its effects on this in line, as since 1922 little has been achieved in the vast scheme of things.  I just hope that man will make the right decisions to ensure 2022 or 2122 is witnessed!  

What a complete non-sequitur! There's absolutely no way to associate carbon dioxide emissions with the lack of ice in the Arctic in 1922!!!! If it was the case, the Arctic ice would not have recovered, nor would we have entered a cool phase. The whole point is that we have been here before, without mankind's influence and that we will go there again. 

[Banjax]

how does that graph show the temperature is the same now as it was 30 years ago Nickbat? If anything it looks like the graph starts at a point in '79 (january i guess) -  and finishes at january 2011.........if thats the case your graph actually shows its now warmer at the same point in the relevant years (or at least the difference in temp is higher), which is certainly an odd argument for you to make - Albs was asking for proof that temperatures are the same, you've only gone and shown him an increase - lets hope he hasn't printed it out and taken it down the pub, better yet, lets hope he didnt place a cheeky wager on winning the argument :-?

In January 1981, the anomaly was about 0.00, now, thirty years later in 2011, it is -0.01. Thus, the statement that the temperature is the same as 30 years ago is correct. Can't you read graphs? 

to me, the graph shows a broad upward trend and its a very foolish argument to pluck any point at random fom a graph and extrapolate from that point - go back 2 years, or 10 or 50 or 1 or 8 or whatever - completely spurious i'm afraid - like most all denier arguments 

[Dishevelled Den]

In January 1981, the anomaly was about 0.00, now, thirty years later in 2011, it is -0.01. Thus, the statement that the temperature is the same as 30 years ago is correct. Can't you read graphs? 

While there remains justifiable debate on just what/who is responsible for these temperature variations - with the consequent effects on the eco-system/climate the way I read that graph is there appears to be a distinct move into the temperature positive band from 1999.

In terms of what is thought to be presently happening, perhaps we need more time to establish whether or not this positive move is a trend before introducing draconian legislation to try and arrest it – in the very unlikely event that we can.

[cem_devecioglu]

no need to be expert to read that graph , shift upwards easily visible but.. this is a very short period.. :-/

[cem_devecioglu]

here is another one

[Lizzie_Zoom]

1922 was obviously your joke Nick, but actually it reveals how this World is on a path of change that will accelerate, and mankind really must bring its effects on this in line, as since 1922 little has been achieved in the vast scheme of things.  I just hope that man will make the right decisions to ensure 2022 or 2122 is witnessed!  

What a complete non-sequitur! There's absolutely no way to associate carbon dioxide emissions with the lack of ice in the Arctic in 1922!!!! If it was the case, the Arctic ice would not have recovered, nor would we have entered a cool phase. The whole point is that we have been here before, without mankind's influence and that we will go there again. 

1922, 1942, or 2002, it makes no difference Nick.  In history events can be accumulative over a great length of time with change at first showing, then disappearing, but then emerging later as the cause and effects continue.  Like someone smoking, with no concernable harm being done, until a slight shortage of breath and  tightening of the skin appears.  But then all goes and everything seems fine, until that day when the accumulative affect results in full bloodied cancer.

That is what is happening to the World Nick.  You are just taking snapshots continually, all out of context, like your (joke haha) of bringing up 1922, or the latest statement by a climate sceptic on one simple flaw in a whole mass of scientific fact.  I instead take the long term view of an historian, and that shows that ever increasing trend that the climate is changing, yes again as it has before, but never before suddenly become more rapid with a series of abnormal events around the world.

But no doubt you will continue to argue a different case as you have over countless of threads.  As far as I am concerned it is better to be cautious and care for the environment as best as we can at this point in the 21st century.  Your viewpoint is to carry on and do nothing, like the smoker who denies he will have any problems as many have done in the past.  We ALL will eventually see what the outcome is if we are still alive, but at least on my side of the argument we have done something!  What is the harm in doing that and being sensible? 

[cem_devecioglu]

from
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/