The Nonsense That is Global Warming

Chris Knight · November 16, 2007

It would be news indeed, if there was a year in which no weather records were broken, but droughts, floods, tornados, extinctions, 7th, 8th, and 9th warmest/wettest/windiest months, lakes with low levels, extinctions or algal blooms are common or garden sequelae (or totally unrelated phenomena) of normal weather variations. I am tempted to yawn.

Neither are the bumper grape (USA), poor grape crop (Australia), UK apple and other crops, the failed NH wheat crop, or the demise of the USA economy a result of climate change.

Polar Ice caps are not melting, and there is just as much multi-year ice now as there has been for the last five years, as the drifting buoy records show, it has just been restricted in area following a three year series of warmer than previous yearly polar weather conditions, and a melt that has not been observed before, but that is recovering as fast as any year before. Antarctica has not shown any tendency to sink under the rising sea levels, despite the increasing weight of ice and sub ice lakes it has to bear.

Nowt to do with climate change, just plain weather.

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Whatever floats your boat Chris!

Jethro, do you really wish to see the rest of the 'Business' from the NOAA news room since Aug?Oh , OK, if you insist then here we go;

Archive

I also note that the intergovernmental panel on climate change are accepting the 'sudden leap ' in temps is now a concern, that the probability of it (warming) is now over 90% (as opposed to 90% in the IPCC report) man made and also ,though U.S. fought hard to have it removed, the word 'irreverable' is now to be associated with climate change. Are you really sure

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

West is Best · November 17, 2007

Some real signs of the cooldown being seen widely now.

The eastern Alps have experienced the heaviest snowfall in November since records began, and other parts the heaviest snowfall since 1956.

Record snowfalls in the Canadian Rockies too.

Ski resorts throughout the Alps and Canada have opened early: many smashing all previous records.

Edited November 17, 2007 by West is Best

Shiny_Bottom_1 · November 17, 2007

Nowt to do with climate change, just plain weather.

I think, perhaps (but I could be wrong), you are potentially missing the point of GW and Climate Change.

The way I see it is they are linked, but seperate terms/matters.

Global Warming - Well, self explanatary

Climate Change - And again.

Global warming (And I havent read the whole of this thread, so perhaps globally we arent wamring any more (or more to the point, we are now cooling)), has occurred. I think there is plenty of evidence for that.

Climate change is a result of global warming (i.e. warmer temperatures are causing more extreme weathers). Now within Climate change, you may also get extreme conditions such as 'Heaviest Snow Fall', or 'Extreme Cold'.

But remember, GW is the cause, Climate change is the effect.

However, whatever the Climate Change, Globally, temperatures continue to increase.

So whilst we (The UK, a very small part of the globe), have not seen record breaking high temperatures this year, and for points, quite average to below average temperatures, its no indication on the worlds overall temperature.

However, will we ever see a concensus that GW and Climate Change are different terms...I doubt it. Probably because so many news stories et al have thrown the two in together.

But also, another point...do we know the time relapse between global warming and climate change? Immediate? 1 Year? 10 Years? 20 Years?

Edited November 17, 2007 by ChrisL

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Some real signs of the cooldown being seen widely now.
The eastern Alps have experienced the heaviest snowfall in November since records began, and other parts the heaviest snowfall since 1956.
Record snowfalls in the Canadian Rockies too.
Ski resorts throughout the Alps and Canada have opened early: many smashing all previous records.

It's winter? what would you expect? LOL

Lest we forget Weather is not Global climate. With greater temps more evaporation takes place so more precipitation occurs. Snow falls from 0c to minus whatever c so we'd need to compare pre fall temps to see where we are. Record snowfalls have been occuring around the globe in recent years from Somalia (1 dead from roof cave in) to Japan, to Germany, to Athens yet still global temps are the highest recorded from historical times.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

West is Best · November 17, 2007

It's winter

It isn't. It's autumn.

As I say, records smashed for such snowfalls so early before winter has even begun.

Edited November 17, 2007 by West is Best

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

It isn't. It's autumn.
As I say, records smashed for such snowfalls so early before winter has even begun.

Must be all that open water this year over the north pole leading to increased precipitation........or had you conveiniantly forgotten the record ablation oop north?

Bobby · November 17, 2007

Increased snow!= increased cold. Record snowfall simply means more precipitation, and warming causes increased precipitation. So one could argue that such snowfall records are proof of global warming.

jethro · November 17, 2007

Afraid I havent time to respond to such a wealth of links GW, I'm off to London for a Foo Fighters gig tonight so in a bit of a hurry.

I'd just like to point out that as far as I'm aware, there has been no global increase in precipitation.

Also, I'm very, very puzzled, those who are full of doom and gloom, the apocalypse is nigh, we've reached the point of no return with the ice, can you all please answer a question? When a report is published which confirms the opposite is true, the majority of ice loss is cyclical, it will recover, indeed has begun to recover; why oh why do you continue to argue so vociferously? Surely to goodness if all that collective concern is genuine, then there is reason to rejoice? Why are you not celebrating?

West is Best · November 17, 2007

Increased snow!= increased cold. Record snowfall simply means more precipitation, and warming causes increased precipitation. So one could argue that such snowfall records are proof of global warming.

Heck of a desperado stretch! Especially as it's been accompanied by low temperatures.

As for GW's ablation rofl.

Bobby · November 17, 2007

Heck of a desperado stretch! Especially as it's been accompanied by low temperatures.
As for GW's ablation rofl.

Well, temperatures low enough for snow in the Alps at this time of the year is hardly unusual! Even with a warming climate, they would still be plenty cold enough for snow. So, using a logical approach, temperatures aren't the cause - low temperatures do NOT increase the amount of snowfall - increased precipitation and moisture in the air causes increases the amount of snowfall, and one could argue that warming temperatures means more moisture due to the air being able to hold more moisture and more evaporation. Also, good argument "rofl". Typical.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Magpie

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Afraid I haven't time to respond to such a wealth of links GW, I'm off to London for a Foo Fighters gig tonight so in a bit of a hurry.
I'd just like to point out that as far as I'm aware, there has been no global increase in precipitation.
Also, I'm very, very puzzled, those who are full of doom and gloom, the apocalypse is nigh, we've reached the point of no return with the ice, can you all please answer a question? When a report is published which confirms the opposite is true, the majority of ice loss is cyclical, it will recover, indeed has begun to recover; why oh why do you continue to argue so vociferously? Surely to goodness if all that collective concern is genuine, then there is reason to rejoice? Why are you not celebrating?

Hi Jethro! Have a good Gig. The links were just to show the source from which I culled what I thought were relevant reports (to show why I felt it necessary to cherry pick) and not for further study.

I'm intrigued to see your source for Arctic ice ablation/recovery midst all the hullabaloo (due to the time limitations of Satellite monitoring/the incomplete ship/land station records of ice levels) then listen to the folk who rely upon that environment for their existence and see if you can find any parallels to the current levels of change in any of their 'folk stories'.

These folk have no axe to grind and if they had some form of historical precedent of past collapse and then recovery handed down from generation to generation I'm sure they'd all feel a lot happier with their current situation. The fate of the NW provinces of Canada/Antarctica (and the fate of the Caribou herds that they rely upon midst the new Mozzie infestations over spring and summer) are one such group of people.

The U.S. indigenous folk used to have plenty of tales about the Bison until we wiped them out (to control the people and force them onto our reservations) and this would seem to show that when the critters a people rely upon for survival are

unchanging in numbers and habits then complex ritual/folk law surround them.

If they suffered periodic population collapses (like fish stocks in El-Nino blighted West South America) then this is reflected in folk tale /ritual (and the collapse of civilisations dependant on them). None of this occurs in the high arctic peoples who have no precedent for what is occurring around them.

I'd love to have 'good news' stories I could rely upon but there aren't any. I'd rather stay grounded in truth (however unpalatable) than exist in a fantasy world (however attractive this would seem) ta.

osmposm · November 17, 2007

.....there's no harm in me getting my monstrous 1200cc,gas guzzling motorbike out just for the hell of it,is there?

No harm other than than the usual bloody racket they make. What is it about motorcyclists (and personal stereo users)? Do they think we like being compelled to share their experience second-hand through our ears? Do they not realize? Do they not care?

I'd happily forgive you your emissions if you could invent (and fit) an effective silencer for your bike - and ditto for stereo headphones - though I suspect winding up people seeking a bit of peace and quiet is felt to be part of the fun of using them.

God, I'm getting old (and off-topic).

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

As for GW's ablation rofl.

The reality is that we have little time to wait until even the most ardent Skeptic on Arctic changes will need to redress there stance as condition on the ground (or ocean) become undeniable (next 3 or 4 years?) .Not long to wait if you have little ones to consider eh?

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

The reality is that we have little time to wait until even the most ardent Skeptic on Arctic changes will need to redress there stance as condition on the ground (or ocean) become undeniable (next 3 or 4 years?) .Not long to wait if you have little ones to consider eh?

Oh and the U.S. have released their first 'Carbon balence'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71114111141.htm

Not good in light of the press release on Katrina's impact on current U.S. Carbon sinks eh? Still ,nothing worrying eh? Cooldown in full force eh?

Good job warming has nowt to do with CO2 with reports like this eh?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71114111141.htm

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

laserguy · November 17, 2007

No harm other than than the usual bloody racket they make. What is it about motorcyclists (and personal stereo users)? Do they think we like being compelled to share their experience second-hand through our ears? Do they not realize? Do they not care?
I'd happily forgive you your emissions if you could invent (and fit) an effective silencer for your bike - and ditto for stereo headphones - though I suspect winding up people seeking a bit of peace and quiet is felt to be part of the fun of using them.
God, I'm getting old (and off-topic).

Don't be ridiculous. My bike is fitted with a BS.approved exhaust. And because of it's engine size it doesn't have to work very hard to go very fast. It is whisper quiet. As for 'enviro' concerns it occupies no more road space than necessary,unlike the hulking,gridlocked tin-boxes which in the morning and evening rush usually have but one gnashing,frustrated occupant waiting in traffic queues belching out clouds of fumes. Bikes rule! Personal stereos? Pah! I prefer my home-made speakers and amps to loosen the house foundations. Serves her right next door for having the washing machine on 24/7!

Edited November 17, 2007 by laserguy

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Don't be ridiculous. My bike is fitted with a BS.approved exhaust. And because of it's engine size it doesn't have to work very hard to go very fast. It is whisper quiet. As for 'enviro' concerns it occupies no more road space than necessary,unlike the hulking,gridlocked tin-boxes which in the morning and evening rush usually have but one gnashing,frustrated occupant waiting in traffic queues belching out clouds of fumes. Bikes rule!

And you're vehicle is always at least 'half full' (unlike most of the cars you breeze by at the red lights), you can also look at the amount of emissions most bikes (with individually balanced carbs for each cylinder leading to better and more complete combustion) give out when compared to cars/buses. As you say there is the 'power to weight' ratio to take into consideration when looking a vehicle proficiency. The average road is at least 3 lanes wide for a bike so they don't drive the environmental disasters that road widening schemes produce. You could look at the wear and tear on the transport infrastructure fr bikes compared to cars/buses and figure how much less energy would be needed to keep our highways in tip top condition if bikes were the sole traffic. All of that before we enter into the 'congestion' comparisons. We used to park 3 bikes per parking space and find parking in no time flat (no endless circling around the town centre polluting up the environment whilst driving folk balmy).

If it came down to it apart from bikes being the most fun you can have without laughing they are also massively greener for us all!

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Glad to see the world catching up with my views.

The 'deniers and skeptics have cost us the earth with their fillibustering and 'nagging' for 100% proof positive of any research on human induced climate change.

Well done guys, I'm sure the next sentient species to evolve will hold you all up as an example!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...11301565_2.html

West is Best · November 17, 2007

Well, temperatures low enough for snow in the Alps at this time of the year is hardly unusual!

They are running between 10C and 15C below average this month.

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

I suppose the deniers will deny being deniers..........

O.M.G. it may snow tomorrow! Hurrah! Global warming is all over and done with!!!!!

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

Shiny_Bottom_1 · November 17, 2007

The 'deniers and skeptics have cost us the earth with their fillibustering and 'nagging' for 100% proof positive of any research on human induced climate change.
Well done guys, I'm sure the next sentient species to evolve will hold you all up as an example!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...11301565_2.html

I suppose the deniers will deny being deniers..........
O.M.G. it may snow tomorrow! Hurrah! Global warming is all over and done with!!!!!

Gray Wolf. As someone that DOES believe in GW and Climate Change, I am also someone that is open to other theories, statistics and (lets face it) sometimes facts against the subject.

What I dont understand is why you blame (from a point of view in somebody that believes this is happening) what you call 'Deniers and Skeptics' to be the root of the problem. If what GW is about is true, then i'm sure a high proportion of the developed world has a hand in GW.

We cant blame individuals, be it on the street, or on this forum, to have cost us the Earth.

One hand I understand you anguish, but on the other, I feel your venting in an almost authoritative, or even at points, dictorial fashion to be perhaps not the best way to approach the subject.

I dont have the answers (to either the situation or the way to approach), but I do feel sorry for those on this thread who have put their opinion across, and then subsequently been blamed for what you see as the end of the human race.

Admiral_Bobski · November 17, 2007

Glad to see the world catching up with my views.
The 'deniers and skeptics have cost us the earth with their fillibustering and 'nagging' for 100% proof positive of any research on human induced climate change.
Well done guys, I'm sure the next sentient species to evolve will hold you all up as an example!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...11301565_2.html

Thank you GW - comments like these are the reason why I no longer frequent these boards.

CB

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Gray Wolf. As someone that DOES believe in GW and Climate Change, I am also someone that is open to other theories, statistics and (lets face it) sometimes facts against the subject.
What I dont understand is why you blame (from a point of view in somebody that believes this is happening) what you call 'Deniers and Skeptics' to be the root of the problem. If what GW is about is true, then i'm sure a high proportion of the developed world has a hand in GW.
We cant blame individuals, be it on the street, or on this forum, to have cost us the Earth.
One hand I understand you anguish, but on the other, I feel your venting in an almost authoritative, or even at points, dictorial fashion to be perhaps not the best way to approach the subject.
I dont have the answers (to either the situation or the way to approach), but I do feel sorry for those on this thread who have put their opinion across, and then subsequently been blamed for what you see as the end of the human race.

Chris, I blame the 'social climate' that (firstly) oil money created (through the late 50's 60's and 70's) and was then joyously continued by the Skeptics/Naysayers/deniers up until the current day.

As is pointed out in the link the IPCC leaves itself open to derision because of it's 'outdated predictions' and 'conservative predictions' purely because of a wish not to be labelled as 'doomsayers' or 'alarmists'.

More people are privy to IPCC reports than are to our debates (because of the media coverage the reports generate) and so more folk may have been spurred into positive action had the IPCC felt more able to paint the 'real picture' of them. We are now at the point that climate change is 'irriversable' (their words) whereas if we had been able t become privy to the magnitude of the problem earlier (and not been shouted down by the skeptics) we would have been in a position to stabilise things if not reverse them.

Shiny_Bottom_1 · November 17, 2007

I have to admit, I dont read the reports GW....from either side.

They are all arguements for and against the topics. I would like to think I have enough IQ to be able to understand GW, and if I believe in it. Quite often, on occasion where I have read such reports, it just confuses the hell out of me. Why make something that is quite scientifically simple, into some long drama. In fact, its the reports that sometimes make me wonder. Why do they want to make it more complicated? Is it because there is more data? Or is it because they are caught like a child who has just lied, and keeps telling more and more lies to try and get out of the original lie (Back-Peddling I think its called).

Really, I dont see why either side need to preach to each other. It is surely down to ones belief and understanding?

Gray-Wolf · November 17, 2007

Thank you GW - comments like these are the reason why I no longer frequent these boards.
CB

I take it you are able to have no angst at the position we find ourselves in (as outlined yesterday by the intergovernmental panel on climate change)?

I take it you feel that the 'queering and filibustering' that oil money paid for throughout your youth that delayed both serious investigation into alternative energies and study into the changing climate is to be accepted as a nothing? I take it that our last chance of doing anything worth a damn (1992) not being ratified by those who could have made a real difference to our current position is ,to you, just "one of those things"?

Edited November 17, 2007 by pottyprof
Removed the flamer..

Sign In

The Nonsense That is Global Warming

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Latest Weather News