Climate Change

[Hamilton]

I am also not saying that human activity does not impact on the climate, the only way it wouldn't is if we didn't exist as a species. We have been seriously affecting our environment since we became farmers.

Cool.

So, what shall we do about it?

 

[Acker79]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/14/fox-cant-do-the-math-on-climate-change/195403

Reversion/regression to the mean

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I maybe in the minority, but i really couldnt give a shit.

+1.

 

[Hamilton]

And what's that then? If you think the planet has been getting hotter since it's inception then I think you need to research it again. There are clear cycles of climate change with temperatures both up and down.

Hey Mr 5%. How did the other 800 scientists that report to the IPCC feel when you put that thought forward?

 

[Hamilton]

+1.

Surprise surprise. The Australians couldn't give a shit. Are you Tony Abbott in disguise?

 

[hybrid_x]

people believe a BBC report......hehe, more funny than those who think the planets temperature is to do with what individual normal people do, and nothing to do with corporations, and certainly nothing to do with coronal mass ejections from the sun.

There is NOW more ICE in antarctica than in decades, and might reach record highs - but they don't put this on the corproate controlled news.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013...ain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/
http://www.sott.net/article/266809-Arctic-ice-extent-booming
http://www.sott.net/article/266535-Antarctica-Sea-ice-hitting-record-highs

experts warn of COOLING crisis.

http://www.sott.net/article/266819-Climate-expert-warns-of-impending-global-cooling-crisis

keep recylcing and doing what the corps and bbc tell you to do........so funny......even after what bbc did on 9/11, 7/7, and all the sex pests that work for them - people still blindly follow them.

Another useful link.

http://www.sott.net/article/266524-...you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this

 

[beorhthelm]

i think the correct place for scepticism can be summed up with this key finding: Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st Century is "likely" to exceed 1.5C relative to the period 1850-1900. Likely is meant as 66% possibility. the last report in 2007 said the lower bound was 2C. so they have revised down the impact. everything gets revised down ias they revisit it and find the predictions dont match observed data.

conclusion? where there is a man-made effect, its less significant than portrayed.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Surprise surprise. The Australians couldn't give a shit. Are you Tony Abbott in disguise?

Pretty sure it's your industrial revolution and colonization of the planet for profit that set this shit all in motion

You were stuffing the planet up before we even existed

 

[Gwylan]

You are truly the king of one sided arguments aren't you. You see what you want to see. Did you ignore the paragraph "It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends."

That clearly states that the last 15 has not seen any rise.

It doesn't state anything of the sort. As I wrote above (and put in bold to make it easier to read) "Each of the last three decades has got successively warmer" - how on earth can that mean the temperature has not risen? What the report says is that the rate of change is slowing but the scientists don't know if that reflects long-term trends. The point about climate change is that it's about long-term trends and the trend is progressively upwards - the odd year or so doesn't really matter.

It's a bit like Man Utd losing to Citeh 6-1; taking the score in isolation it looks like the team is in decline but they still won the league.

 

[ozseagull]

Hey Mr 5%. How did the other 800 scientists that report to the IPCC feel when you put that thought forward?

Have you not heard of the ice ages then Einstein? And the fact that we are technically still in a ice age. Could it just be coming to an end as have previous ice ages

 

[ozseagull]

It doesn't state anything of the sort. As I wrote above (and put in bold to make it easier to read) "Each of the last three decades has got successively warmer" - how on earth can that mean the temperature has not risen? What the report says is that the rate of change is slowing but the scientists don't know if that reflects long-term trends. The point about climate change is that it's about long-term trends and the trend is progressively upwards - the odd year or so doesn't really matter.
It's a bit like Man Utd losing to Citeh 6-1; taking the score in isolation it looks like the team is in decline but they still won the league.

Erm yes it does. It says temperature rise has paused over the last 15 years but it's too early to draw conclusions on that. So by them saying temperatures rises has paused they don't actually mean paused? No? If you pause your tv it doesn't keep playing but just slower!

 

[Hamilton]

people believe a BBC report......hehe, more funny than those who think the planets temperature is to do with what individual normal people do, and nothing to do with corporations, and certainly nothing to do with coronal mass ejections from the sun.

There is NOW more ICE in antarctica than in decades, and might reach record highs - but they don't put this on the corproate controlled news.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013...ain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/
http://www.sott.net/article/266809-Arctic-ice-extent-booming
http://www.sott.net/article/266535-Antarctica-Sea-ice-hitting-record-highs

experts warn of COOLING crisis.

http://www.sott.net/article/266819-Climate-expert-warns-of-impending-global-cooling-crisis

keep recylcing and doing what the corps and bbc tell you to do........so funny......even after what bbc did on 9/11, 7/7, and all the sex pests that work for them - people still blindly follow them.

Another useful link.

http://www.sott.net/article/266524-...you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this

I really wouldn't trust everything you read on sott.net

 

[sten_super]

Responding to climate change 'sceptics' is like shooting fish in a barrel, because they choose not to read anything too closely in case it interferes with what they want to believe.

people believe a BBC report......hehe, more funny than those who think the planets temperature is to do with what individual normal people do, and nothing to do with corporations, and certainly nothing to do with coronal mass ejections from the sun.

There is NOW more ICE in antarctica than in decades, and might reach record highs - but they don't put this on the corproate controlled news.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013...ain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

This was the only vaguely reputable website you linked to, and you clearly didn't read the article. The author states quite clearly that the ocean temperature is rising, and that ice levels have increased as a result of increasing winds, which the author believes may be due to climate change. How exactly does that demonstrate that climate change doesn't exist?

You are truly the king of one sided arguments aren't you. You see what you want to see. Did you ignore the paragraph "It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends."

That clearly states that the last 15 has not seen any rise. So curious orange is making a valid and accurate point.

Your first two sentences are hugely ironic given that you then go on to reflect on the 15 years without a rise. That is a completely false interpretation of the data. 15 years ago there was a large amount of El Nino activity, and therefore 1998 was a relatively warm year. As a result, the per decade increase over 1998-2012 is only +0.05 degrees centigrade. However, comparing 1951-2012 there is a +0.12 degrees centigrade per decade increase in average temperatures. I don't have the data to hand, but I'd imagine if you compared the 15 years to 1998 (remember a particularly warm year) you would find a rate of more than +0.12 - it's entirely due to the choice of start and end point. That's precisely why they say that long time periods are more reliable than shorter ones (because there is longer for the trend to occur over to lessen the impacts of picking an anomalous year).

 

[Hamilton]

Have you not heard of the ice ages then Einstein?

Yes I have. How does this previous change in climate in any way relate to the challenges we face today? Were the fires that man used to warm himself back then just way to big?

 

[ozseagull]

Responding to climate change 'sceptics' is like shooting fish in a barrel, because they choose not to read anything too closely in case it interferes with what they want to believe.



This was the only vaguely reputable website you linked to, and you clearly didn't read the article. The author states quite clearly that the ocean temperature is rising, and that ice levels have increased as a result of increasing winds, which the author believes may be due to climate change. How exactly does that demonstrate that climate change doesn't exist?



Your first two sentences are hugely ironic given that you then go on to reflect on the 15 years without a rise. That is a completely false interpretation of the data. 15 years ago there was a large amount of El Nino activity, and therefore 1998 was a relatively warm year. As a result, the per decade increase over 1998-2012 is only +0.05 degrees centigrade. However, comparing 1951-2012 there is a +0.12 degrees centigrade per decade increase in average temperatures. I don't have the data to hand, but I'd imagine if you compared the 15 years to 1998 (remember a particularly warm year) you would find a rate of more than +0.12 - it's entirely due to the choice of start and end point. That's precisely why they say that long time periods are more reliable than shorter ones (because there is longer for the trend to occur over to lessen the impacts of picking an anomalous year).

Zzzzzzzzz

 

[ozseagull]

Yes I have. How does this previous change in climate in any way relate to the challenges we face today? Were the fires that man used to warm himself back then just way to big?

Well why the mr 5% comment then when I was in fact correct as you now admit

 

[banjo]

If global warming hasn't got anything to do with us can I stop washing out My baked bean cans and throw them in the normal rubbish ?

 

[Curious Orange]

Cool.

So, what shall we do about it?

Plant a tree; walk to the shops; keep a fold up shopping bag on you at all times; stop buying bananas.

 

[sten_super]

Zzzzzzzzz

Quite. It must be a right bugger when people point out the massive hole in your argument.

 

[Hamilton]

Plant a tree; walk to the shops; keep a fold up shopping bag on you at all times; stop buying bananas.

Cool.

All of us I guess.

Do you think we should all just consume less as well? And perhaps try to stop populating the world too fast? So, everyone pop on a chap eh?