PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming???


uffington sb
20th Mar 2005, 14:26
On the train home yesterday, I read an article in the Grudeon about the Arctic having the coldest winter since records began and some scientist blamed it on 'global warming'. So much for the ice caps melting
Is it possible that these scientist blokies/esses who have had milions of squid off us over the last few years haven't got a clue as to what the **** is going on and we're all doomed by a new ice age??

Any ideas from educated ppruners. Do I need to buy thermals or sun scream??

p.s. I found the Gudarain tween the seats.

:confused:

Grainger
20th Mar 2005, 15:27
Think we all know enough about global warming by now, uff, to understand that it will produce greater extremes - that's to say wide fluctuations superimposed on top of an overall upwards trend.

Just like when you disturb any equilibrium system - it can swing about wildly before falling over.

So you'll need both thermals and sunscreen !

Anyway, it may have been cold up at the North Pole, but we haven't had any "proper" snow here for years - damn stuff all melts as soon as it's fallen :(

Jerricho
20th Mar 2005, 15:27
You can have some of our Grainger.

My back yard is buried under 3 feet of the stuff.

Ontariotech
20th Mar 2005, 15:29
I heard that big mountain in Africa, Kilimanjaro or something is loosing it's ice caps.

And here in Canada, we are on the north shore of Lake Ontario, we have been cooler than normal. Last summer was cold and grey, this winter has been constantly grey and colder than normal, and for longer.

We need some global pollution control in a hurry. I cannot wait till BUSH gets out of office in the US, does this guy even have a stance on pollution and the enviroment? Oh yea, he does hance a stance. The blank stance.

acbus1
20th Mar 2005, 15:30
Any ideas from educated ppruners
Educated ppruners?

Bit ambitious, innit? :rolleyes:

Jerricho
20th Mar 2005, 15:37
This has been mentioned here before, but does anybody really knows what cycles the Earth goes through leading up to an ice age and the "warming" afterwards. All these science types jump up and down about changes in the atmosphere and alike, and studies of soil etc can give a rough indication as to what was in the atmosphere, but can the unequivocally state that the very conditions we are seeing haven't happen before.

Did the cavemen however many thousands of years ago think "Hey boys, we had better cut back on out camp fires. This place is really starting to warm up a bit".

acbus1
20th Mar 2005, 15:49
......does anybody really knows what cycles the Earth goes through leading up to an ice age and the "warming" afterwards.
Why not do a Google, find the answer and post a link? :p

;)

pigboat
20th Mar 2005, 16:14
Well, Eric The Red named it Greenland. I doubt if he understood irony. :E

Three feet?? Yer lucky mate. Remember last October, on another board, when I posted a pic of my car in my driveway after our first snowstorm? Well, from the same place on my back walk, I can just see the top of the roof rack over the snow bank. And we got the rest of March and all of April to go. :uhoh:
Not to mention May. :{

Grandpa
20th Mar 2005, 16:18
......scientist proceed by making mathematic models of atmosphere.

They are not allways right, but their path is the only one to approach the "truth" about what next generations will haveto face..................and maybe ours too.

I like much your quote from the cavemen, and infer you don't put yourself in this community.

High Wing Drifter
20th Mar 2005, 16:21
Well I'm not convinced that we are staring world destruction in the face as we are told. Nevertheless, you would need to upside down and upto your neck in sand not think that our emisssions aren't going to cause serious problems.

Jerricho
20th Mar 2005, 17:39
A link for Abacus

tony draper
20th Mar 2005, 18:13
Eric Bloodaxe named that place Greenland in order to con his fellow scandyhooligans into buying plots of same, bit of a scallywag was the Bloodaxe person, one does like his name though.
:rolleyes:

419
20th Mar 2005, 18:34
He sounds a bit like the original timeshare salesman!

Caslance
20th Mar 2005, 19:00
Eric Bloodaxe was King of Jorvik and Northumbria - quite near your own neck of the woods, Mr D.

So far as I know, he had nothing to do with Greenland. But it's a quite splendid name, isn't it? :ok:

You must be thinking of Erik Thorvaldsson, better known as Erik The Red, who discovered and named Greenland. ;)


Mind you, Magnus Barelegs (http://www.irishsecrets.ie/history-secrets/magnus-barelegs/about.php) is a pretty good name, too. :E

criticalmass
20th Mar 2005, 19:39
The problem with any hypothesis about global warming is we simply don't have weather and climate records gathered over a long enough period to make accurate predictions. Systematic and scientific observations of weather etc go back perhaps 100 years at most, largely because measuring instruments prior to that were not accurate enough (or didn't exist), and the need to keep accurate records was neither perceived or implemented.

So, we are extrapolating a long way ahead into the future based on a very small sample. In reality, with modern computer modelling we can make some fairly accurate predictions, but we can also make some pretty wild ones, and sometimes it is difficult to separate the two.

What is needed is urgent research into the patterns of global climate swings at least since the last ice-age. One of the most promising fields of research in this matter is polar ice-cores, since the ice itself contains a "signature" of the climatic conditions when it formed. I understand scientists from several nations are engaged in ice-core research in Antarctica, and the same may well be happening in the Arctic.

Until we have an accurate picture of the naturally-occurring global variations, it will be very difficult to gauge how much influence mankind's activities are contributing to any changes in the normal cycles. Anecdotal evidence is purely subjective although the individual's recollections may in themselves be very accurate.

That said, only someone of extremely limited intellect would disagree with the proposition that a global effort to reduce pullution of al kinds to less than one tenth of present-day values would be a good thing all round.

Rollingthunder
20th Mar 2005, 19:46
I'm sure all the crap humans pump into the atmosphere, relentlessly, everyday, doesn't do anything any good.

However flying from LHR to YVR in the winter and spending at least 4 hours of that time over Canada's great frozen north with white everywhere, you have to wonder about any warming.

tony draper
20th Mar 2005, 20:05
One stands corrected MR Casablanc, twas indeed Eric The Red who discovered Greenland, dammed commies get everywhere.
:rolleyes:

Caslance
20th Mar 2005, 20:58
Dunno about him being a commie - more likely to have been a Man United fan. :E

Omaha
21st Mar 2005, 13:18
Many assume global warming heralds warmer weather for the British Isles but should the melting of the polar ice affect the Gulf Stream the British Isles could be in for a very icy time indeed. We are actually on the same latitude as very cold areas such as Newfoundland I think. We owe our temperate climate to the Gulf Stream, which is a warm body of water generated in the Carribbean with a very high salt content. Should this salt content become diluted by the melting ice, the Gulf Stream may cease to become effective and we will end up with the same freezing weather other less fortunate countries who share the same latitude have.

Read this link to understand the dynamics.

http://www.destinasjontromso.no/gulfstrmmens_historie_eng.htm

Nt: this passage: The currents that flow in and out of the Norwegian Sea are connected with ocean currents in all the oceans of the world, in the Atlantic Ocean further south, the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. The ocean circulation also represents a sensitive and complicated system, where changes in the water’s density, temperature or salt content can cause the circulation pattern to change. For example, the formation of deep water in the Norwegian Sea and the Greenland Sea will decrease if the salt content at the surface is reduced. This in turn can lead to a moderation of the Norwegian Current, causing it to transport less warm Atlantic Ocean water into the Norwegian Sea.

and this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml

By Gawd, I will educate you. :p

Jerricho
21st Mar 2005, 15:00
Rolling, believe me the locals here are actually PRAYING for global warming. Thickies.

SpinSpinSugar
21st Mar 2005, 15:26
There was a long and grumpy review in the New Scientist the other week berating Michael Crichton's latest book (a thinly veiled attack on Global Warming science masquerading as a thriller - atmospheric scientists as the new terrorists, etc.) - State of Fear I think it's called.

Film rights have apparently been sold, which I guess would equate to an anti-Day After Tomorrow.

Whether or not the Earth has undergone such rapid non-meteoric atmospheric variations in the past, there are billions more of us now to consider on this little rock. Things certainly seem to be awry even to the most casual of anecdotal observers (I remember proper seasons when I were a yoof!) and if there's anything sound science indicates we can do to moderate such change, it should be considered. How many "bonkers weather" stories have we had already this year? Last year? How many records have fallen in the last five years? I bet 2005 will prove another bumper hurricane season with all this extra energy in the system.

Even many of the most ardent denialists now seem to have changed tack from "There's no climate change!" to "Ok, there's climate change, but prove it was us!".

Unfortunately, as with any other medium-to-long-term issue the four-year electoral myopia and corporate leanings of our Western democracies will always tend to favour short term economics; the next generation be damned. Any meaningful measures will only likely be reactionary in response to severe (and expensive) climatic difficulties some way down the line and thus, in this case, come long after the horse has cantered off through the heat-haze.

As for Canadian snow - there wasn't any up at Whistler last week! Hopefully they’ll have a better season for the Winter Olympics in five years’ time.

Ah, skiing on mucky slush and dirt in the unseasonal warmth.

Cheers, SSS

SAMB0
21st Mar 2005, 16:15
Spinspinsugar,

I can see what you're saying, but these bonkers news stories are simply written because people are already aware of the whole global warming thing, whereas were it not an issue, they wouldn't be reported on.

Or in more basic terms, if david beckham scores a free kick, it becomes yet another proof of what a great player he is, how good is is at set pieces etc. etc. But were a teammate not normally thought of for free kicks to take an identical one, and score, it would be given much less notice - therefore, just because freak weather is given press attention does not necessarily mean its out of the ordinary.

We can't even get the trains to run, us heating the earth by several degrees seems a little optimistic.

High Wing Drifter
21st Mar 2005, 16:22
I remember proper seasons when I were a yoof!
Ah now you see, this is my point. I recall the weather being generally unpredictable since I was a little 'un. Again, before my time but Winter '63 is worth of note. Not to mention the Winter of '42 that halted the Germans in Russia. I recall a day or two of temps in the high teens, low twenties in late Feburary back in about '74 or '75 in Sussex. I recall deep snow (and I mean deep) in Cheshire in early/mid April in '82. Not to mention the '76 draught and the '90 storms. The weather is apparently, no different now than it was 30 years ago to me. Of course 30 years is peanuts, but for this reason I can't understand when people say what a noticable difference there is in their lifetime.

Bre901
21st Mar 2005, 16:31
SAMB0 us heating the earth by several degrees seems a little optimistic
Yes indeed.
We're not heating it, the billions of tons of CO2 we are releasing in the atmosphere are just trapping Mr sun's heat.


http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/environment/pictures/atmospheric-CO2big.gif

Just google for "greenhouse effect" or "greenhous gases"

SpinSpinSugar
21st Mar 2005, 16:52
Indeed, however the Winters of '63, '42, the storm in '90, that Spring in '74 or '75, etc., were not part of a decade-long run which set records for climatic averages for nine out of it's ten years (for any measure).

Although yes, I fully agree about the anecdotal thing, growing up anywhere else in the world would provide a different comparative view and such flippant statements can be discounted when there is ample scientific study to argue about. I actually trained as an oceanographer and thus am one of Crichton's dirty terrorists!

The sensationalist media thing is an interesting one though, isolated weather extremes certainly make good copy but it's the trends that are important.

SSS

Wino
21st Mar 2005, 17:59
SSS

As someone who watches random events for a living (The deal of the cards in a poker game) I can tell you that 10 exciting things in a row doesn't mean ANYTHING against the laws of big numbers.

If you sit at a poker table long enough you will see 4 aces back to back, the royal flush, the idiot in seat number 4 who can't play win 10 hands in a row. If you had the kind of data we have for the last 100 years for the last million years I am sure that I could point to literally thousands of identically scary events that went no where.

Its just an aberation well within the standard deviation of statistics.

All the climate data is based on way too small a sample to be meaningfull, yet people like to jump up and down about them and proclaim how this and that is harming this and that.

Remember, in the 70s we had to have the catalytic converters to keep the car polution down and the scrubers on the smoke stacks or else we were going to have an ice age NOW! Well, if we are worried so much about global warming now, we should probably just undo all the regulations we put in to deal with global cooling.

In the USA now, there will no longer be any gains from many of the proposed anti polutions regs. mercury and whatnot is flowing across the pacific on the winds from India and China, so we are really just pissing in the wind and further harming the US economy for no achievable gain here. If there is no gain here, what's the point? To Further india and China's advantage so they can pump MORE polution to the USA while killing jobs?

You can't return to the blue lagoon, and even if you could, you probably wouldn't like it. There would be no PPRUNE.

Cheers
Wino

High Wing Drifter
21st Mar 2005, 18:05
Wino,

I think the extreme lack of Oil in 50-100 years will put paid to any grand plans that Asia has. I get the impression that the Europeans are the only cohesive large forward thinking group on the globe. The US will be well and truely f**** once they realise that there is nobody with sizeable oil reserves left to invade. Sure, there is Alaska to rape, but the US is accelerating faster than anybody into the buffers.

Just an uninformed opinion :ouch:

allan907
22nd Mar 2005, 00:05
Western Australia covers an area 5 times the size of Texas and it has just 2 million people there. Of that 2 million about 1.8 million live in the city of Perth and its immediate surrounds. So what we have is a largish chunk of the world's real estate with not many polluting people in it. We are miles and miles from any other place which is inhabited by people and polluting industries.

However, between 3 and 7 thousand feet (depending on the day/weather) there is a brown, fog like slick. It can only be seen as you fly through it because of the slant effect. It is quite thin - typically about100 - 200 ft. It radiates out from Perth to a distance of about 5 - 700 km (again, depending on weather etc).

When one flies towards Perth from any direction the brown slick becomes very noticeable as you fly in from clear conditions. The slick is always there. Sometimes, with temperature inversions, the slick descends to ground level and then the Perth-ites get a taste of what they are producing. Then they demand that 'someone' has to do 'something'. The other 99.99% of the time they don't worry. But it's out there and it will get you in the end:yuk: :}

In Europe and N America the same problem is there but probably a thousand times worse.

LowNSlow
22nd Mar 2005, 02:42
We are just ants on a hot rock. When Mount St. Helens burped it threw as much CO2 into the atmosphere as the human race has produced since we started lighting fires. There are numerous smaller eruptions around the world annually.

One thing I always find strange with curves showing CO2 emissions is that the time in the century when there was more intense and energy inefficient production than any other shows no great increase in CO2. I'm talking 1940-1945 followed by the post war rebuilding of Europe and the Far East.

ChrisVJ
22nd Mar 2005, 03:29
Spinsugar
Well you should ha' been here this weekend. Snow up the ying yang.
but we are supposed to be back to sunshine this week.

tony draper
22nd Mar 2005, 07:03
Ah! but what of global dimming? documentry on a few weeks ago stated twas only the shite we put into said atmosphere (contrails from airyplanes and such )that is preventing global temperature rise, keeping us cool as it were, if we stops chucking muck skywards we is doomed
Perhaps the prudent thing to do would be to ban documentry makers, freightening the life out of folks.
:cool:

Grandpa
22nd Mar 2005, 07:55
I began reading Wino's post and ...............Surprise!................i allmost agreed with him about how unsignificant are INDIVIDUAL data about wheather, temperature, rain , storms, snow, and everything alike.........

Then, of course I had to read the rest and acknowledge you can infer wrong from right base.

Right: "global" means you have to relay on statistics ( the fact I didn't kill anybody flying commercial planes for 40 years doesn't mean anything about global Air transport safety..........).

Wrong: rejecting scientist conclusions when they don't meet your expectations, with poor laughable unscientific arguments.

It's an evidence we are now at a cross road: science is now working hard to tell us about what we will have to face in years to come ( never in the past was future predictable, it's only with tremendous computing power that this progress can be reached, and human intelligence is badly needed too to build a suitable model of our Earth including action and reactions of so many parameters).

Please rmember the progress which occured in meteorologic previsions...............For example, how accurate the winds at high altitude on your flight plans, and remember passed years incertitude (...........and now sorry: some Grandpa's countradiction : I relay on 40 years flying above France, Europe, America North and South, Africa, Asia, Australia, Atlantic , Pacific............global world except South Pole and the famous ozon hole).
Science isn't errors free...................but may I ask you which way we can chose apart from joining all our capabilities in this domain to make sure international scientific community finds the best results, unbiased by national or private short term interests, so that we can protect next generations from negative consequences of human activities?

................Or do we prefer astrology?

High Wing Drifter
22nd Mar 2005, 08:23
For example, how accurate the winds at high altitude on your flight plans, and remember passed years incertitude
But isn't that the worry, that theoretical science (where we are now on climate change) didn't really get near to solving the problem. Accuracy has only been achieved through the extrapolation from and interpolation of empirical data. Problem is we only have one globe and common sense suggests that damage will take decades to reverse. Common sense also suggests we can't be doing any good and that we need to start to move away from oil now(ish).

ORAC
22nd Mar 2005, 08:25
never in the past was future predictable, it's only with tremendous computing power that this progress can be reached

GIGO...

allan907
22nd Mar 2005, 10:04
whenever the subject of muck in the atmosphere and global warming comes up when guests are here (dinner parties, that sort of thing) I takes 'em into my study (contents of which can be viewed on other thread!) and point 'em towards my planning map which is the western part of Western Australia mounted on fibre-board. The map consists of standard 1:1,000,000 aeronautical charts joined together.

I then take a matchstick and measure off 10 nautical miles (60,000 ft) which is approximately 7/10" and point out the vertical scale. I then measure off the equivalent for 10,000 ft (effective breathable atmosphere) which equates to 1.6 nm, or slightly more than 1/10" and again point out the vertical scale.

It suddenly brings into very sharp focus just how thin our biological envelope and life support system is.

Try it with your maps for your part of the world.

arcniz
22nd Mar 2005, 10:14
I have spent a noticeable portion of a lifetime learning how to make things to measure temperature - and some other physical parameters - with extraordinary precision. One result is a commercial instrument I designed that can reliably measure differences among a few dozen sensors to a certainty of 0.0001 C .. which is about the change in heat you'd add from shining a pocket flashlight on a postage stamp - from a few hundred feet distant.

It takes a tremendous degree of care to make such measurements. In practice, even ordinary meterological temperature measurements, taken simultaneously using modern equipment, can vary considerably, as much as half a degree, say, due to calibration issues and another half a degree due to environmental differences between points as close as a few meters apart, simply due to differing thermal properties of the surrounding materials, airflow, optical absorption and re-radiation surface characteristics for sunlight, etcetera.

When measurements are taken at many locations for the same time period, the true accuracy of the set of values obtained is much less than for a single location. Perhaps someone can directly comment on this, but I would offer a guess that the systemic uncertainty in the true accuracy of temp readings from the authorized, official meteo service measurements in an upscale country like UK is on the order of plus or minus 1.5 C. This would represent a very high level of achievement and quality control. Out in the wider corners of the world, where budgets are not so big and training is stretched thinner, the daily error (uncertainty) could well be plus or minus 3 C. Measurement error is like sin - however sadly, a certain amount of it has to be tolerated in the pragmatics of the real world.

So, using the best field-able technology on hand today, errors in daily measuring around the globe are on the order of plus or minus 'several' degrees C.

The whole argument of 'global warming, the agenda' is based on the prediction of increased global changes - over the already highly variable baseline - of fractions of a degree C, referenced against a complex composite of estimates and averages stretching back a thousand years, derived from guesswork using the width of tree rings, the ratios of water isotopes, etc. as tools for estimating.

Temperature readings for the recent times - several hundred years, benefit from increasingly accurate mechanical methods for measuring and recording temperature observations...many of which were likely only 5 to 15 degrees C in error. Curiously, the latest period - a hundred years or so, when the 'hockey-stick' curve changes dramatically, corresponds to the increasing use of electrical and electronic measurements that are certainly more accountable and more likely consistent than any of the ones
that went before.

So, all the temperature readings ever taken have errors built into them that are not disclosed, mostly unknown and unknowable. This fact is obscured by taking AVERAGES that reduce lots of noisy data into sets that make neat lines and persuasively homogeneous results, much as one can make an even-textured soup from a fish.

The theoretical error, in my view, lies in using selected teaspoons of the soup to predict the appearance and behavior of new kinds of fish about which we otherwise know nothing.

Grandpa
22nd Mar 2005, 20:32
Try to read till the end ( "............human intelligence badly needed to build a suitable model........." ) which means GIGO isn't allways the way science proceeds.

Wino
23rd Mar 2005, 02:00
Highwingdrifter,
we need to start to move away from oil now(ish).

Just for the sake of being a devils advocate, lets suppose we drop the oil economy tonight and start a hydrogen economy instead.


Are you SURE that it would have less of an impact on the planet? Millions of gallons of water vapor being spewed into the atmosphere upwind of a desert? I can see huge changes to the envirnment as a result of that.




The whole premise of this debate is that change is bad. (Whose to say really, what's bad for one might be better for others).

Well, the only real way to reduce the impact of humans is to reduce the NUMBERS of humans, quite dramatically. So how we gonna kill 4 billion or so? Who dies first?

411A
23rd Mar 2005, 02:37
Shortage of oil?
Surely those who advocate such are truly misinformed.

The Rhub al Khali (empty quarter) of Saudi Arabia (just for example) has, on average proven reserves that are at least 15 times that which has been extracted from the Al
Hassa basin (in Saudi) since 1938.

And as for 'global warming', those with long(er) memories will certainly recall 1957, International Geophysical Year...when the coming ICE age would engulf us all.

Global warming, shortage of oil....phooey.:yuk: :yuk:

Caslance
23rd Mar 2005, 07:45
Global warming, shortage of oil....phooey Said with all of the plonking certainty of one who will no longer be around when the excrement impacts the ventilation system. :rolleyes:

Come on, chaps. Let's have a reality check here - no-one knows for certain what's really going on.

Mind you, no-one knows for certain whether or not they're going to have an accident some day, but that doesn't stop us from buying insurance and generally taking care, does it?

Hmm? :hmm:

Burnt Fishtrousers
23rd Mar 2005, 11:42
Put yourselves in the Governments position. If they can get some academic to pedal his ideas, he gets grants and noteriety and career advancement from the government and they have a great excuse to tax us all more.Academics dont tend to live in the real world

If they really want to be environmentelly friendly WITHOUT taxing us why do they allow imports of TVs, videos, satellite gear etc that remains on standby all day. Ban imports of such gear until you can have a TV that can be used without any standby mode, and you could save 2 powerstations emissions.

My fridge freezer I bought is supposed to be efficient and green according to the label...........its frost free model and has 3 fans....ban em

Why isnt there legislation stating all new houses to have movement sensors so lights go out when no movement detected..etc etc etc .There are so many ways the govt could incentivise but they dont as theres no tax revenue .Just simply soak the motorist and charge us all more for fuel, instead of applying more common sense

Its not surprising the above isnt happening as its the ODPM who are responsible for such legislation

I know lets have tight , punitive building regulations that we can legislate and then fill em with lights that are left on all day, frost fee fridge freezers using up electricity and computer gear and TVs on standby...Nice one John..well thought out joined up policy.

He should have stuck to serving drinks

I'm afraid I dont know what to believe anymore concerning global warming as there are 2 camps each filling our heads with very plausable theories. All I can go on are my observations that winters are no longer as cold as they used to be and rain and storms seem to be more intense
Pehaps given the increase in airtravel and a few decent eruptions things may balance themselves out somewhat...who knows it may just be a cycle the planet goes through and we just happen to be here witnessing it.