Camp Climate Change at Heathrow

It’s a good job that Greenham Common has deactivated then or they would have got really confused, poor dears. :confused:

Moggy

Moggy, throw in a simultaneous G8 leaders summit at the same time, then they really wouldn’t know which way to turn….

Perhaps that’s the answer? Get the G8 Leaders to discuss a pro-nuclear power and anti-global warming agenda at short notice, preferably in far-off Japan, and leave the protesters to decide what to do…

Do they:

1. Travel to Japan by air to protest (and risk destroying the planet on their way)

2. Stay here and do nothing (but then risk being seen to be condoning G8 advocating use of more nuclear power)

3. Stay here and do nothing (again;) ), and be seen not to be supporting an “anti-GW” meeting.

Oh, so many choices, so many choices…..

Of course, they could always just follow the meeting on their wind/solar powered computers (assuming they can find one that hasn’t been built overseas, or at any cost to the planet’s finite resources).

One assumes the Heathrow protestors haven’t relied on the internet or mobile phones to coordinate the camp and subsequent “direct actions” at all – that would mean they had relied on systems powered (at least in part) by mains electricity – unless the mobile networks and ISPs all use only power generated from 100% renewable resources :diablo: .

Of course, rather than spend time, effort, resources and cash camping out at Heathrow, perhaps they could have donated the cost of their travel to/from the camp to charities helping the millions currently starving in Africa, or those currently trying to recover from the recent flooding in India…but of course, that sort of silent action doesn’t quite have the same glamour about it does it?

Paul F

Changed their minds and decided it was Nuclear power they were against?:D

It’s a good job that Greenham Common has deactivated then or they would have got really confused, poor dears. :confused:

Moggy

I notice that on the final day the campaigners chose to picket/blockade the nuclear power station at Sizewell on the Suffolk coast.

What exactly was that about? :confused:

I thought they were worried about carbon emissions – yet they attack the one technology that can contribute more to the elimination of carbon emissions than any other.

Moggy

Changed their minds and decided it was Nuclear power they were against?:D
On top of all this we have to remember that the climate of this planet also runs two different climatic cycles simultaneously. one running about 100-110 years and the other nearer to 500-1000 years though how that’s possible I’m not intelligent enough to even begin to understand.

I’d underline the fact that petrol/gasoline is a very cheap commodity

There are factors outside of the dealings of OPEC and other events that can drive gas prices up in a given nation. Part of the problem here in the USA, for example, is our shortage of refining capacity. More refining capacity would mean more product is available and more product would mean the prices would drop. Still won’t help offset the ever-increasing cost of oil per barrel, but it’ll help lower the cost of gasoline.

There is estimated that there is over a trillion tons of carbon locked up in methane hydrates and that there is enough of the latter off the coasts of Florida and Georgia to keep the US in energy for 200 years.

Really, that is certainly interesting. I’d been aware of efforts in trying to make the “oil-from-shale” process cost-effective (some studies indicate that if we could get that to work well enough the US could be self-sufficient), but I hadn’t heard of this concept before. That I will have to go and investigate. Good luck getting that to actually work on a large scale in the US though, a few years back there were plans to place windmills off the coast of Massachusets to generate electricity taking advantage of the atmospheric conditions in the area, but the plan was defeated by liberal politicians living in the area who didn’t want there to be any impact on the horizon from their shoreline homes. No, I am not kidding, welcome to America.

I am not disputing that over the history of the earth that other factors, such as solar output have had an effect on the earths climate, no sensible and aware person would. It is just that right now it is the effect of GHGs that is the overriding factor.

See, from what I gather from interpreting both your postings and some of what you linked to previously, it would seem that GHGs are not the cause but rather the sustainer. It gets warm, GHG presence keeps it warmer than it was before when it cools off due to retention of heat. My point is that there has to be something causing the warming to begin with and that the crowd who want to blame the whole issue solely on GHG emissions are missing the mark.

I have been looking at this issue for many years now, and indeed have referred back to some of my USENET posting of 2002.

Well you do seem far more read on the subject than I do, I do have to give you that. My own interest has been a little more casual and has in no small part stemmed from the American propensity to blame environmental problems on the Republican Party for some odd reason. Which is hilarious when you consider that it was Clinton who sat on Kyoto and did not sign it…but I’ll spare you any more of our political nonsense.

Over the years I have studied books on quantum physics and organic chemistry in order to get a handle on the mechanisms. Also books covering the science behind evolutionary theories which includes geology as well as physics and chemistry.

Geology I do have a minor interest in and have taken a few courses on in the past, I found a lot of it interesting, particularly the science behind volcanic activity. Chemistry? Yeah, not my strong suit. Physics I have no problems with, orbital mechanics was a major part of my master’s degree program, but I never did care all that much for basic chemistry and as such have not attempted to get into the more advanced forms.

However, now you have begun raising interesting points instead of whinging about being insulted.

Well in my defense I was attempting to do both at the same time (ok so I can’t multitask for a damn), at least it appears that we are now progressing beyond the BS and into an actual discussion.

On which score; my allusions to your sarcasm was at first aimed solely at your use of that smiley ‘Roll Eyes(sarcastic)’ which I thought unwarranted under the circ’s and have explained why. Megalith when pointing out that you lacked understanding was not insulting your intelligence which is quite a different thing. But maybe this is down to the nuances of language use each side of the big pond – ‘…two peoples separated by a common language’ and all that.

Fair enough. 🙂 (<–not the sarcasm smiley 😀 )

You haven’t replied to my rebuttal link discussing Milankovitch cycles, for one.

Well as it turns out I was already aware of this line of thinking and that other mechanisms are now in charge of climate change, modifying the Milankovich cycle effects. This is what happens when organisms on earth add their increasing output of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to bring on warming. Indeed this is an area covered by Tim Flannery in The Weather Makers.

Now although I have continually mentioned CO2, I have been fully aware of other GHGs such as methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2 by a factor of about 7.5 (Houghton 1997), although currently in smaller quantities because it breaks down faster than CO2 but when it does so it also produces CO2. I will hasten to add that faster here is a relative term where methane breaks down in a decade or so whereas CO2 can linger around for over a century.

As ice recedes then the permafrost thaws releasing large quantities of methane and CO2 which becomes a reinforcing mechanism for warming. Another large sequester of methane is in the form of methane hydrates which are contained by high pressure and low temperature in sediments on the ocean floor. There is estimated that there is over a trillion tons of carbon locked up in methane hydrates and that there is enough of the latter off the coasts of Florida and Georgia to keep the US in energy for 200 years.

All it takes is something like a tectonic event to cause a rapid release of methane to the surface. Indeed, methane hydrates have been released by offshore oil drilling rigs causing fires on the sea surface.

Ocean current changes where warm water is forced lower under layers of cold could trigger a release. Hence climate change will suddenly kick up a gear causing other mechanisms to release increasing levels of GHGs until another tipping point is reached and the process accelerates further. These are not wild guesses either for things like this has happened in the past as is evidenced by the geological record. Hence my suggestion on Corefield’s ‘Architects of Eternity’.

It has been discovered, by analysis of the proportions of particular carbon and oxygen isotopes (the difference between data from sediments of ODP Holes 689 and 690) that a methane release from such methane hydrates occurred at the P-E (Paleocene-Eocene) boundary. Such large volumes of methane would produce a considerable forcing effect particularly as a by-product of methane reaction with other molecules is CO2. A double-whammy if you like.

I am not disputing that over the history of the earth that other factors, such as solar output have had an effect on the earths climate, no sensible and aware person would. It is just that right now it is the effect of GHGs that is the overriding factor.

I have been looking at this issue for many years now, and indeed have referred back to some of my USENET posting of 2002. Over the years I have studied books on quantum physics and organic chemistry in order to get a handle on the mechanisms. Also books covering the science behind evolutionary theories which includes geology as well as physics and chemistry.

But then I have in earlier postings given you clues on all of this and therefore did not see your ‘rebuttal’ as needing an answer for I had already answered it.

However, now you have begun raising interesting points instead of whinging about being insulted.

On which score; my allusions to your sarcasm was at first aimed solely at your use of that smiley ‘Roll Eyes(sarcastic)’ which I thought unwarranted under the circ’s and have explained why. Megalith when pointing out that you lacked understanding was not insulting your intelligence which is quite a different thing. But maybe this is down to the nuances of language use each side of the big pond – ‘…two peoples separated by a common language’ and all that.

And hpsauce…

So you’re still paying the same price for fuel as you were 20 years ago? In that case, i don’t think you have to worry about global warming at all, since you’re obviously on a different planet

At least I’m on a planet where some basic understanding of economics occurs, possibly unlike your own. Paul F has pre-empted my references to inflation & earnings, but I’d underline the fact that petrol/gasoline is a very cheap commodity, inflated in price only because (like alcohol) it’s viewed as a cash-cow by greedy governments, among which our own stands lamentably tall in this respect.
If you re-read my post more carefully, you’ll see that I don’t disbelieve in global warming per se, simply in the honesty & reliability of most of the loudest drum-bangers.
I’ve been buying petrol rather longer than 20 years – I started when my first car, an ancient VW Beetle, consumed Jet 2-star at IIRC 33p per gallon…
hps

And hpsauce…

So you’re still paying the same price for fuel as you were 20 years ago? In that case, i don’t think you have to worry about global warming at all, since you’re obviously on a different planet 😀

If you allow for inflation, then prices for fuels are perhaps not going up as quickly as people think they are in real terms – In my corner of UK, petrol is at the £4.30 per gallon figure (for those who work in old money, £0.95 pe rlitre for those that don’t), thinking back to 2000, was it not at a similar level? Isn’t that why the fuel blockades began that summer?

Seven years on, and prices are again approaching £1 per litre (Or £4.50 per gallon:D )and yet seem to be accepted without a murmor. Most people are probably earning more than they were then, so in real terms maybe petrol is actually cheaper now than it was seven years ago! :diablo: Is it any wonder so many of us choose to drive large gas-guzzling four by fours rather than more economical smaller cars?

And what’s my personal stance on GW?

Firmly on the fence! As a scientist by training I’m not convinced it’s as bad as the pseudo-political element (with their own multiple agendas) would have us believe. As was said on one post, GW is all too often the current bandwagon for those seeking to extend their 15mins of fame.

Statistics are all too easily manipulated to give whatever answer you want, and too few people realise this, and so simply accept the numbers put in front of them, whether in a broadsheet or a tabloid, form the left or the right – Orwell wasn’t too far from the truth when he wrote “1984”. Too few of us even think “what’s in it for whomever is presenting this data to us, and is their data a true, uneditted picture anyway?” If it serves someone’s purpose (i.e. to keep them ina job for a few more years) then they’ll convince us that there is a need for their skills and services. We’re all to lazy to challenge what we’re shown, and both sides of the argument play on this – to date the “GW is our biggest challenge” brigade are winning the argument, and so too many of us sit there thinking “they’re the experts so they must be right…”

As an earlier post pointed out, the earth is a finite resource – and there’s an ever growing number of mouths to feed, but we’ve only got ourselves (as intelligent(?) human beings)to blame. Medicine keeps the old and frail alive longer, mass produced food keeps (some of us) well fed for longer, so most of us don’t die/get killed trying to find/grow/catch our food. End result, ever more people on the planet, each of whom we (rightly) expect should be kept fed, clothed, housed as they too are human beings. And to keep eahc of us fed and housed means we consume another tiny slice of the finite resource our home planet offers.

As has been said, lets go nuclear and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels until, or unless “renewable” resources improve. I don’t think there is any other way – what we need to do is work out the best way to maximise the life of our finite resources – and use of nuclear power does make sense, even though the waste products are a tad difficult to deal with.

One thought to ponder however – from my days as a science student, I remember that energy is never created nor destroyed, it is merely changed in its form (so says the basic laws of physics IIRC?), so if we extract energy from anything, including the wind, or waves, then the source must eventually become exhausted as an energy source. Eventually, we will have extracted so much energy from both that we have flat calm days, with no wind and no waves…which will deplete our weather patterns of their energy. Of course, it will take years ofr this to happen, but it will happen eventually…

Of course, the sun is going to keep generating and “topping up” our earthly weather patterns, due to it’s energy output. But, eventually, even the sun’s (seemingly infinite) chemical/nuclear energy resources will be exhausted, and it’s going to get very dark, and very cold on this litle lump of rock 🙁 .

It’s inevitable that it’s going to happen at some stage, so why fret about when it’ll happen, so perhaps we should all eat drink and be merry (for tomorrow we (ALL) die) :diablo: . There is no such thing as a truly 100% renewable energy resource, as we cannot create energy from nothing – the sooner everyone realises this the better for all concerned.

And on that happy note I’ll leave…..as I go, I’ll try to reduce my wanton consumption of non-renewable resources, but I won’t try and force my views on everybody by disrupting their travel plans… I’ll still jump in my petrol driven car every day, and I’ll burn electricity and gas to heat and light my home, and to help me enjoy my leisure time.

So will I take direct action against BAA or any other person making a lawful living, largely to establish/maintain my credibility/popularity/fame? No.

Will I listen to my conscience more often? Maybe…. do I need to replace my ten year old FM radio with a new fangled DAB set – no, not until the governmnt force me by switching off FM radio. Do I need to replace my CD-walkman with a white trendy digital tune player – no, not until it breaks down. Likewise, I don’t need to replace my ten yera old black-cased TV with a new larger, brighter, louder, Plasma or LCD, HD version (in silver) until the Government shut down the analogue signal (unless it packs up first of course). Will I replace my three year old gas guzzler MPV with a new “greener” hybrid car (even though it would come with this year’s trendy new number plate)- No, not until it’s beyond economical repair. Will I still fly abroad – probably, but probably only once a year for a holiday, and not every few weeks just because a few of the lads fancy necking a few dozen beers in a foreign city for a laugh.

Maybe the “green-brigade” have made me stop and think about some of my choices more than I did ten years ago. That’s no bad thing. But have they conviced me that I’m a bad person for not living in a totally eco-friendly, carbon neutral manner, No, because I don’t believe it is truly possible to do so, and I think anyone who does is deluding themselves.

As I said – Global Warming? I’m not convinced its as bad, or as inevitable as we’re told, but that’s no excuse for complacency either.

Paul F

I notice that on the final day the campaigners chose to picket/blockade the nuclear power station at Sizewell on the Suffolk coast.

What exactly was that about? :confused:

I thought they were worried about carbon emissions – yet they attack the one technology that can contribute more to the elimination of carbon emissions than any other.

Moggy

The whole global warming debate IMHO gets screwed up immensely because it’s seen as an environmental problem (or a political one if you will) rather than a socio-economical one. And within a very limited historical perspective.

Global climate fluctuations happened before, and will continue to happen. No doubt about that. Problem is that man has organised this planet to function in his favour (producing food, transport, infrastructure, settling areas, the lot) adapted to a certain set of geographical realities as they were true in, let’s say, the early 1900s. Those geographical realities appear to be changing (due to whatever cause), and that might be beyond the bandwith of human adaptability. If the sealevel rises enough, Amsterdam won’t be rebuilt as-was a hundred miles landinward.

So any whining about the Romans growing grapes in Yorkshire or wool-hairy mammoths living on the cote d’azur may score some easy points amongst the goons in your local divebar, it is completely irrelevant. Back then, population was low enough, economies were primitive enough and an individual life was expendable enough to cope with then-current climatic changes. They aren’t anymore today.

As for those opposing the human-originated global warming theory, you can’t deny that the current trend for reducing emissions and a less wasteful use of energy are essentially good things.

And hpsauce…

And every time someone moans about the coal/oil/gas running out, fresh reserves are discovered, and economic ways to develop those reserves are developed.

So you’re still paying the same price for fuel as you were 20 years ago? In that case, i don’t think you have to worry about global warming at all, since you’re obviously on a different planet 😀

The increase in Police prescence prowling round the Cargo area was massive last week, there were constant foot and vehicle patrols, on a scale unseen since the 1st Gulf War.

I find it odd that when we had nutters driving a car into the terminal at Glasgow a couple of months ago we didnt see one extra Police Officer around Cargo, but some hippies over the North Side results in this :confused:

Global warming my ***e…

Pungently expressed, and I have some sympathy with this position, while not entirely agreeing…

Phixer is clearly well read on the subject, and does not rely on the swivel-eyed spouting of junk science that so many other ”global warming” (henceforth “GW”) fans indulge in. Big problem for me is that the entire argument is bedevilled by such themes, eventualities, theories and so on being manna from heaven for those with nasty agendas: I mean, if you’re an authoritarian collectivist, neo-luddite agrarian fantasist, New Age Gaia-worshipping airhead, anti-capitalist one-world fruitcake, etc etc, you are going to espouse the terrible and imminent onset of GW with extreme fervour, employing whatever level of distortion or lying on a grand scale that seems effectual. Far-reaching, abrupt, severe measures to control a “problem” (whether it’s GW, or Uncle Sam in league with Macdonalds, or the Jews…) can only be implemented by bypassing democracy, and of course, the end justifies the means…
Ken Livingstone purports to preach the dangers of GW (though what his true agenda is, only he knows: Livingstone is a pragmatic self-server par excellence) so he inveighs against 4×4 vehicles – but that’s because he hates many of the people who own such things, like the professional middle classes, country people, and so on. FoE and Greenpeace too – but they exemplify eco-fascism, an eagerness to trample upon freedom of choice and individual liberty at the drop of a hat, because their policies are fundamentally authoritarian and could only be implemented if authoritarian rule were in place.
The protesters currently trying to disrupt Heathrow may well include some sincere folk, but AFAICS they’re largely the same brand of “lifestyle protesters” who appear whenever an issue arises to alleviate their boredom with life on the dole – so they break out the tents & teepees, and practice their rock throwing… Parasites, in sum, chucking their toys out of the pram while funded by you & me…
Many of those whinging about fossil fuels are also anti-nuke, which seems perverse: nuclear power is our best option for convenient production of large quantities of power, until such time as fusion power becomes practicable – do away with nukes, and the impetus to develop fusion will decline… Wind-power is a non-starter, occupies & despoils vast areas of real estate while producing only a fraction of the power of a few nukes. And every time someone moans about the coal/oil/gas running out, fresh reserves are discovered, and economic ways to develop those reserves are developed. I don’t understand the whining about “using up” fossil fuels: they’re a resource, there to be used up. It’s what humans do, as part of growing away from living in caves. Next, we can mine the asteroids…
OK, I’m getting carried away here; but with respect for Phixer’s (and others’) concerns/arguments, I believe the whole GW thing to be not only exaggerated, but distorted beyond the ability of many individuals & governments to argue about it rationally. I’d love to see GW discussed openly, fully etc, and whatever genuinely needed measures implemented that are decided upon through rational examination. But I think it’s gone beyond rationality, and is in the hands of too many dangerous wackos peddling crap arguments for sinister or foolish reasons.
hps

Global warming my ***e. The Romans were growing grapes as far North as York, how did they do that wtihout Global warming? Also I reckon this has to go down as one of the coldest Augusts I can remember.

Now I have looked at your side, or the little that you have presented so far and answered it which is a great deal more than you have done WRT my pointers as is evident from the content of your postings.

You haven’t replied to my rebuttal link discussing Milankovitch cycles, for one.

And the Resource insights blog features a reply by Kurt Cobb stating that we cannot know at this time what the actual effect of solar radiation is over a period of time. Clearly the sources I have seen have jumped the gun if Cobb’s assertion is correct. However, to me, Cobb says quite clearly that the door is open for the possibility of solar radiation being a major cause of climate change. He isn’t discounting it as you appear to be, just stating that we do not know what its actual effects have been due to limitations in measuring and whatnot.

This reply is really interesting at this point:

“Cockburn also quotes Hertzberg that the geologic record shows that increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide actually lag increases in temperature. Again, he is technically correct. But as RealClimate explains here, in comparison to the total interval of warming (usually around 5,000 years) the lag of about 800 years is relatively short. What this means is that the first 800 years of warming can be attributed to other factors, but that the next 4200 years of warming are heavily influenced by carbon dioxide levels. And, the role of carbon dioxide in trapping heat is not in dispute.”

What I find interesting is the 800 year period. If there was another factor driving warming during that period, then perhaps it also drove the warming after the 800 year period. Yes, CO2 traps heat, sure, but there was still something else driving the warming. In that vein it is not CO2 that caused the warming per se, but some other outside factor, while the CO2 merely retained heat, constantly increasing the baseline mean temperature. In today’s world, get rid of the CO2 and you’re still going to get warmer. CO2 levels retaining heat to some degree, perhaps if they could be regulated on a large scale, could actually be employed to keep the climate stable indefinitely, but that is provided that you figure out what is actually making the temperature increase in the first place, and eliminate that, if possible.

He also states: “No genuine climate scientist will tell you that global warming has one and only one cause.”

Which is actually perfectly in line with my position that I do acknowlege that the climate is changing, but do not necessarily buy into the CO2 arguments.

Most of the rest of your sources, unfortunately, are beyond my grasp, literally. While I appreciate the amazon links to new books, as I do have an interest in scientific writings (if you want a really nasty read, find Biohazard by Ken Alibek, or for a suprisingly humorous text find The God Particle by Leon Lederman, although neither of them have anything whatsoever to do with this line of discussion, sorry), my current “to order” list is backlogged to the point that the items at the bottom may never find their way to my shelves. Yefim Gordon’s Red Star series is a prime culprit responsible for an ever-increasing portion of my library resulting in a lack of attention to a number of other things I’ve been meaning to track down, for example, but I digress.

BTW Thank you for displaying the definition of ‘boorish’. From that list it is very easy to see why your unwarranted use of sarcasm, notwithstanding your latest explanation which does not stand up to scrutiny, was boorish.

Really. Would you kindly explain that further, as I plainly do not see where what I said was “boorish”. My reply to one line was sarcastic, yes, but as my intelligence was being questioned by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of my personal or educational background, I didn’t see the harm in it.

You still have not addressed your pointed allegation that my posting habits are consistently full of unfounded sarcasm, either. For the record, not a single line of this reply was intended to be sarcastic, in case you misinterpreted something along the way.

Moderator Message

Gentlemen,

It would be a great shame if this interesting discussion were to be end up spoiled by ad hominems and/or name-calling, but we do seem to be veering in that direction.

I really don’t want it to get to the stage where I have to consider editing, or even deleting, postings so please keep it clean from here on in.

Thank you all.

GA

Oh, so I need to investigate your side of the story but you don’t need to look at mine? What’s the point of this entire debate then?

Now I have looked at your side, or the little that you have presented so far and answered it which is a great deal more than you have done WRT my pointers as is evident from the content of your postings.

BTW Thank you for displaying the definition of ‘boorish’. From that list it is very easy to see why your unwarranted use of sarcasm, notwithstanding your latest explanation which does not stand up to scrutiny, was boorish.

Keep digging.

I appreciated that at the time. You were using sarcasm against a perfectly innocuous statement, by megalith: ‘Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding of the processes we are talking about, both specific to green house gasses and more generally the scientific prosess.’ which is not insulting your intelligence but questioning the basis of your arguments.

“Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding…It is also apparant that you are not someone who regularly handles/generates statistics..you are illlustrating your lack of scientific understanding.”

I took that as an insult to my intelligence. That’s the entire bit of his I qupted, by the way, not the small fragment you’ve chosen to latch onto.

The cry of ‘insult’ where there is none is often seen on USENET and now here, probably to draw attention away from the weakness of the plaintiff’s arguments.

No, I actually let it be known what I thought of his comments and then moved on; were I attempting to draw attention away from my argument I wouldn’t have kept going and finding all the information I put in my last post, that you have admittedly chosen to ignore.

Rather like the use of sarcasm without foundation as seems to be a habit of yours.

Really, where have I habitually used sarcasm without foundation? An isolated occurrence here and there is not a habit, you know.

This has nothing to do with any so called ‘party line’ being just good manners to abstain from such boorish behaviour.

Boorish: coarse, uncouth, loutish, churlish. Boorish, oafish, rude, uncouth all describe persons, acts, manners, or mannerisms that violate in some way the generally accepted canons of polite, considerate behavior. Boorish, originally referring to behavior characteristic of an unlettered rustic or peasant, now implies a coarse and blatant lack of sensitivity to the feelings or values of others: a boorish refusal to acknowledge greetings. Oafish suggests slow-witted, loutlike, clumsy behavior: oafish table manners. Rude has the widest scope of meaning of these words; it suggests either purposefully impudent discourtesy or, less frequently, a rough crudity of appearance or manner: a rude remark; a rude thatched hut. Uncouth stresses most strongly in modern use a lack of good manners, whether arising from ignorance or brashness: uncouth laughter; an uncouth way of staring at strangers. (from dictionary.reference.com)

Where has my behavior been boorish?

See above.

Yawn!

Do you need me to find you a yawning smiley? 😀

My use of ‘moved’ in, ‘For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth…’does not imply, nor should be taken to imply, that I consider continental drift to have stopped. Please consider the context of my words.

My point was to hopefully draw attention to the fact that climate change due to the shifting of land masses may be ongoing. If it was happening before, it may still be ongoing now. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, the short answer seemed fine to me, but then again I knew what I was on about.

What you are failing to appreciate is that the last graph that you presented covers a period which is a subset of the first so trying to compare the two is like comparing apples with oranges – one gets confused. And you are.

No. The point is to illustrate that taking the entire data set as the norm is not an accurate representation of what is going on, as evidenced by a completely different trend in the last period than you get if you just look at the entire set.

As for the Telegraph report on this then it is somewhat more rounded than the Times/Fox version.

Well at least that’s a start then.

Now, notwithstanding your other remarks which are pointless to debate point by point until you have done more background reading.

Oh, so I need to investigate your side of the story but you don’t need to look at mine? What’s the point of this entire debate then?

You mean as opposed to the other legion of biased accounts that show up almost weekly in the news media?

Well yes.

Why?

Because Wiki’ has provided links with their articles which can be used as jumping off points to sources of reviewed scientific analysis which other forms of media rarely do.

I wasn’t referring to you, you’re not the person to whom my sarcastic reply was directed.

I appreciated that at the time. You were using sarcasm against a perfectly innocuous statement, by megalith: ‘Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding of the processes we are talking about, both specific to green house gasses and more generally the scientific prosess.’ which is not insulting your intelligence but questioning the basis of your arguments.

The cry of ‘insult’ where there is none is often seen on USENET and now here, probably to draw attention away from the weakness of the plaintiff’s arguments. Rather like the use of sarcasm without foundation as seems to be a habit of yours. This has nothing to do with any so called ‘party line’ being just good manners to abstain from such boorish behaviour.

And at any rate what is wrong with the concept of an orderly, civil debate? I was willing, and then I was chastized for not toeing the acceptable party line. Believe whatever you want to, but recall that I have the right to do the same without being the target of inappropriate or uncalled-for criticism.

See above.

So on that note:

:rolleyes:

Yawn!

Just an FYI, they are still moving.

My use of ‘moved’ in, ‘For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth…’does not imply, nor should be taken to imply, that I consider continental drift to have stopped. Please consider the context of my words.

Happy now? It seems to me like you don’t want to accept the data that is being presented, which, if you had even bothered to read the article, NASA climatologists have admitted is accurate as they have admitted there was a flaw in their system. Are you more credible than NASA climatologists?

You didn’t notice the areas of higher-than-average temperature have greatly subsided in the last graph when compared to the first?

What you are failing to appreciate is that the last graph that you presented covers a period which is a subset of the first so trying to compare the two is like comparing apples with oranges – one gets confused. And you are.

As for the Telegraph report on this then it is somewhat more rounded than the Times/Fox version.

Now, notwithstanding your other remarks which are pointless to debate point by point until you have done more background reading.

To question your use of sarcasm, when your arguments are patently based upon little study and ignorance is not an insult. Neither is my stating that your point of view seems based on shaky foundations, or that you appear confused, insulting your intelligence.

I wasn’t referring to you, you’re not the person to whom my sarcastic reply was directed. And at any rate what is wrong with the concept of an orderly, civil debate? I was willing, and then I was chastized for not toeing the acceptable party line. Believe whatever you want to, but recall that I have the right to do the same without being the target of inappropriate or uncalled-for criticism. So on that note:

:rolleyes:

For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth

Just an FYI, they are still moving.

Of course I realise that. And the connection between The Times and Fox is ….? Supply the missing name, hint: begins with R.

Fine, here’s the same story posted by a British news source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml

Happy now? It seems to me like you don’t want to accept the data that is being presented, which, if you had even bothered to read the article, NASA climatologists have admitted is accurate as they have admitted there was a flaw in their system. Are you more credible than NASA climatologists?

Sorry but the diagrams alluded to do not cover a period since 1990. I have entered parameters in the input dialogue to find one for that period and all it proves is that climate is shifting with an upward trend in many places. How you can deduce anything else given your first example is open to question.

You didn’t notice the areas of higher-than-average temperature have greatly subsided in the last graph when compared to the first?

To be sure with a complex topic such as this, just as with evolution, there are many undecideds. What should not be in dispute, for both topics, is that the basics are now understood enough for us to build testable models WRT climate change and these are used both to predict future and to confirm past climate trends. What is happening is that these models are becoming ever more accurate.

And I never said I disagreed with the fact that the climate is changing, did I.

Here’s a few more interesting facts:

-The snow cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is receeding despite decades of cooling in Kenya, due to both regional land use and atmospheric moisture changes. Doesn’t fit the snow/ice/glaciers are receeding, because the Earth is warming theory.

-Sea levels were rising well before the current warming trend in the latter half of the 20th Century began.

-There were hundreds of temperature monitoring stations, many of them in Siberian Russia, which were shut down in the early 1990’s. What do you think that’s going to do to the data set collected thereafter? Here’s the answer: LINK

-December 1, 1997, The Heartland Institute, “Study says scientific consensus on global warming treaty is just hot air: “An analysis carried out by Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) shows that fully 90 percent of the ‘scientists’ who have signed a letter frequently cited by Clinton-Gore administration officials as evidence of scientific consensus on global warming are not qualified to be called experts on the issue. The letter, circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action, offers the names of some 2,600 alleged experts on climate change-only one of whom is, in fact, a climatologist…among these so-called experts on global warming are a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, one hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven linguists, and even one person whose academic background is in traditional Chinese medicine.”

-According to the UN’s panel for climate change, the CO2 levels in the Northern and Southern hemispheres are nearly identical. Yet, the temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are projected to be 1 degree warmer in 2179.

-The Vostok Ice Core showed that temperature levels at the end of the Eemian period were at their lowest, before the high CO2 levels ever began to subside.

-What’s wrong with blindly accepting the Milankovitch theory (which is an amusing theory as it asserts that extraterrestrial forces can affect climate change, yet if you use the phrase solar cycle you get chastized): LINK

That’s all for the moment.

Oh yes, and insulting my intelligence is perfectly fine…

:rolleyes:

To question your use of sarcasm, when your arguments are patently based upon little study and ignorance is not an insult. Neither is my stating that your point of view seems based on shaky foundations, or that you appear confused, insulting your intelligence.

Ignorant, or ignorance are not terms that could, or should be thought of a synonymous with stupid or witless but simply lacking in knowledge. However, to perversely carry on debating a topic without checking out the current state of knowledge and relying on a few selected so called ‘facts’ is stupid.

Your continued assertions on solar output display that you have not visited the links that I supplied. Furthermore one cannot correlate what happened to the atmosphere thousands, or even millions of years ago, with today for so many conditions were different then.

For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth or at other times huge herds of sauropods and other herbivores denuded grazing land, changing the albedo of the surface and at the same time rapidly increasing greenhouse gasses much as herbivores do now. Many scientists consider that these large herbivores brought about their own extinction. Who saya history doesn’t repeat itself.

Besides one must also consider the Milankovitch Cycles see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

and for those with an aversion to Wiki’:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

plenty more found by simple search.

To aid in understanding the past history of the earth I can recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Cassells-Atlas-Evolution-Dougal-Dixon/dp/0304355119

and

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Architects-Eternity-New-Science-Fossils/dp/0747271798

It helps to have a foundation in the history of the earth.

Oh, get real.

No need for a rollseyes there, for that would be a case of redundancy.

The article I posted was a reprint of an article from The Times. Fox also posts AP articles as well.

Of course I realise that. And the connection between The Times and Fox is ….? Supply the missing name, hint: begins with R.

Let’s look at some hard data.

Here are the climate change trends from 1980 to 2006: NASA GISS

Here are the trends from 1980-1990:NASA GISS

And here are the trends from 2000-2006: NASA GISS

You’ll notice that while there was a widespread warming trend over the entire period, warming has slowed down considerably over the eastern half of the map since 1990 and has shown significant cooling trends since 2000, particularly over most or Europe and the US west coast, to name a few areas. How does that data fit the concept of climate change insofar as a GLOBAL temperature increase?

Sorry but the diagrams alluded to do not cover a period since 1990. I have entered parameters in the input dialogue to find one for that period and all it proves is that climate is shifting with an upward trend in many places. How you can deduce anything else given your first example is open to question.

I would suggest that this is what happens when data such as this is taken out of context.

Plus, did you know that typically temperature increases have occurred PRIOR to CO2 increases? Does CO2 work retroactively?

Please check out Feedback Mechanisms.

And are you aware that as recently as 1992 there were scientists up in arms over the coming Ice Age?

Yes and this could happen yet in parts if cold water melt from the Arctic diverts the Gulf Stream then Europe and UK could see a mini ice age.

More ice will cause more sunlight to be reflected and thus a slow down in heating. Conversely, as the ice caps melt the albedo change will cause an acceleration in temperature increase.

As I indicated above one has to take in the whole picture of the earth’s currents both atmospheric and ocean, and their interaction, with a host of other factors such as the Milankovitch cycles. Without doing this one can come to the wrong conclusions as to what is going on.

To be sure with a complex topic such as this, just as with evolution, there are many undecideds. What should not be in dispute, for both topics, is that the basics are now understood enough for us to build testable models WRT climate change and these are used both to predict future and to confirm past climate trends. What is happening is that these models are becoming ever more accurate.