Climate change denialists!!

I'm not saying that I don't think it's happening. I'm just worried about the fact that we're making an assumption based on trying to model a massivley complex system with so many variables that we don't fully understand. After all, so far we haven't seem any of teh doom and gloom predictions coming to fruition as have been predicted, although I acknowledge that that may be because the media picking worse case scenarios.

Since you insist on continually bringing these up I must ask you for some examples of events that where predicted to have happened by now but haven't to date, and some sources to go along with them, when I say sources I mean reliable ones. Not some tree hugger's blog about how the oil companies are masking the effects of climate change and by 2007 the highlands will be all that remain of Scotland, and Wales (minus Snowdonia) and Ireland no longer exist will have disappeared into the North Sea and London will be underwater.

As for the media, according to one source Madeline McCann was found in Dublin the other week, according to another, the biggest threat to humanity is actually a non-aggressive, relatively harmless spider and everyone needs to panic because it is going to be cold in a month or so...Cold in winter? Who conjured up that nonsense?

Ice free North pole by 2013.
Continued increase in surface temperature - Stable since the late 90s.
Global warming is killing Polar bears.
Sinking Pacific Islands - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threatened-by-more-than-just-rising-sea-levels-a-838675.html

There's bull s**t and bluster on both sides of teh debate.

It's important to note that this "bulls**t bluster" isn't coming from the scientific community. Claims made by both sides of the debate should always be checked against their scientific source (if any). Even so, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of anthropogenic climate change.

P.S. Temperatures haven't been stable since the 90's. The 00's was the warmest decade on modern record, but an exceptional high in 1998 (due to a strong El Nino) and a low in the late 2000's (due to a strong La Nina) caused a statistic downward trend in the running average for the period, even though average annual temperatures continued to increase most years (and still are).

Ice free North pole by 2013.
Continued increase in surface temperature - Stable since the late 90s.
Global warming is killing Polar bears.
Sinking Pacific Islands - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threatened-by-more-than-just-rising-sea-levels-a-838675.html

There's bull s**t and bluster on both sides of teh debate.

The debate is wether we are causing climate change or compounding climate change. I believe we are compounding it and that the earths pole reversal is causing it but then again that is irrelevant.

What is important is the fact that it is happening and we need to stop arguing and work out how to deal with it once it all goes tits up. It doesn't really matter anymore what is causing climate change because it's got to the stage now that by the time we have changed our minds a few more times (which is inevitable) it will be too late

This doesn't mean we should keep trying to destroy the planet. Pollution makes the world very unpleasant and I'd love to see the back of it.


Posted from TSR Mobile

and herin lies the problem. There is a significant scientific consensus that the climate has changed, but there is no consensus that its man made or at least to what extent it's man made. There is no scientific consensus that AGW is an overall bad thing or a good thing.

There are fringes on both sides that are distorting what scientists say, and there's scientists also getting in on it.

tou may want to check. Temperatures have been stable since 00s. They haven't gone up and they haven't gone down. That's stable. Average annual temperatures haven't increased.

Polar bears are currently on the endangered species list, though global warming isn't directly killing them it isn't helping the species.

The ice free Arctic by 2013 is the first I've heard of that, I'm assuming it was floating around in the 80s or something, but I doubt that was widely accepted.

As of the land masses shrinking, you really can't link it directly to the climate. The same natural laws and processes that have been active throughout the history of the universe are still in operation today, as entire continents let alone islands have are thought to have come and gone it makes sense that this can still happen today. That said, rising sea levels is hardly going to do many favours for a sinking island, much like with the polar bear.

As for the surface temperatures a key thing to remember is that while they have been stable for 15years, they have also been above average for that same decade and a half. Also this is worth a read, whether you decide to believe it or not doesn't matter really.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=224921

Ice free Artic by 2013. By Aunty in 2007. Lets remember that they're quite supportive of the climate change concept.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

Temperatiures have risen since 1950. But could you please tell me what the average global temperature is meant to be? If I measure the speed at which a pendulum swings, dpeneding on at what point I measure it's movement, depends on what 'average' temperature I get. What's the average gradient of a Sin wave?

Here's one Graph og global temperature over the past 2000 years.


.

I believe it stated that some parts of the northern arctic seas will be free of ice during the summer months. Hardly a full scale genocide of Arctic ice now is it. Not to mention that that report was a projection based on the rising temperatures, which as we both know, the increase did not continue. And lastly, that projection was not widely accepted, yet here you are stating it as if it were being preached by all 'climate change mostly due to humans' scientists as if it were a written in a letter sent from Jupiter himself.

Lastly, that graph is largely inaccurate, for one, the section coined 'little ice age' was not a global phenomenon, the southern hemisphere remained relatively normal while it was the Northern hemisphere which was subject to such temperature drops. Likewise with the 'medieval warm period', that too was a regional phenomenon and does not indicate an overall rise in temperature.

For example, if it really were true that overall temperatures are not as warm now as they had been in the past, what is the cause of the rapidly retreating glaciers across the world, from New Zealand all the way to Iceland? Simply, it is because the planet has been warmer now than at any other point during the medieval period.

Another issue with this graph is that it seems to just peter off with a dotted line around the 20th century. The issue we are faced with is not how warm the temperature has been, it is how warm it is getting.

I believe it stated that some parts of the northern arctic seas will be free of ice during the summer months. Hardly a full scale genocide of Arctic ice now is it. Not to mention that that report was a projection based on the rising temperatures, which as we both know, the increase did not continue. And lastly, that projection was not widely accepted, yet here you are stating it as if it were being preached by all 'climate change mostly due to humans' scientists as if it were a written in a letter sent from Jupiter himself.

Lastly, that graph is largely inaccurate, for one, the section coined 'little ice age' was not a global phenomenon, the southern hemisphere remained relatively normal while it was the Northern hemisphere which was subject to such temperature drops. Likewise with the 'medieval warm period', that too was a regional phenomenon and does not indicate an overall rise in temperature.

For example, if it really were true that overall temperatures are not as warm now as they had been in the past, what is the cause of the rapidly retreating glaciers across the world, from New Zealand all the way to Iceland? Simply, it is because the planet has been warmer now than at any other point during the medieval period.

Another issue with this graph is that it seems to just peter off with a dotted line around the 20th century. The issue we are faced with is not how warm the temperature has been, it is how warm it is getting.

you do raise a valid point. I remember reading this last year and there were indications that this would have some impact on the climate.

However the environmental lobby have jumped onto this one and tried to link pole reversal to AGW.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-has-shifted-location-north-south-poles

I'm sorry but what kind of bs is that article. The earths poles have been shifting since the start of the planet. This is coming from an environmentalist btw.

Basically we know that every 350000 years or so the earths poles weaken to 0% and then strengthen but in a reversed orientation. In 1800 the weakening process began. The weakening occurs at a rate of about 5% every century. Weaker poles mean a weaker magnetosphere allowing more solar radiation to hit the planet leading to global warming


Posted from TSR Mobile[/QUOTE


I'm fully aware its BS. But I'm merely highlighting that anything that happens now seems to be greeting linked to AGW.

Don't you agree that when people are evacuating flood risk land as we speak there is something wrong with people's lax attitudes to climate change


Posted from TSR Mobile

Which flood areas would those be? The ones that are in flood risk areas that have had floods since the dawn if time. The flood risk areas that have been compounded by poor planning, lack of maintenance if drainage systems, urbanisation and changes to farming activities?

those flood risk areas.

i remember the news reports about

Here's a place that flooded in 2004 that they tried to link with climate change.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynmouth_Flood

I am talking about many Pacific Islanders who have relocated to SE Aisia


Posted from TSR Mobile