Another global warming thread. Hurrah.
#1
Posted 01 December 2010 - 12:19 PM
But yes, we're probably looking forward to a nice winter ... again.
Defender of the Lawful Evil
#2
Posted 01 December 2010 - 01:17 PM
#3
Posted 01 December 2010 - 04:05 PM
Weather ≠ ClimateThe irony is, there are people protesting today against Global Warming. Yes, Global Warming is still hot (get it? hot?), while we're facing the coldest winter in god knows how long... I hope they freeze to death when they're standing outside with signs.
Situation ≠ Ironic
But well done for trying!
#4
Posted 01 December 2010 - 04:08 PM
We got about half an inch of snow here last week... That's it so far. Lots of rain, each winter seems to get colder than the previous one for the last five years or so.
#5
Posted 01 December 2010 - 04:28 PM
Thanks. Still, the climate isn't changing due to mankind, if that's what you believe.Weather ≠ Climate
Situation ≠ Ironic
But well done for trying!
In the battle between the global warming warmists and the global warming skeptics, the center of the battle is well portrayed in these two graphs. The UN’s IPCC climate models have been based on Michael Mann’s discredited “hockey stick” graph which shows global temperature going along without much change until we reach the 20th century when temperatures climb sharply, much as the blade of a hockey stick does. (This is illustrated by the shadow of a hockey stick in the background).
Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demolished the hockey stick graph in a number of papers that established that almost any numbers would produce the same configuration.
The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period from around AD 800-1300 made the hockey stick graph produce it’s ‘alarming’ 20th century rise, but conflicted with known history. It also eliminated the Little Ice Age of more recent history. Historian Arthur Herman has written about the “killing time”, the years beginning in 1695 when Scots suffered three failed harvests in a row.
“The crops were blighted by easterly “haars” or mists, by sunless, drenching summers, by storms, and by early bitter frosts and late snow in autumn. For seven years this calamitous weather continued… No one knows how many died during the famine of the Lean Years of 1697-1703, but they probably numbered in the tens of thousands.”
The lower graph represents the climatic changes in Europe over the past thousand years. The problem with temperatures is that the first mercury thermometer was invented in 1724 by Gabriel Fahrenheit. Beyond that we have to rely on proxy temperatures from such things as tree rings, ice cores and stalactites. The American thermometer record was supposed to be the most reliable, but locations of stations have cast doubt on that record, as many are located surrounded by pavement, or next to air-conditioner outlets and other urban “heat island” effects that makes the recorded temperatures too warm and unreliable.
Unfortunately for the hockey stick graph, people in Medieval times wrote about their fine weather and the things that they grew. The Vikings settled in Greenland and farmed. Now a new study has indicated that the rapid expansion of the Inca from the Cuzco area of highland Peru produced the largest empire in the new world between approximately AD 1400-1532, and led to the success of Machu Picchu.
A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake near Machu Picchu. Their report says that “the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries.” At its zenith the Inca culture was bigger than the Ming Dynasty China and the Ottoman Empire, the two major contemporaries.
It is worth mentioning that the entire hoopla about the dangerous warming of the past century is only about one degree of warming. Since 2002, the earth has been cooling again. The dangerous warming that requires us to rearrange our whole economy exists only in computer projections based on false history. GIGO.
#6
Posted 01 December 2010 - 04:32 PM
#7
Posted 01 December 2010 - 05:12 PM
Warmest winter on record!
It's not just Vancouver, the WORLD set some records!
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.
#8
Posted 01 December 2010 - 08:21 PM
Look at the graphs I posted again. Saying it's the 'warmest winter ever measured' doesn't prove shit, since we've only been measuring temperature for the past 200 years. So what if it's warmer than 200 years? 1000 years ago it was even warmer still, with the Vikings building farms on Greenland and the King of England boasting about his vineyards.*chuckles* As I can use an identical statement to prove my point, I don't think this whole "oh, the weather is is COLD, global warming must be wrong" thing holds.
Warmest winter on record!
It's not just Vancouver, the WORLD set some records!
#9
Posted 01 December 2010 - 08:25 PM
1000 years ago it was even warmer still, with the Vikings building farms on Greenland and the King of England boasting about his vineyards.
How do you know that if we have only been measuring for 200 years?
Are you saying there are other methods of figuring out temperatures in the past?
Note: I have no educated opinion on this subject, so I'll just point of tiny flaws in both sides where I can.
Edited by Matias, 01 December 2010 - 08:25 PM.
No fuel left for the pilgrims
#10
Posted 01 December 2010 - 08:49 PM
If you want to actually debate AGW theory in general, go open something in the debate forum (I warn you, I will use math), but right now I have to run off and do some climate research. Seriously.
@Matias: There's a bunch of ways, some better than others! Ice core samples, ocean sediment samples, tree growth rates are some of them. I'm sure that if Allathar (and a good chunk of the rest of Revora, I suspect) want to debate me, then you'll hear all about it!
Edited by Nertea, 01 December 2010 - 08:52 PM.
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.
#11
Posted 01 December 2010 - 11:20 PM
What Nertea said. Ice cores, tree chunks, and also historical data - there are remnants of Viking farms from the year 1000 in Greenland (try farming in Greenland with current temperatures and medieval equipment, I dare you), and like I said, the King of England boasting about his vineyards. In other words, it was pretty warm back then.1000 years ago it was even warmer still, with the Vikings building farms on Greenland and the King of England boasting about his vineyards.
How do you know that if we have only been measuring for 200 years?
Are you saying there are other methods of figuring out temperatures in the past?
Note: I have no educated opinion on this subject, so I'll just point of tiny flaws in both sides where I can.
Also, those numbers from the last 200 years don't mean a thing compared to the long history of the Earth. Why can't this thing be pretty normal? Who says this cycle hasn't been around since forever? We can't know, we've only 'real' data for 200 years. 200 years is incredibly short for that, and those statistics can be easily manipulated.
It's simple - the Earth can cool down or warm up, with about 50% chance of each. Just because it's warmed half a degree in the last hundred years doesn't mean we suddenly have to spend billions and billions on trying to prevent global warming. Moreover, I bet that if it'd have cooled down instead, they'd also blame mankind and CO2 for it, and that we needed to prepare for the coming Ice Age. And we'd have to spend billions on trying to prevent it, of course. Oh wait, they did that, back in the 70s...
#12
Posted 01 December 2010 - 11:27 PM
I'm not leaning towards either side in the CO2 vs. The World debate, I'm merely for a greener and healthier enviourment
The 4th Age version 0.8 has been released: Link
#13
Posted 01 December 2010 - 11:31 PM
#14
Posted 01 December 2010 - 11:50 PM
I've heard that if the US stopped it's military spendings for a single day, they could buy everyone in Africa a blanked to sleep in at night. I don't know if it's true, but it's something to think about
The 4th Age version 0.8 has been released: Link
#15
Posted 02 December 2010 - 09:26 AM
I'm pretty sure we had several global-warming threads over the years, which have all proved indecisive and divisive. We believe what we want to and can all find evidence to support it. To prove my point: four hundred years ago Britain was approximately four degrees colder, which made a huge difference. The river Thames froze over and every winter an open market would be held on it, atop the frozen water. But 1000 years ago we had vineyards in England and farms in Greenland. Wait, did I just suggest that perhaps the Earth's climate is unstable and in constant flux? Just because it happens on a geological time-scale doesn't mean it's not happening, and really doesn't mean it's our fault. (I always felt the viewpoint that we are to blame to be unbelievably arrogant. "Oh, something's happening. Must be us. What else could possibly be a factor on this incredibly complex ecosystem?")
#16
Posted 02 December 2010 - 01:00 PM
We are nothing if not predictable.
Break dancing into the hearts of millions
#17
Posted 02 December 2010 - 03:00 PM
Some people fail to take into account the natural climate cycles of the earth. Like the "little heat wave" that happened around the year 1000, or the "little ice age" that happened between the 1400's and the 1700's. So now it's the next 'little heat wave" and the freaking world is doomed to distruction. It's silly really. Just adapt and overcome. The solution is not bankrupting the global economy over something that is obviously a natural climate cycle.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#18
Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:58 PM
If by 'group of people' you mean humanity, then yes.This "green mental illness" is simply an obsessive compulsive behavior by a group of people who have a lot of profit to make by being green.
We have vineyards still - in Wales.the King of England boasting about his vineyards.
#19
Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:36 PM
However, the whole debate about global warming has some entertaining moments as well. One of my very favourite aspects in it is the 'problem' of the cattles. If you believe to some voices in the media, world's cattles are going to fart us down straight to the apocalypse, and - what's really sad - they don't even recognize that they're eradicating our beautiful planet. But it's hard to blame them for their natural behaviour, even though it means we're doomed.
Now glaciers will soon have molten away, oceans will rise, and soon, when the maelstrom gathers it's unholy wrath to devour the world in a final whirl of chaos, storms as we know them will be nothing more than a pleasant memory. Cheers, Argentina!
Maybe we should give a thanks to the sun, our lazy dude, because this star really had the impudence to proof itself as unpredictable. One of it's secrets is the cycle of activity, which usually alters in periodic ups and downs of eleven years, becoming apparent in an increasing or decreasing intensity of radiation. But recently, nobody knows why, sun seems to be bored of it's own rhythm and decided to try something new. The current cycle of increased solar activity is already two years late, and nothing seems to happen above there. The pleasant effect is that global warming is slowed down significantly. On the other hand, if sun won't give us some heavy new bursts of radiation in the near future, we will probably get a kind of global cooling, and then I'll be curious to listen to the media. Probably they will draw the conclusion that we are in a need of more cattles.
Since this topic is a spawn of the celebration topic, I'm celebrating our sun! Bless it for today's saviour! Nevermind that it will annihilate our entire planetary system one other day.
Defender of the Lawful Evil
#20
Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:10 PM
The thing that absolutely mystifies me, however about this issue is how little people trust scientists. I mean, if your doctor told you that you had cancer, would your first reaction be to tell him that he was wrong, and that you would refuse any treatment because you disagreed with his diagnosis that was backed up by a dozen years of med school and residences? Most people generally accept what their doctors tell them, because they have oodles more experience.
And goddamnit, the people working on these questions have just as much schooling. We have to do about 9 years of schoolwork before being considered for a postdoctorate position, and publish a good number of peer-reviewed papers before we get any scientific credibility. And boy, even if you didn't like your cancer diagnosis, and went to a different doctor, and he said the same thing, would you be more convinced? I think so! However, here we have several thousand scientists saying the same thing and still no trust. You know what is is? It's saddening.
Example:
I'm sorry what? Do you honestly think we ignore the fact that cyclical climate is taught in grade 11 geography?Some people fail to take into account the natural climate cycles of the earth. Like the "little heat wave" that happened around the year 1000, or the "little ice age" that happened between the 1400's and the 1700's. So now it's the next 'little heat wave" and the freaking world is doomed to distruction.
Oh, and fyi, the people involved in the IPCC report are also not hungry for government funding for their research, as some skeptics like to say - in fact, my department doesn't see any money at all from that. All the money for 'combating climate change' goes to various companies and think tanks, not the people who do the research on it. So really, we have no monetary incentive to become alarmists.
As to the whole Medieval Optimum issue, I'm going to have you read the IPCC Chapter 6, from page 468. It has a graph which is better than the smoothed one Allathar posted. Oh, and it's not the hockey stick graph, which almost every climate scientist nowadays doesn't like. Guess which ones like it? THE SKEPTICS. That's right, ignore recent research and more accurate graphs to attack a 1998 prediction. 12 years is ages in modern research.
Concluding quote for the lazy:
It's backed up by figures and quotes by three major studies, and it's pretty transparent. I can also extract some stuff from Mann and Jones, some of whose papers I've read quite thoroughly in the past.However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean
temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in
medieval times
To reiterate, I will not debate the measures used to stop the earth from heating up. They're a mix of a few half decent ideas and a gross majority of ones that are bollocks. However, I will actively contest any claim that the activities of humankind are not heating up the globe.
-edit: The cattle thing could be relevant... methane is about 21x more effective at absorbing longwave radiation as carbon dioxide
Edited by Nertea, 02 December 2010 - 06:17 PM.
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users