Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[El Cid 220]

Appears to have been rising for at least 8k years.

 

 

It has obviously risen and fallen over many thousands of years.

 

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters, with a rate of 3 millimeters since 1992.

[Lockjaw 11]

I would like to hope so, but i'm not in denial about the predictions of thorough scientific research.

 

Neither am I. The planet will be fine, though.

 

 

Its after we've gone that the full impact of damage will be observed.

 

And after we've gone - all of us - the planet will still be fine.

[Asteroid 10]

Neither am I. The planet will be fine, though.

 

 

 

 

And after we've gone - all of us - the planet will still be fine.

how do you know that then Rake ??

 

You a scientist ??

[Lockjaw 11]

how do you know that then Rake ??

 

Because I'm not hampered by this arrogant misconception that the planet is here just for humans to live on.

 

You a scientist ??

 

Nope.

 

I'm pretty good at it, though.

 

Oh, Hi Drone, by the way.

[El Cid 220]

 

Nope.

 

I'm pretty good at it, though.

 

Oh, Hi Drone, by the way.

 

What will your grand-children think ?

[Asteroid 10]

Because I'm not hampered by this arrogant misconception that the planet is here just for humans to live on.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

I'm pretty good at it, though.

 

Oh, Hi Drone, by the way.

The planet is here for everything to live on, i dont believe in global warming as man made, just a natural event as the earth is aways going through changes. I mean its unlikely man would be put on earth then to be able to destroy it through living.

 

Alright Jack

[Lockjaw 11]

What will your grand-children think ?

 

Dunno.

 

Do you?

[Cyclone 10]

It has obviously risen and fallen over many thousands of years.

 

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters, with a rate of 3 millimeters since 1992.

 

Have a closer look at the link I provided, I looked at yours after all.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2013 at 19:37 ----------

 

how do you know that then Rake ??

 

You a scientist ??

 

Does being a scientist make you prescient?

[Coroa 10]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/europe/news/article.cfm?l_id=7&objectid=11131126

 

I know it seems illogical that "they" talk about global warming one minute and ice ages the next. It is a very complex science. The two states can exist at the same time though in different parts of the globe. With the melting of the icecaps and glaciers, the salinity of the oceans' water reduces and changes the way in which the deep sea currents work. The water temperatures near the poles rise as the poles are unable to reflect as much sunlight back into space and the deep sea "pumps" which work to carry warm water away from the equator and cooler water towards it slow down and may even stop. The cessation of warm water being carried away from the equator means that land masses like the UK do not enjoy the warmer water currents they historically had and cool down, while areas closer to the equator remain/get hotter because there is no longer a cooling effect from the water coming down from the poles.

 

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/

[woolyhead 15]

Climate change models may not be accurate after all as study finds most widely overestimated global warming

 

 

 

Intriguing.

 

What do we think about the idea of building a gigantic alterable/ controllable mirror in orbit round the earth so as to reflect sunlight away form those areas where it's too hot and send it into deep space? How much does anyone think that would cost? The mirror could also be used as a weapon so we and America and Russia and China and France and Brazil etc might want to contribute.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2013 at 20:18 ----------

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/europe/news/article.cfm?l_id=7&objectid=11131126

 

I know it seems illogical that "they" talk about global warming one minute and ice ages the next. It is a very complex science. The two states can exist at the same time though in different parts of the globe. With the melting of the icecaps and glaciers, the salinity of the oceans' water reduces and changes the way in which the deep sea currents work. The water temperatures near the poles rise as the poles are unable to reflect as much sunlight back into space and the deep sea "pumps" which work to carry warm water away from the equator and cooler water towards it slow down and may even stop. The cessation of warm water being carried away from the equator means that land masses like the UK do not enjoy the warmer water currents they historically had and cool down, while areas closer to the equator remain/get hotter because there is no longer a cooling effect from the water coming down from the poles.

 

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/

 

You sound as if you may know how they calculate the so called global average temperature, so tell me, is it the average of each day's worldwide readings which are calculated every day and the resulting list of daily averages are averaged again over a year? Or do they add every reading from everywhere for a year and average that? These two methods give different results. So what are they talking about exactly? I mean that since the resulting figure is acknowledged to be controversial and marginal, it seems to me to be very important to know which method they are using. And why.

Edited September 30, 2013 by woolyhead

[jim lyon 11]

There's a LOT of opinion, or quoting extremists in denial*, etc i.e. stuff I would ignore as being a complete waste of time!

If you REALLY want to understand, then go & read the acknowledged expert on this topic, James Lovelock. He's done a number of books, the latest one I've come across is "The Revenge Of Gaia" -in which he explains, amongst other things that we've now wasted our time. the ONLY chance for the survival of CIVILISATION is the temporary use of nuclear energy for power ( yes it has disadvantages if not treated with respect, but it will NOT destroy civilisation as GIAI/climate change will - & what we've got so far is just a forestaste, in a hundred years it'll some of our kids & definitely grandkids who'll suffer ! )

until we can crack nuclear fusion!

 

* - Extreme denial - Despite the urban myth, an ostrich does NOT bury it's head in the sand, as even it ( but many humans don't ) as even they understand that would be NON SURVIVAL BEHAVIOUR !

[convert 10]

Interesting Article by Jacob Rees-Mogg on Energy costs / Climate alarmism.

 

 

 

Climate change alarmism caused our high energy prices

 

People will die this winter because of the environmentalist obsession with the end of the world, writes Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 

There is sometimes an almost vindictive streak in politics whereby governments follow policies which they know will harm the electorate but nonetheless they keep them, sometimes for years. The Corn Laws are a classic example. They were defended on the need to secure the prosperity of agriculture which provided so much employment, even if that increased the price of bread for those living in cities. It enriched the landowners who made up a good proportion of the political nation, so served self-interest as well as the poor farm labourer.

 

Eventually, in an act of great boldness, Sir Robert Peel split the Tory party and pushed through the abolition of the Corn Laws on the back of Whig votes in the House of Commons. This helped reduce the price of bread which was the mainstay of the average Briton’s diet. However, these laws had lasted for 31 years in peace time, often to the serious detriment of the people.

 

In the 2010s it is not the price of bread that is falsely and unnecessarily inflated by obstinate politicians but that of energy. There are cheap sources of energy either available or possible but there is a reluctance to use them. Coal is plentiful and provides the least expensive electricity per megawatt, while fracking may provide a boon of shale gas. Unfortunately, coal-fired power stations are being shut down because of European Union regulations and shale gas exploration is moving at a slow pace.

 

It is against this background that energy companies have announced price rises. The regulations imposed by the Government underlie them and additional green taxes exacerbate the situation. The expansion of relatively expensive nuclear power at £92.50 per megawatt, almost double the current market price, is justified by some because it is cheaper than the quite unnecessary wind schemes. But it is much more expensive than coal or gas and these high energy prices which punish the poor most particularly are a matter of choice not of necessity.

 

The reason this has been done is, of course, because of climate change fears. But is it a reasonable or proportionate response? It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world.

 

Eschatological fears are an ancient human concern. The Romans expected the world to end in 634 BC owing to a prophecy involving twelve eagles while the early Christians anticipated the Final Judgement in their own lifetimes. Pope Sylvester II thought AD 1000 would be the last year, a view updated for the modern age by the Millennium bug.

 

Clearly expectations of a final disaster are part of man’s psychology and the doomsayers of the quasi religious Green movement fit the bill. Perhaps one day the world will end, giving the last group to predict it the satisfaction of being right – but as many have been wrong so far it does not seem wise to make public policy on the back of these fears.

 

In the 1830s the average price of a quarter of corn was £2 16s 2d compared to the Prussian price (including the cost of freight to London) of £1 10s 5d. Even after the average tariff of 7s 2d was added imported corn ought still to have been cheaper but such was the acceptance of high prices and the reluctance to import that the market did not adjust. Something similar seems to be happening to the energy market. As the Government has made the price higher so the energy companies put a margin on top. High prices are almost expected.

 

The solution to this is to free the market, not to control prices which will simply reduce supply. Hence the time has come to copy Sir Robert Peel. He saw that the Corn Laws made the condition of the people worse. Modern politicians know that their constituents will suffer this winter and some may die because they cannot afford fuel. This can be stopped by ending the environmentalist obsession and delivering cheap energy.

 

It's high time to end the ridiculous subsidies being paid out for wind and solar.

 

How many people have to die from having to make the choice of eat or heat this year?