PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming


ORAC
13th Mar 2006, 12:03
EnviroSpin (http://greenspin.********.com/):
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), brilliantly washes global warming's dirty linen and hangs it out to dry: 'Understanding common climate claims' (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060126/20060126_13.pdf)(Draft of a paper to be published [.pdf]). Here is the Abstract:
"The issue of man induced climate change involves not the likelihood of dangerous consequences, but rather their remote possibility.
The main areas of widespread agreement (namely that global mean temperature has risen rather irregularly about 0.6C over the past century, that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased about 30% over the past century, and that carbon dioxide by virtue of its infrared absorption bands should contribute to warming) do not imply dangerous warming. Indeed, we know that doubling carbon dioxide should lead to a heating of about 3.7 watts per square meter, and that man made greenhouse heating is already about 2.7 watts per square meter. Thus, we have seen less warming than would be predicted by any model showing more than about 0.8 degrees C warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is consistent with independent identifications of negative feedbacks.
Alarming scenarios, on the other hand, are typically produced by models predicting 4 degrees C. After the fact, such models can only be made to simulate the observed warming by including numerous unknown factors which are chosen to cancel most of the warming to the present, while assuming that such cancellation will soon disappear. Alarm is further promoted by such things as claiming that a warmer world will be stormier even though basic theory, observations, and even model outputs point to the opposite.
With respect to Kyoto, it is generally agreed that Kyoto will do virtually nothing about climate no matter what is assumed. Given that projected increases in carbon dioxide will only add incrementally to the greenhouse warming already present, it seems foolish to speak of avoiding dangerous thresholds. If one is concerned, the approach almost certainly is to maximize adaptability."
:ok:

Rushton
13th Mar 2006, 12:06
So do i go out and buy new sun-glasses or go and get a so'wester?

ORAC
13th Mar 2006, 12:09
Go out and buy a new 4x4.... :}

18-Wheeler
13th Mar 2006, 12:33
The main thing you poor chaps and chapettes in the northern hemisphere have to worry about is not global warming, but the period of great cold that is coming to you in ten to twenty years time.
The slight increase in temperature has increased the fresh water content of the Gulfstream, and that is dying out. It's already down a good 30% or so and the heat that it pumps into Europe will likewise die off.
In times to come, you will be a good 10deg to 20deg cooler than present day.
Global warming?
Nah, don't worry about it at all.

heretic
13th Mar 2006, 13:18
If the gulf stream slows down presumably the temperature in the tropics increases. I thought that hurricane intensity was related to sea temperatures?

Capt.KAOS
13th Mar 2006, 14:20
As long as solar variability in climate change is highly underestimated by most of the greenhouse mafia all claims of climate changes influenced by human should be approached very cautiously.

200 years of daily measuring temperatures at Armagh Observatory showed that the sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1045000/images/_1045327_solar_cycle300.gif

airship
13th Mar 2006, 14:35
200 years of daily measuring temperatures at Armagh Observatory showed that the sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries. I wouldn't dispute that. Some also say that life on Earth would have been impossible without it (the Sun). By some strange coincidence, Earth is the 3rd planet away from the sun. And on page 3 of the Sun, other heavenly bodies are to be found.

Drinking a pastis or 2 can be so wonderful, but dangerous... :O

High Wing Drifter
13th Mar 2006, 14:58
The slight increase in temperature has increased the fresh water content of the Gulfstream, and that is dying out. It's already down a good 30% or so and the heat that it pumps into Europe will likewise die off.
Why have we, in the UK, had such a warm Winter then? Weren't there a larger than normal spate of tropical fish (like Sunfish and Amberjacks) appearing in Cornwall and Scotland over the last few years, seems like a sure sign of a rampant Gulf Stream, not a dying one :confused:

Very interesting CptKAOS!

Wyler
13th Mar 2006, 16:40
I don't mind a colder UK. I look crap in shorts.

Ozzy
13th Mar 2006, 16:59
Read State of Fear (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0066214130/qid=1142269051/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1206982-0964044?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)by Michael Chrichton for the low down on the media hype that is global warming.

Ozzy

G-CPTN
13th Mar 2006, 17:11
I don't mind a colder UK.

Whilst I prefer WARMER weather, I can't be doing with HOT. About 22 degC continuous would do, thank-you.
Although I HAVE done the three-piece suit thing in Hong Kong, it WAS nice to have an air-conditioned bedroom. Above 30 degC starts to be tedious after a few weeks. When it's cold you can always add extra layers (have spent winters in Scandinavia), but when it's hot there's only so much you can take off.

tony draper
13th Mar 2006, 17:36
Of course none of this would have happened had we stuck to good honest Degree Fahrenheit instead of these furrin decimal temperatures.
One blames the French of course.
:rolleyes:

Conan The Barber
13th Mar 2006, 17:46
Ah yes, the Honourable Professor Richard S. Lindzen. No doubt his closeness to the oil industry, is merely a clever ploy to ensure access and funding, vital for his work.

It must surely be a coincidence, that his conclusions seems to be in line with those who so often provide funds for his work, and public appearances.

Oh how the few, and the mighty Dollar, can drown out, and shift, the real debate.

But why am I saying this? The Googleologists surely knew this already.

Rainboe
13th Mar 2006, 18:35
It's so frustrating all these doomsayers trying say we ourselves are to blame for everything bad that happens on Earth! The fact is the Earth is constantly going through short and long cycles of heating and cooling, Ice Ages and Tropicalisation, all superimposed on each other. Add onto that Volcanoes regularly blasting incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the sun changing its heat cycles, the ecliptic precessioning or whatever it does, and it is all perfectly natural for variations to take place. Man's influence is actually less than we like to think, but somehow, we are to believe it is all our fault! Yes- thee and me- it's all our fault because we want to fly to Majorca for our holidays according to the fools at Friends of the Earth and in Parliament, and we can make it OK somehow by travelling in dirty diesel fume spilling buses and filthy trains instead of our cars, and paying even more tax to fly in aeroplanes so the politicians can get more money out of us!

Does anybody else smell a rat?

G-CPTN
13th Mar 2006, 18:38
God put us humans on this Earth for a reason.
It is not our place to question his judgement . . .

MMEMatty
13th Mar 2006, 18:41
The problem is one side of the coin is that "well, its not as bad as we thought, in fact there may be no such thing" and the other is "we are all going to die".

And whenever scientists try to have a reasoned debate about it, it all ends up in a slanging match. Kind of a Hamster Wheel with PHD's, if you will.

Where will it all end? Probably in the Bahamas.

Matt

G-CPTN
13th Mar 2006, 18:42
"we are all going to die".
Got news for you, Matty . . . .

MMEMatty
13th Mar 2006, 20:46
Not me, by the time my turn is up we'll all be able to download your brain onto the Internet, imagine that, being a part of the Internet....

I spend too much time on pprune as it is!

Matt

B Fraser
13th Mar 2006, 20:59
Q. We have just had the driest winter since 1921, what does that mean ?

A. 1921 was drier.

Can someone please tell me why we should worry ?

acbus1
14th Mar 2006, 07:38
imagine that, being a part of the Internet....


:eek:

:\

I'll keep my brain separate from everyone else's, ta.

And the "OFF" button is an essential.

;)

soddim
14th Mar 2006, 11:11
Global warming due to human activity has to be worrying in just the same way as all the other effects on this planet that are entirely due to population growth. The increasing extinction rate of animal and plant life, the deforestation, habitat loss and the spread of disease are all inextricably linked to population growth.

Until we find a better way to live with our environment we are en-route to destroy it.

foxile
15th Apr 2006, 00:44
I dunno, maybe the older I get the more of cynic I become and quite possibly more of a conspiracy theorist....

I am now becoming so full of the essential daily drip feed in the news of global warming. Random speculative figures of potential doom and gloom regularly thrown about, drawn on what basis? For example today we have that we are going to produce 20 to 400 million tonnes of grain per year less if the earth warms by 3C. That is a very broad estimate too, couldn't they have narrowed it down a bit more precisely? Me thinks these scientists are keen to ensure their funding for another year...

Why do we never hear the alternative points of view? I notice David Bellamy has gone strangely quiet in the media and on TV since his comments disagreeing with the issue.

If global warming is purely human induced can someone tell me what happened to cause the end of the last ice age? Boy, those cave men (and women) and their camp fires!

A cynical foxile :confused:

Jerricho
15th Apr 2006, 01:27
If global warming is purely human induced can someone tell me what happened to cause the end of the last ice age? Boy, those cave men (and women) and their camp fires

From what I hear, them brontosaurus burgers and ribs make you fart heaps.

tilewood
15th Apr 2006, 08:05
If God hadn't meant me drive a large car He wouldn't have
given me a credit card!! :p

tony draper
15th Apr 2006, 09:32
If one recals correctly the last bout of Ice Ages started about thirty million years ago,Geologists recon the ice advanced and retreated about 20 times first crushing all before it then washing away what was left when it melted ,yet during this self same epoch we also enjoyed a climate like the African Savanna for a few million years when lions rhinocerousususususes and other warm weather critters held sway,as the cousins are fond of saying,Go Figure.
:confused:

brain fade
15th Apr 2006, 11:11
The only useful thing about the current 'Global warming' pish is that it fulfils one of humankinds basic needs.

The need to have something to worry about.

Bring it on!

tilewood
15th Apr 2006, 14:28
I have been standing outside all day in my Speedos, clutching
a bottle of Ambre Solaire.

When's this global warming supposed to start then, only I've got to
nip to Morrisons about 4o'clock?!! :rolleyes:

brain fade
15th Apr 2006, 21:03
Tilewood

It'll be happening.........The day after tomorrow, silly!

AnEviltwinEr
15th Apr 2006, 22:19
...
Baybe we'll need anoter IceAge!

(not the film, idiot. :rolleyes:)