Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

There must be more to life than football?
doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by doz_magic_man » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:04 pm

Joe wrote:
doz_magic_man wrote:I respond to global warming the same way I respond to everything, by listening to the arguments and making my own opinion. I just happen to be with the majority. As for the 9/11 thing, I was referring to the theory that explosives were used to collapse the buildings, a missile used to blast the pentagon etc but that was poorly phrased.

In law (my sector) there's always a rational argument from a minority group of lawyers regarding some point of law, it's just that they are overruled by the majority who have their own rational argument. At the end of the day, there will always be minorities who are a mixture of those who genuinely believe their viewpoint and those that revel in having an alternative point of view. It's the latter group which pisses me off.
What's your sector of law? Just out of interest.

Currently working in PI but I'm due to star my training contract with a leading national commercial firm. I'm amazed that I've managed to secure one given how competitive it is at the minute, thanks to the bankers and GDL convertees flocking to the sector like flies around shit. There just isn't enough shit to go around for the flies though.

As for the above posts, I'm not saying that the temperature is steadily and constantly rising across the board, or that there aren't anomalies. After all, we are currently experiencing the coldest snap in 12 years. However; given the fact that Antarctica is proven to be warming and there are record-sized ice sheets flaking off the Arctic I tend to support what I perceive to be the populous view. I've travelled the world and seen car fumes sitting like a blanket over an anormous area like Los Angeles and spoken to numerous people from varous countries who regailed their tails of unprecedented climactic changes. I've never disputed the fact that global warming may be in part a natural phenomenon but I can't accept that 100+ years of unnatural industrial smog gluts have had no effect on our climate.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14298
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:08 pm

doz_magic_man wrote:
Joe wrote:
doz_magic_man wrote:I respond to global warming the same way I respond to everything, by listening to the arguments and making my own opinion. I just happen to be with the majority. As for the 9/11 thing, I was referring to the theory that explosives were used to collapse the buildings, a missile used to blast the pentagon etc but that was poorly phrased.

In law (my sector) there's always a rational argument from a minority group of lawyers regarding some point of law, it's just that they are overruled by the majority who have their own rational argument. At the end of the day, there will always be minorities who are a mixture of those who genuinely believe their viewpoint and those that revel in having an alternative point of view. It's the latter group which pisses me off.
What's your sector of law? Just out of interest.

Currently working in PI but I'm due to star my training contract with a leading national commercial firm. I'm amazed that I've managed to secure one given how competitive it is at the minute, thanks to the bankers and GDL convertees flocking to the sector like flies around shit. There just isn't enough shit to go around for the flies though.

As for the above posts, I'm not saying that the temperature is steadily and constantly rising across the board, or that there aren't anomalies. After all, we are currently experiencing the coldest snap in 12 years. However; given the fact that Antarctica is proven to be warming and there are record-sized ice sheets flaking off the Arctic I tend to support what I perceive to be the populous view. I've travelled the world and seen car fumes sitting like a blanket over an anormous area like Los Angeles and spoken to numerous people from varous countries who regailed their tails of unprecedented climactic changes. I've never disputed the fact that global warming may be in part a natural phenomenon but I can't accept that 100+ years of unnatural industrial smog gluts have had no effect on our climate.
But the ice caps are now gaining size?

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9567
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by theadore » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:45 am

prove it

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14298
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:16 am

*goes to the antartic*

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:41 am

doz_magic_man wrote:I've travelled the world and seen car fumes sitting like a blanket over an anormous area like Los Angeles and spoken to numerous people from varous countries who regailed their tails of unprecedented climactic changes.
Oh well, why didn't you just say so. Why listen to nobel prize winning scientists and former NASA climatologists when you can travel the world (presumably in a bio-degradable rowing boat?) and ask ordinary people to recount* their tales of what they remember the weather being like. :rofl: I was listening to the radio whilst sat in a dentist's chair last night, and they had all sorts of comments from the public about how bad the snow was, and that they'd never known anything like it. And then they got the weatherman on, who said we get heavy snow storms every 5 to 10 years, but people quickly forget about them once it all melts away. Personal experience can't tell you anything about climate change and global temperatures, memories are too unreliable. I can remember worse snow than what we've had here in Lancashire, I can remember glorious hot days, I tend to forget the mild, rainy days that have been the most common in my life time. That tells us nothing about the world other than you can have more fun in snow and sun than you can when it's raining.

Just out of interest, what do you think should be normal behaviour for ice caps and glaciers? And why do you think they're connected to global temperature, rather than regional temperatures? I really have never understood the significance, because I figure they must have started melting at the end of the ice age, which was a long time before people started keeping records of temperatures. It really does seem like someone's observed an increase in temperatures, started to look for evidence of this, and has then noticed the ice is melting and tried to link the two together. And then the impression that's given is that the ice has only just started melting, rather than we've only just started measuring how much it's melting. But what really doesn't make sense is that if humans are influencing the change in the climate, why does this have the biggest effect where there are next to no humans?

* I'll admit I'm guessing at what word you meant to use.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9567
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by theadore » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:01 pm

We're still in the current Ice age I think.

As for the rest... You believe what NASA tell you?? :tinfoil:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:52 pm

theadore wrote: As for the rest... You believe what NASA tell you?? :tinfoil:
No. And that's what the person who used to work for them suggested, she'd had her hands tied about what she could report whilst working for them.

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:23 pm

Rover the Top wrote:But what really doesn't make sense is that if humans are influencing the change in the climate, why does this have the biggest effect where there are next to no humans?

I'm surprised that you find this factor the most baffling given that the answer is the most obvious.

Of course the global drive to convert to green, targets to cut emissions, converting to bio-fuel etc is a waste of time. These tactics are purely money-spinning, scaremongering ploys devised to maintain the status quo and line governments' pockets. The majority of leading scientists who peddle the notion of global warming are all media-bummers seeking to further their own agendas. This man (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 052027.htm) is taking pure and utter bollocks and the IPCC is a farcical body who make stuff up. You're right, I can finally see the light!

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14298
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:38 pm

Ah the good old "it's so obvious I won't bring it up" argument.

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:47 pm

Well I would have thought that a self-professed well read global warming cynic would be clued-up on such fundamentals. Here lieth the answers: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/clima ... Vol1N6.pdf

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14298
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:50 pm

Aha he has "proof".

So, how do you account for the increase in sea ice then? Or the drop in temperature world wide?

Incidentally, regarding your article:-
Computer models indicate that
21st Century warming will
occur more rapidly over
continents than over oceans.
How does this explain the largest increase of temperature being over the arctic (not a continent, but a frozen ocean)?

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:20 pm

Melting ice caps affecting thermohaline circulation (the oceanic conveyor belt)?

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14298
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:10 am

doz_magic_man wrote:Melting ice caps affecting thermohaline circulation (the oceanic conveyor belt)?
But that still doesn't explain why they're melting and affecting the oceanic currents if the increase is largely over land mass?

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:13 am

doz_magic_man wrote: Here lieth the answers: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/clima ... Vol1N6.pdf
But it doesn't.
Polar amplification of the warming signal
Observations and computer models agree
that Arctic surface air temperatures are
sensitive to climate change, warming roughly
twice as fast as the global average. This is
partly due to what is called the ice-albedo
feedback (albedo is a term used to describe
the fraction of sunlight reflected by an
object). In the far north, melting occurs as
areas previously covered by snow or ice
warm. A highly reflective surface (snow or ice)
is replaced by a darker surface (ocean or
land). The darker surface absorbs more
sunlight, leading to more warming and more
melting - a positive feedback. At GFDL,
research suggests that the ice-albedo feedback is a significant
contributor, but not necessarily the dominant factor, in the polar
amplification of the climate change warming signal [Winton, 2006].
It just says it's been observed that the Arctic is warming twice as fast, and then explains a natural phenomena which may be the cause (although then suggests that might not be the reason after all in the last sentence. :-? Let's ignore that for now, since they don't offer an alternative.). Basically, they've given a good reason why arctic ice will melt more quickly as it shrinks, regardless of what has caused the region to warm in the first place. There's no explanation given as to why the unpopulated arctic region should be proportionately affected by man-made warming - if anything, the article suggests it should be less affected, it should be the heavily industrialised regions that experience the greater warming. That seems a reasonable assumption to me. But then they say the arctic is warming at twice the global average...

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Top » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:39 pm


Post Reply