Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Absolute Beginner


SleepyJean

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Surrey
  • Location: Surrey

    Hello all :)

    Yep, I'm new here. New to the whole global warming debate really. Well, apart from the old "discussions with my husband" area. He believes we are warming up the globe and have to do something about it. Mind you, he believes ID cards are a good idea. I won't go into all of the areas of disagreement we have. Thinking about it, there is practically nothing we really agree on.

    Anyway, I want to learn. I don't really believe in man-made global warming (AGW?). I know I could be wrong. But the evidence that I have seen doesn't lend me great confidence in the theory. I have seen episodes of Horizon etc where the graphs shown do not agree with what the narrator/presenter is saying they show. Now I did maths up to A-level, so I do know how to read a graph, especially when they carefully explain what the different coloured lines mean.

    Another thing is the fact that I grew up with a dino-nut brother. He used to regale us with interesting facts about the prehistoric eras; the temperatures, the humidity, the co2 levels..... So in terms of global climate changes, gas balances, temperatures, etc, I had a fairly richly factual upbringing. So I feel that the changes we are currently witnessing (apparently) are actually pretty miniscule taken in a truly global perspective (that is, these 30 year global averages are nothing to a 4 1/2 billion year old planet).

    There also seems to be a total dismissal of any effect from the sun. This is another thing we used to talk about when I was a child, sunspots etc. We just grew up watching documentaries on everything, and would then rush out and buy a book about it too. No, none of us are scientists but we do all have an interest in science and a lifelong love of learning.

    Over-simplification is another thing I am not that happy with. CO2 seems to be the only thing causing this AGW, according to the newspapers and the government. It's all we hear about. But surely the global climate is an extremely complex system. If the forecasters have difficulty predicting the weather a few days or even hours in advance, how is it so easy to predict climate change? Weather is the local, short-term view of climate, surely. This is why other nations laugh at us Brits - we don't have a climate so we talk about the weather all the time.

    I am sure there are many of you now gazing in disbelief at this post wondering, "where do these people come from?" as you shake you heads wearily, lol. I want to learn about climate change. Where can I find truly balanced information? Is it possible to do so? What is the truth - if it is even possible to find it?

    Thankyou for reading.

    SleepyJean :wub:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 12
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: consett co durham
  • Location: consett co durham
    Hello all :)

    Yep, I'm new here. New to the whole global warming debate really. Well, apart from the old "discussions with my husband" area. He believes we are warming up the globe and have to do something about it. Mind you, he believes ID cards are a good idea. I won't go into all of the areas of disagreement we have. Thinking about it, there is practically nothing we really agree on.

    Anyway, I want to learn. I don't really believe in man-made global warming (AGW?). I know I could be wrong. But the evidence that I have seen doesn't lend me great confidence in the theory. I have seen episodes of Horizon etc where the graphs shown do not agree with what the narrator/presenter is saying they show. Now I did maths up to A-level, so I do know how to read a graph, especially when they carefully explain what the different coloured lines mean.

    Another thing is the fact that I grew up with a dino-nut brother. He used to regale us with interesting facts about the prehistoric eras; the temperatures, the humidity, the co2 levels..... So in terms of global climate changes, gas balances, temperatures, etc, I had a fairly richly factual upbringing. So I feel that the changes we are currently witnessing (apparently) are actually pretty miniscule taken in a truly global perspective (that is, these 30 year global averages are nothing to a 4 1/2 billion year old planet).

    There also seems to be a total dismissal of any effect from the sun. This is another thing we used to talk about when I was a child, sunspots etc. We just grew up watching documentaries on everything, and would then rush out and buy a book about it too. No, none of us are scientists but we do all have an interest in science and a lifelong love of learning.

    Over-simplification is another thing I am not that happy with. CO2 seems to be the only thing causing this AGW, according to the newspapers and the government. It's all we hear about. But surely the global climate is an extremely complex system. If the forecasters have difficulty predicting the weather a few days or even hours in advance, how is it so easy to predict climate change? Weather is the local, short-term view of climate, surely. This is why other nations laugh at us Brits - we don't have a climate so we talk about the weather all the time.

    I am sure there are many of you now gazing in disbelief at this post wondering, "where do these people come from?" as you shake you heads wearily, lol. I want to learn about climate change. Where can I find truly balanced information? Is it possible to do so? What is the truth - if it is even possible to find it?

    Thankyou for reading.

    SleepyJean :wub:

    well thats me back on the PROZAC :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Hi sleepy!

    If you want to both answer me a question and ,at the same time further your personal understanding, explain what you feel has been happening at the northern polar region over the past 50yrs and why the 'step change' in the process ,over the past 7 years or so, has occured. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Surrey
  • Location: Surrey

    Hi Gray-Wolf,

    my initial response would be, haven't they grown recently? That was what I heard!

    As I do want to learn more, however, I will go off and do some ice-cap research. I know that the Arctic potentially plays a big part in a european ice-age due to ice melt stopping the north atlantic conveyor - ultimately a big freeze due to the present warming? I also know that in prior millenia we haven't had ice caps so although we're pretty used to them, the earth itself can cope without.

    Anyway, thanks for the homework, I'll go off and do some research on that aspect. I just hope the articles I read don't say "because of CO2 emissions...." anywhere, :D

    Sleepy

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Surrey
  • Location: Surrey

    Well, so far I've found that actually, yes, the Arctic Icecap has definitely visibly shrunk, especially over the last few years. Presumably this is the "step change" you refer too. (Have to check out the terminology, lol).Haven't found much about the Antarctic yet but I'll get there.

    I do understand about the albedo effect though, and obviously have observed on a local scale the way a lot of ice/snow will slowly melt until it reaches a certain point and then the rest of it will all melt away very quickly. Also the fact that it melts in a patchy way, due to varying thicknesses and puddles forming on uneven areas, so the explanation that I've read for the reason why the apparent loss of Arctic ice is accelerating also makes sense.

    Interesting stuff. Will keep looking and forming an opinion. Just don't want to look as if I've forgotten about it ;-)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    Hello Sleepy and welcome.

    Here's a link to a great site which covers the debate from both sides of the divide, it also has further links to loads of sites, from blogs to official climate data.

    Happy reading.

    http://climatedebatedaily.com/

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Surrey
  • Location: Surrey

    Hello Jethro, thanks for that link. I'll go and have a good look.

    I am having real trouble finding anything about Antarctic melt, however I just realised your question, Gray-Wolf, was about the North Pole only so I will stick to that for now. Ooopsie, daft as ever me. I will try to pay more attention. Too many children.....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Surrey
  • Location: Surrey
    Hi sleepy!

    If you want to both answer me a question and ,at the same time further your personal understanding, explain what you feel has been happening at the northern polar region over the past 50yrs and why the 'step change' in the process ,over the past 7 years or so, has occured. :rolleyes:

    It's really hard to find data pre-1979, isn't it? I did find a graph of the ice along the Icelandic coast. They didn't have a lot between about 1920-1960, much less even than now. It's hard to compare that tot he present situation because the fact is the shape of the ice changes all the time and it could well be that the ice cap was larger back then but just didn't happen to "lean" in the direction of Iceland. On the other hand the icecap could have been even smaller then than it is now, but grew back again. From this data it is hard to tell.

    So I can't really answer a question about the last 50 years, only the last 30, and obviously the ice has been, in more recent years, notably smaller. In fact it appears from the charts that I've looked at that a real "step change" occurred 12 years ago, 1997 being the last time that the sea ice reached approximately the average of the previous 20 years (about 4.5 million square km). Since that point it seems to have shrunk at a fairly steady rate.

    As I said above, the more ice melts the more quickly the rest of the ice melts. Because it is surrounded by more water in it's warmer, liquid state and there is more surface area of the liquid compared to the solid, the solid joins the liquid more easily. (My way of putting it; clumsy I know but I think it describes the process reasonably well for someone who doesn't know the scientific terms for this effect.)

    So the cause of the step change is the melting itself. At some point in the melting of a given amount of ice you will reach a point where the rest of it melts more quickly, with no other changes necessary, purely because of the amount of ice that has already melted. (This happens with chocolate, too, especially if you stir it. Mmmmmm, chocolate......). And of course you have the wave action as well - that's a bit like stirring.

    None of which gives any clue at all as to why the temperatures might have gone up in the first place. Interesting question, though. Thankyou.

    Sleepy.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Surrey
  • Location: Surrey

    I've been doing a lot of reading over the past couple of weeks. I really do want to try and understand what it is I am supposed to be worrying about. This is my children's future, after all.

    It was interesting finding out about the shrinking Arctic. I know where I went wrong with my initial, quick reply. I said "hasn't it been growing recently?". Actually, it turns out that that's the Antarctic. Not actually getting wider but getting thicker at any rate. This is apparently due to an expected and predicted increase in precipitation over the Antarctic as a result of shifting weather patterns....

    I did see a graph some where that showed the arctic getting smaller and the antarctic getting bigger. They seem to balance each other out (or almost - and that is an important difference, must go and find that graph again). I've seen a lot of graphs. I do like graphs.

    Something worries me though. There is all this use of "smoothed" data and "adjusted" data, lots of averages and means. All these changes to the facts. Is there anyone out there who makes graphs of actual raw data? Why does it all have to be adjusted? (I've not come across anything that says why the data's been adjusted or averaged).

    If there is a specific reason, for example on the ice cores it might be that the air leeches out or parts of the air leech out of the ice and so the figures need to be adjusted by x amount per y no.of years to compensate for this fact, then why don't they say so?

    I do just worry if I know I'm not being told the full story.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 1 year later...
    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Sorry it's been so long Jean!!! Life, more immediate than 'ice sheets', interupted me.

    With kids and partner I'm sure you know this can happen.

    Ice ? Shee-ite, extent?, questionable...

    Prospects? Collapse again this year.

    Ian.

    X

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...