How Bad Was My Attempt In Approaching...
Family & Relationships4 mins ago
Global Warming and Climate Change
54 Answers
According to NASA scientists in Maryland, the polar ice caps, far from shrinking, are actually increasing in size this year.
Some facts to prove the Global Warming myth is just another stealth tax increase tactic.
To the north of Canada, ice now covers two million square kilometres more than it did the past three winters and is between 10mm and 20mm thicker than last year.
In the Alps, they've just had their best snowfall for 20 years.
Climate Change?? regarding our own snowy Easter, I remember a rhyme we were taught at school that went like this, "March winds doth blow, and we shall have snow."
Some facts to prove the Global Warming myth is just another stealth tax increase tactic.
To the north of Canada, ice now covers two million square kilometres more than it did the past three winters and is between 10mm and 20mm thicker than last year.
In the Alps, they've just had their best snowfall for 20 years.
Climate Change?? regarding our own snowy Easter, I remember a rhyme we were taught at school that went like this, "March winds doth blow, and we shall have snow."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i have a poem as well............ignore the climate change of today and its our children who will have the price to pay.of course global warming is a threat aog do we have snow here in the uk like we used to the answer is a resounding no.climate change is a real issue not just some money making scheme thought up by the governments of the world.
Have you tried to verify that 'fact' AOG?
I know Littlejohn wrote it in his column, but that does not mean it is a fact.
These two links seem to contradict him
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7303385.st m
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2007/01/20/AR2007012001472.html
I know Littlejohn wrote it in his column, but that does not mean it is a fact.
These two links seem to contradict him
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7303385.st m
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2007/01/20/AR2007012001472.html
Gromit, from your link :
The winter ice loss is thought to be driven mainly by the transport of old floes from Arctic waters out into the Atlantic Ocean. The currents driving this are stronger than usual as a consequence of another natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation.
The net result is that most of the cover consists of ice that has formed since last summer
This is of course out of context but it is there all the same.
The winter ice loss is thought to be driven mainly by the transport of old floes from Arctic waters out into the Atlantic Ocean. The currents driving this are stronger than usual as a consequence of another natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation.
The net result is that most of the cover consists of ice that has formed since last summer
This is of course out of context but it is there all the same.
-- answer removed --
SOURCE Hudson Institute
"It seems likely that if the earth's temperatures continue to defy the 'global warming consensus' there will be more attacks on those who study the physical evidence of the earth's previous warmings," says Avery. These include the Medieval Warming (950 -- 1300 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC -- 600 AD), and the two much-warmer Holocene Warmings, which peaked about 5,000 and 7,000 years ago. There have been at least 500 such warmings over the past one million years.
All of course caused by the dreaded automobile and aicraft.
Those dammed Romans, whatever did they do for us eh?
"It seems likely that if the earth's temperatures continue to defy the 'global warming consensus' there will be more attacks on those who study the physical evidence of the earth's previous warmings," says Avery. These include the Medieval Warming (950 -- 1300 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC -- 600 AD), and the two much-warmer Holocene Warmings, which peaked about 5,000 and 7,000 years ago. There have been at least 500 such warmings over the past one million years.
All of course caused by the dreaded automobile and aicraft.
Those dammed Romans, whatever did they do for us eh?
Check the date of the Washington post report Gromit 2007.
2008 Best snowfall for 20years in the Alps.
Since the climate on earth is always changing, do you really think that measures such as fitting enegy saving light bulbs etc is really going to holt what is after all a natural phenomenon.
Did King Canute succeed?
2008 Best snowfall for 20years in the Alps.
Since the climate on earth is always changing, do you really think that measures such as fitting enegy saving light bulbs etc is really going to holt what is after all a natural phenomenon.
Did King Canute succeed?
steve.5, terrifyingly I agree with you! and of course YMB.
Global warming is a climate phenomeneon, I think we all agree but as to the cause?? that's the debating point but with mankind having control of 4% of the carbon and the planet the rest, I know where my money is!
Long carbon cycle, etc the planet looks after itself mankind has very little to do with it! Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do our best to reduce polution and to recycle things.
Global warming is a climate phenomeneon, I think we all agree but as to the cause?? that's the debating point but with mankind having control of 4% of the carbon and the planet the rest, I know where my money is!
Long carbon cycle, etc the planet looks after itself mankind has very little to do with it! Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do our best to reduce polution and to recycle things.
-- answer removed --
Laziness, pure and simple.
The climate change naysayers are desperate to leap on any piece of news that justifies their inactivity. They don't know the science. And nor do I. But I'l give it the benefit of the doubt (given that scientists overwhelmingly agree that it's occuring). And - more importantly - given that the sacrifice is so small.
I know there are people (many on AB) who cannot accept that life in 2008 should be approached any differently than in 1958. But that really is small-minded and lazy.
Dress it up as a power-to-the-people anti-Government stance all you like. But it really comes down to nothing more than this - you can't be a*sed.
The climate change naysayers are desperate to leap on any piece of news that justifies their inactivity. They don't know the science. And nor do I. But I'l give it the benefit of the doubt (given that scientists overwhelmingly agree that it's occuring). And - more importantly - given that the sacrifice is so small.
I know there are people (many on AB) who cannot accept that life in 2008 should be approached any differently than in 1958. But that really is small-minded and lazy.
Dress it up as a power-to-the-people anti-Government stance all you like. But it really comes down to nothing more than this - you can't be a*sed.
not at all quinlad, I am very active at recycling and polution reduction I walk to work I make my life as energy efficient as possible. I just do not beleive that mankind is having the effect that he is credited with. We have records going back for what amounts to a blink of an eye in the age of the earth and yet we make statistical judgements on that. There are just so many holes it's like a collander.
Loosehead, did you ever read through that stuff which explained how we know for a fact that increased levels of carbon are associated with human activiities as a result of the particular carbon isotopes captured in ice cores?
You did say at the time you'd read it.
For reference, the links once more:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content /interviews/interview/643/
However, the following is probably even better at explaining exactly how and why we know that we're not looking at oceanic C02 etc. It is all explained and accounted for.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.h tm
And it's parent article:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.h tm
You did say at the time you'd read it.
For reference, the links once more:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content /interviews/interview/643/
However, the following is probably even better at explaining exactly how and why we know that we're not looking at oceanic C02 etc. It is all explained and accounted for.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.h tm
And it's parent article:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.h tm
yes I did read it and I accept that carbon isotopes identifiable by mans activities do exist. What I cannot reconcile is the vast tonnage of carbon being released from natural sources seems to always be glossed over and surely that dwarfs any effect mankind can have. There claims it is "accounted for" , I just don't buy it.
2008 Best snowfall for 20 years in the Alps.
I have searched the net, news and weather sites and I cannot find any evidence that the above statement is true. You keep asserting it as fact. Can you prove it? The best I can come up with is below that merely says there is snow despite the record temperatures.
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0811-al ps-snow-holding-up-despite-record-temperatures /
I have searched the net, news and weather sites and I cannot find any evidence that the above statement is true. You keep asserting it as fact. Can you prove it? The best I can come up with is below that merely says there is snow despite the record temperatures.
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0811-al ps-snow-holding-up-despite-record-temperatures /
Small changes in delicate systems have big effects, Loosehead.
Using tree rings which capture carbon isotopes in their growing cycles, and cross checking with ice cores and corals and sponges, we can check to see what type of carbon are present in the atmosphere at any given point. C13 naturally occurs at a rate of about 1% of total carbon. In fossil fuels, the ratio of C13:C13 is much lower.
From 1850, the start of the industrial revolution, those lower ratios suddenly appear. This also marks the point at which the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly rise.
Current levels of the C13:C12 ratio are the lowest they've ever been, directly correlating with our use of fossil fuels.
The changes in the ratio of different isotopes of CO2 (C12 and C13 respectively) going from full glacial-to-interglacial change over a period of several thousand years is 0.03%.
The changes in same isotopes in C02 levels as a direct consequence of antropogenic C02 levels since 1850 is 0.15%.
We know that CO2 levels are significantly higher now than at any point in history. We know that our activities are directly responsible for that CO2. We are producing CO2 at a level that cannot be completely taken up by the oceans, resulting in an increased (and increasing) level of atmospheric CO2.
CO2 causes climate change. QED.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Using tree rings which capture carbon isotopes in their growing cycles, and cross checking with ice cores and corals and sponges, we can check to see what type of carbon are present in the atmosphere at any given point. C13 naturally occurs at a rate of about 1% of total carbon. In fossil fuels, the ratio of C13:C13 is much lower.
From 1850, the start of the industrial revolution, those lower ratios suddenly appear. This also marks the point at which the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly rise.
Current levels of the C13:C12 ratio are the lowest they've ever been, directly correlating with our use of fossil fuels.
The changes in the ratio of different isotopes of CO2 (C12 and C13 respectively) going from full glacial-to-interglacial change over a period of several thousand years is 0.03%.
The changes in same isotopes in C02 levels as a direct consequence of antropogenic C02 levels since 1850 is 0.15%.
We know that CO2 levels are significantly higher now than at any point in history. We know that our activities are directly responsible for that CO2. We are producing CO2 at a level that cannot be completely taken up by the oceans, resulting in an increased (and increasing) level of atmospheric CO2.
CO2 causes climate change. QED.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Well perhaps thats why the polar caps melt to produce more ocean then. Mother nature is a pwerfull beast and as Loosehead points out does 'pollute' also.
Many point to scientists backing their claim but there are many sceptical scientists too. Indeed these are growing as they begin to question the models used to provide the calculations.
Clearly the Government dont beleve it either, after all have they given up their tax paid for Jags ?
It is happening but dont believe all you hear. None of it is conclusively 100% proven one way or another.
Many point to scientists backing their claim but there are many sceptical scientists too. Indeed these are growing as they begin to question the models used to provide the calculations.
Clearly the Government dont beleve it either, after all have they given up their tax paid for Jags ?
It is happening but dont believe all you hear. None of it is conclusively 100% proven one way or another.
