Given the known range of prehistoric climate change (tropical fossils found in the Arctic, glacial tailings and lakes throughout flyover country, etc. etc...) -
Does anyone REALLY think that humans can cause climate change outside the range that Planet Earth has already experienced, and that we have no reason to expect NOT to happen in the future?
I might concede that our influences might hasten or postpone the natural cycles (by a few days, or a few years...), but this hardly leads me to believe the ultimate outcome will be any different.
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Only a "scientist" who has already made up their mind would let data like this go through without double checking, but then Al (bless him) Gore knew a fundamentalist when he saw one in james hansen.
It's instructive also that comments Posted by Tony Banton on November 18, 2008 7:58 PM try to make the point that both Y and -Y are caused by the same X. In other words, global warming > more oceanic evaporation > more humidity > more snowfall > more glacier growth, while at at same time making the opposite point.
Tis the season - The Twelve Days of Global Warming
On the first day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the second day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the third day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the fourth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the fifth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the sixth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the seventh day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Climate Models drowning, Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the eighth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me El Nino missing, Climate Models drowning, Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the ninth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Scientists a-censored, El Nino missing, Climate Models drowning, Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the tenth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Arctic Ice Recovering, Scientists a-censored, El Nino missing, Climate Models drowning, Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the eleventh day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me C02 a-rising, Arctic Ice Recovering, Scientists a-censored, El Nino missing, Climate Models drowning, Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy.
On the twelfth day of Global Warming, my true love sent to me Twelve years this cycle, C02 a-rising, Arctic Ice Recovering, Scientists a-censored, El Nino missing, Climate Models drowning, Hanson a-lying, SOLAR MINIMUM, More falling temps, No warming trend, Two Clinton thugs, And Al Gore’s cap and trade policy!
A point I have thought about but not voiced before in forum is on sea level rise.
We know the water cycle - it is in the sea, it evaporates, it forms clouds, it falls on land, it drains into the sea. It is a closed loop, no loss, feedback system
BUT
it falls on land, it drains into rivers, it washes soils and sediments, it drains into the sea. The soil part is an open loop, non-feedback system. Over the life of the earth the dry bit has gradually eroded and finishes up in the wet bit thus causing water displacement or sea level rise.
There is some land-recovery from volcanic eruption, from acretion in salt marshes etc but I would contend that land drainage and sediment deposition is a cause of sea level rise. Who knows, it may be more significant than the supposed thermal expansion of the oceans and we know thermal expansion applies only to the surface layer of the ocean.
I know warmists would argue that man has caused desertification and increases sediment despoition. However deserts tend to be arid and not conducive to sedimentary transportation
Small flaw in that idea. Where have a lot of the glaciers gone?
They melted and/or evaporated. Where does it say that we must have glaciers. They've been around for a long time, granted, but getting smaller and smaller, and eventually will disappear. There used to be a lot of things around that we have no more. Some are man-made and some are nature-made, but they all have a lifespan. Some longer than others.
The climate change lobby is winning. Any arguments made against it are now ridiculed. Any arguments made for it are now accepted as fact.
The problem is not actually climate change at all. After all that has happened over the centuries anyway and, being 10,000 years from the last ice age, we are in the middle of a warm period anyway. No the problem is that of using up finite energy resources - mainly oil. We are starting to exploit more expensive sources of oil, such as tar sands, but it is a finite resource.
That would make a more sensible argument.
Nigel Lawson's book 'An Appeal to Reason' talks a lot of sense and deals mostly in fact. However his arguments are discredited by ridicule.
What I don't fully understand is why the politicians like the global warming / climate change argument so much? They are definitely pushing it.
- It's a long-term process
- I think you'll find the quantities are negligeable, relative to the water volume of the oceans.
- A lot of it is deposited at the river mouths, where in the end it becomes land. The Rhone delta is a good example: the shore line has moved south by several kilometres over the last 2000 years.
- It's not necessarily the sea level that rises, it can also be the land that subsides. Holland is very slowly tilting over into the North Sea, which is why the Dutch have to raise their dykes regularly. I have to look it up, but IIRC we're talking a cm or more per year, which would translate to a metre or more a century. On the other hand, in Southern France (Languedoc) where I now live, we do not have that phenomenon, and the sea level along the coast has remained unchanged for the last two thousand years.
Dushan,
Re glaciers, and arctic ice, melting more rapidly, the answer I find more plausible is "dirty snow". For instance, the Chinese industry, power stations, etc. dump a vast amount of particulates in the atmosphere (think of the smog in Peking) which can travel thousands of miles on the prevailing westerly wind.
You will see that Nigel Lawson gives some very logical reasons why Western politicians love Global Warming - it has replaced religion as the tool of power over the masses. It enables them to tax us and look good for doing it. Gordon Brown has demonstrated how much easier it is to govern when we are in a crisis.
After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy. The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.
Does anyone REALLY think that humans can cause climate change outside the range that Planet Earth has already experienced, and that we have no reason to expect NOT to happen in the future?
Apparently yes!
About the the same number of people who believe in a spooky invisible entity that controls everything and knows everything.
Very true but warmists might then suggest that increased population and intensive agriculture increase the sedimentary run off. Increased concretification of suberbia is definitely a factor in increased flood flows.
Quote:
- A lot of it is deposited at the river mouths, where in the end it becomes land. The Rhone delta is a good example: the shore line has moved south by several kilometres over the last 2000 years.
This was true of Uk however the tree huggers have generally prevented land reclamation - water displacement - but encourage managed realignment - inland flooding.
Where I am we gain land ant about 20-30 m per year and a depth increase of about 20-30mm
Quote:
- It's not necessarily the sea level that rises, it can also be the land that subsides. Holland is very slowly tilting over into the North Sea, which is why the Dutch have to raise their dykes regularly.
"Post-glacial bounce". Scotland is rising and the pivot line is supposedly the Severn-Wash axis. The south of England is sinking. Up at Dingawall you can see shell fossils some 100 feet above the Firth.
Quote:
On the other hand, in Southern France (Languedoc) where I now live, we do not have that phenomenon, and the sea level along the coast has remained unchanged for the last two thousand years.
In Spain, (Calpe IIRC) there is the remains of a Roman villa on the beach. The carved bed rock is below the high water mark. This suggests a modest sea rise.
Without doubt the planet is not a fixed, unchanging entity. The South Sea Islands are built on living coral attached to sea mounts. Anthrophomorphic sea level rise is a handy argument for UN funding whereas natural subsidence of the underlying sea mount would not.
I found an environmental impact assessment for the east-africa undersea cables. It had no axe to grind and stated, IIRC, that sea levels were 130 meters lower 18,000 years ago. (72 cm per century) http://www.afdb.org/pls/portal/docs/...-%20ESIA_0.PDF
This rather blows the anthrophomorphic argument out of the water.
"What I don't fully understand is why the politicians like the global warming / climate change argument so much? They are definitely pushing it."
In the UK its called an excuse to tax and create tears of nebulous buraucracy in the provinces, employment. and a stealth tax on landlords
Rent out a property and someone charges you £90 for an Energy Performance Certificate ( KERRCHING!)....this goes on a Govt controlled database ...they now know how many and where the landlords are ...They then approach you for a bit more tax in the belief you are making money and not just covering the mortgage ( KERERRCHING!)...Oh and then theres the selling of information on properties with poor bandings to boiler/glazing/insulation manufacturers so they can create more junk mail so net result more CO2 produced by assessors running about assessing properties and more CO2 created from junk mail from boiler/glazing/insulation manufacturers trying to sell you stuff to make your property more efficient ( POSSIBLE KERRCHING!)
Linear Mode
