What Do We Think About Climate Change

Everything could be as you say, but is there any reason for all this swearing and rude language?

Have I said anything THAT bad to you to provoke this avalanche of insults?

I am not enough of an animal to go down to your level and insult someone like that just because you dislike the facts.

Which are from your own government's site by the way.

But feel free to keep swearing, it must be a form of ************ for you and alikes.

 

Boston my darling,
I wouldn't say malaria is a bad example, when around 60 million people are estimated to have died because of the DDT stupid and malevolous banning in the seventies, which HAS HAD TO BE REVERSED. If that's not genocide, please tell me how do you call that.

About what you mention on pines and beetles, it may be true (could you please show us the source?), but it is not relevant in a global scale nor for this debate. What is important is what's globally happening to vegetation in the planet, which mass HAS BEEN GROWING all the way up to a 6% during the last 30 years of the 20th century. We have posted evidence on this before. Remember: CO2 IS WHAT PLANTS "EAT".

Among many other entities finding the same results around the globe, a study by the University of Leeds, published in the science journal Nature (this is: in the "warming" camp, realize!), measured the girth of 70,000 trees across 10 African countries and compared them with similar records made four decades ago. On average, the trees were getting bigger faster and researchers found that each hectare of African forest was trapping an extra 0.6 tons of CO2 a year compared with the 1960s. Sahel is greening. Amazon has been increasing its plants mass, as well as north of America woods. Experiments suggest that raised CO2 levels would boost the yields of mainstream crops, such as maize, rice and soy, by about 13 per cent. Etc, etc, etc.

Once again, my stubborn friend: CO2 IS WHAT PLANTS "EAT".

About the snowball thing, you just rant around without informing us about a single warming event destroying life on earth. Please remember WE have said many, many times that what is dangerous is the cooling of the planet, not the warming. Would you please stop playing games and tell us about specific warming epochs, their causes and their effects on life? Just one, please. I will be happy to debate that with you.

About the "rocks" proxies (probably you mean ice cores), you say now they are not good indicators? But they were good for Mann et al, to build up the jockey stick fiasco, flattening historical temperatures and performing some "tricks" to match them with post 1900 observational data, which you applaud. Please explain such contradiction.

And about the Pangea thing, this is PRECISELY (once again, my God! Is your memory failing?) what WE have been saying: global temperature changes are caused by many, many other factors, NOT ANTHROPOGENIC CO2. The shifting of the continents and their distribution on the globe is one of the important aspects. Specially when big land masses coincide at the Poles. What has that to do with CO2, could you explain to me?

We are in a solar minimum, yes, and that's precisely what is halting the last humble growing of the mean temperatures (downwards trend recognized by "the Team" itself in the East Anglia e-mails. Please learn about your own camp. See post 4001) in the same way the high solar activity of the last 70 years caused the mild warming. And the minimum will still be deeper around 2050, in a Dalton like scenario. I will post soon an interesting recent work on Sun and it's recorded net influence on Earth's temperature both in geological, prehistorical and historical times. We have posted here already many works about this, but not this particular outstanding one. I hope you will find it deserving something better than one of your unfruitful personal attacks, like the sad one you do on Christy. May I remember you Christy DOES NOT deny anthropogenic warming, but the scaring scenarios painted by the alarmists?

In any case, you should say where and why Christy is wrong when he criticises "the Team" because of the manipultation they did about the publication of Christy et al's work, instead of attacking him with no arguments.

When will you learn?

Cheers.

 

Marco1, the system has bugs. Obviously you are not familiar with that fact. I am not the only user that makes posts, but they do not reflect in the count.

By the tone of your post, it looks like you were offended by my posts somehow as well...?

I am left to wonder what is exactly wrong with all you angry people here. As soon as someone disagrees with you, you are all out insulting teh eyes out of your heads and trying to intimidate the "undesirable" poster.

Did it occur to you that there are people who disagree with you but are not running into your face with insults and uncivilised behaviour.

I could respond to jimbo in a similar fashion, but why? If we cannot have a civilised discussion with mutual respect for the fact that we do not see things in the same way, we do not have to swear at each other.

After a couple of months reading this forum, I am prepared to have mentally unstable people barking at whatever I say. But does it have to be like that?

Is it really THAT hard for you angry people to live with the fact that we are bound to disagree? Or is it just a form of some bizarre Freudian thing that you people are unleashing here because there will be no punishment after you have been "bad"?

I can already imagine unsavoury replies from all those disturbed people here. Do send them. They speak plenty about you as human failures.

 

To all the agressive people with severe Tourette syndrome

Look, I am even unable to give you your "evil" points, so knock yourselves out. Discard your primitive need to swear, fight, insult demonstrate your "linguistical superiority" in rudeness.

I am "defenceless". You can charge all those "negative" points on me safely. I cannot return the favour.

And even if I could, I wouldn't bother playing your silly games with the mentally disturbed and sad individuals.

Not here for that.

Go on. Knock yourselves out. Do what you do best: being pathetic cry babies.

 

I'm with Senad here. Rude language and personal attacks are not acceptable, coming from whoever. Please let's keep this debate civilized.

But Senade, you have said: "Both are essentially wrong anyway." Could you please elaborate?

Cheers.

 

How do you even expect a civilised approach from someone like this who serves his own truths a nd if you dislike it you are a half-dicked *******...?

Arctic was never without the ice before that we know of, and certainly wasn't in 1930. because that would have wiped out all the animals living there.

I would be happy to see some evidence to the contrary. If I am not asking too much, of course.

 

Guillermo, both pro and contra are coming from scientists. If they cannot agree, what are our chances (as is quite clear from the inensity of rudeness).

Boston made a good example of how some of your data is wrong. So, just from that one example your point of view loses any credibility. You are building an argument around the information that is just not correct.

Just because someone says it is, it doesn't mean that it is.

Al Gore had made a fool of himself many times over talking up "warming" with the numbers that make sense only to the group of people in this forum when they feel the urge to swear.

So who do one believes?

I do not accept the finality of either side. The nature is dynamic and ever changing. We dfinitely are contributing to the changes. But how much?

Western scientists are too dependant on people who pay them, to be able to tell the truth.

This is the same debate as the one around the genetically modified vegetables. One cannot simply discard what Montsanto and Ciba say (in favour of GM) because their laboratories are infested with post-doctoral geniuses.

Yet, there are just as many post-doctoral geniuses who call for immediate stop to introduction of genetically modified crops into the mainstream because they may also have long term disastrous effect.

It is simply a question of being well informed. And even then the choice is still a gamble until a conclusive set of data is collected that undeniably supports one of the views.

Today not one single person can claim for certaint hat the climate is or isn't affected by humans to the level pro camp is claiming it to be. And viceversa. Not one person can tell that they have the undeniable information to support the opinion that humans are not affecting the climate.

Not a single chart presented here or anywhere in the world is conclusive.

This is still very much a work in progres. Changes do exist. How much are they our fault is yet to be determined.

 

Senad is a deceitful, lying purveyor of nonsense. His previous contacts have not been so innocent, and I understand completely what pushed Jimbo to that point. Post 4139 is but a precurser to Senad's methodology.

 

In the wake of my post 4113, and answering a private request, let me compare the Sun constant in W/m2 with anthropogenic energy on the surface of the planet, also in W/m2.

The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited,[4] 1.366 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.96 langleys (Ly) per minute.

The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 342 W/m²).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant

Let's take this last mean value of 342 W/m2 inciding in the outer athmosphere and multiply it by the relation 89/174 (see the above mentioned post) to find out the mean power reaching every square meter of the Earth's surface. The figure is approximately 175 W/m2

If we now divide the total 15 terawatts of total human compsumption in 2008 by the total surface of Earth, around 150 000 000 km2, we get 0,1 W/m2

So 0.1/175 = 0,0006 approximately.

As Jim said, a fourth order of magnitude difference.

Cheers.

 

Mr whatsyourname...I can accept any point of view presented properly or like you do I don't care. But if you call the rest ignorant and delusional, you are opening up for me to call you a perfect idiot.

So now we are square.

 

Which one?

 

From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:

• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting - a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

 

About the poles being without ice at all you should inform yourself better. Just search this thread for posted info, please.

The NW passage has been previously open in recent times. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905

Built for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to serve as a supply ship for isolated, far-flung Arctic RCMP detachments, vessel "St. Roch" was also designed to serve when frozen in for the winter, as a floating detachment, with its constables mounting dog sled patrols from the ship. Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.

And about the life on the Arctic, let me give you another example: Polar bears are thought to have evolved from grizzlies around 200 - 250000 years ago. During that time Artic has been without ice or much less ice than today several times and bears have succesfully survived till today. Presently their numbers are growing, in spite of the loss of sea Arctic ice till 2007 (nowadays ice extension is growing again), because of the limitations imposed on their hunting.

As told, I think you should inform yourself better.

Cheers.

 

We should probably not mix the possibility to make a passage with the phrase "without ice..." there are (discussed) reports of junks from China making that passage in the 1420's, also the Russians have mapped large areas in early times.

quote (Wiki ):

The motivation to navigate the North East Passage was initially economic. In Russia the idea of a possible seaway connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific was first put forward by the diplomat Gerasimov in 1525. However, Russian settlers and traders on the coast of the White Sea, the Pomors, had been exploring parts of the route as early as the 11th century.
During a voyage across the Barents Sea in search of the North East Passage in 1553, English explorer Hugh Willoughby thought he saw islands to the north, and islands called Willoughby's Land were shown on maps published by Plancius and Mercator in the 1590s and they continued to appear on maps by Jan Janssonius and Willem Blaeu into the 1640s.[1]
By the 17th century, traders had established a continuous sea route from Arkhangelsk to the Yamal Peninsula, where they portaged to the Gulf of Ob. This route, known as Mangazeya seaway, after its eastern terminus, the trade depot of Mangazeya, was an early precursor to the Northern Sea Route.
​

quote end.

The arctic have been travelled in earlier times, without causing the wildlife any harm (ehhh, well probably not recorded at least...). But today's situation is in fact in a state where it is discussed to open regular ship traffic in the area.... In the summer season.... Taste on that word; "regular".. Doesent that imply some melting / warming? But of course; the hockey stick is wrong, we have no warming, all glaciers are building up...

About the hockey stick being wrong; It's about how you present the data, it's not unusual to present the graphs in a way that the changes/ change of direction on the graph is more visible. It's done to present in a more visible way how the expotentioal function work. I have no problem with that, but have noted that some keep saying that mantra "the hockey stick is wrong".

Us usual; You'll all find me in the better safe than sorry crowd....

 

Excuse me Knut, but the hockey stick has been proved to BE WRONG. Period.
And not only wrong but consciously built by "massaging" data and using "tricks" as recognized by Mann himself an thoroughly proved by other scientists.
As a matter of fact the IPCCC DOES NOT include it any more in their recent reports.

Wrong calculations/projections from whoever has noting to do with the facts of the Earth's warming/cooling or the glaciers melting/growing.

Cheers.

P.S. If you really want to be in the "better safe than sorry crowd", you are on the wrong side, let me tell you. Warming IS NOT a threat. COOLING is a threat. Don't you realize that?