Global Warming... a hoax?

[MikeMcc]

Erm. - Tectonics
I think I covered that subject at school in the early (19) 70s

Suggested in 1912, though not fully accepted until the 1960s.

[chieftiff]

You might believe I am so sorry for not realising you were relating to tectonics because although I have read the quoted post several times I can find no mention of tectonics by you.
That merely emphasises what I have previously written. Any comment/argument from the masses results in change of subject, disdain or insults.
Your ilk may not realise that we are not all stupid ignorant milch cows content only to graze at the flickering image in the corner of the room, digesting such information as those who think they know what is good for use, care to dispense.
Perhpas you would care to start another thread concerning tectonics which I may engage in.

WTF

[MikeMcc]

I'm a geologist, and I believe it is happening, it is a NATURAL cycle although in the last 18 years I think, a 1000 years worth of extra CO2 has been released, and there aint been many volcanoes in the last 18 years that can do that.

Although its natural, humans have DEFINITLY sped it up recently, and though we don't know when the tipping point is for when it is unstoppable, we all believe that it is soon;

This is because once enough melts (and last year was the first time large ships could sail north of canada), more dark earth will be revealed, absorbing light not releasing it- The Albedo Feedback effect.
So, the more that melts, the faster it gets; an exponential curve.
Then, more and more will melt, releasing more and more CO2, then when the permafrost starts melting, that will release mainly Methane, which is 20x more powerful than CO2.
Result = hotter = more forest fires, = more CO2,
Rise in sea level, and so on so on.

Thats just one theory of course, one that is proven could happen, BUT- IT MIGHT NOT GO THAT WAY THIS TIME- thats only what the geological record shows has happened before.

Proven, huh? Then with a proviso that it only could happen but might not.
I think I will stick with some of the earlier great men of science rather than today's "mad mix" which seems to enjoy being alongside the rabble rousers who want everyone to have a guilt complex re our planet.
Together with all those who shout down everyone who dares question the subject, I am concerned as to how much people like Cyclops (who considers me a flat-earther because I think for myself) and Darling and all the communist cohorts are using all this purely as a vehicle to slam more and more tax on the people.
"Third world countries walk out" was the headline. And yet, this country gives considerable amounts of money to these countries some of whom have space programmes (do we?), larger armed forces than us, greater tourist industries, and amenities. These countries, however, can only see the so-called West as a never ending supply of money which may be used to set up palaces, international bank accounts, provide power bases and be used for anything but the original purpose which was for the sake of people. They will attempt to blackmail and extort to gain money for the sake of it.
Within this system people (of all nations) are forgotten until it comes to the requirement for even more cash. Yet surely it is the people who really matter.

Earlier scientists do not have all the analysis techniques, data, or understanding that modern scientists have.
For example, Tectonics was only discovered in the last 30 years or so..

You might believe I am so sorry for not realising you were relating to tectonics because although I have read the quoted post several times I can find no mention of tectonics by you.
That merely emphasises what I have previously written. Any comment/argument from the masses results in change of subject, disdain or insults.
Your ilk may not realise that we are not all stupid ignorant milch cows content only to graze at the flickering image in the corner of the room, digesting such information as those who think they know what is good for use, care to dispense.
Perhpas you would care to start another thread concerning tectonics which I may engage in.

Send key setting, over!

[rauzek]

Yeah sorry, went off on a tangent; that was more showing that todays scientists have a far better arsenal of tools to study the climate than say 10/20 years ago. Though the tectonics was probably a bad example.

Back on topic .. =]

[ancienturion]

Thats just one theory of course, one that is proven could happen, BUT- IT MIGHT NOT GO THAT WAY THIS TIME- thats only what the geological record shows has happened before.
Proven, huh? Then with a proviso that it only could happen but might not.
I think I will stick with some of the earlier great men of science rather than today's "mad mix" which seems to enjoy being alongside the rabble rousers who want everyone to have a guilt complex re our planet.
Together with all those who shout down everyone who dares question the subject, I am concerned as to how much people like Cyclops (who considers me a flat-earther because I think for myself) and Darling and all the communist cohorts are using all this purely as a vehicle to slam more and more tax on the people.
"Third world countries walk out" was the headline. And yet, this country gives considerable amounts of money to these countries some of whom have space programmes (do we?), larger armed forces than us, greater tourist industries, and amenities. These countries, however, can only see the so-called West as a never ending supply of money which may be used to set up palaces, international bank accounts, provide power bases and be used for anything but the original purpose which was for the sake of people. They will attempt to blackmail and extort to gain money for the sake of it.
Within this system people (of all nations) are forgotten until it comes to the requirement for even more cash. Yet surely it is the people who really matter.

That reads like alcohol fuelled confusion, you can go to the Copenhagen thread to rant about the politics surely, this is about climate change and the guy is talking about something he has studied for a while....... science.

Look it's not hard, there's this thing called politics, it's tedious and boring and none of us like it especially as it will probably cost us cash in the form of taxes (some of us a lot more than others by the way). There's this other thing called climate change, it appears that the earth is warming and we are probably to blame, some clever guys have worked it out. They are different issues!

CT you seem to follow the exact flock track I have been writing about. Please do not assume that because I question that I know nothing of mathematics, statistics, physics and geology (and throw in engineering if you are bereft of words).
You are wrong in trying to split so called climate change from politics. Politicians and despots have grabbed climate change (remember when it was global warming?) as a godsend in a time of recession. It keeps the minds of the masses off the real issues and makes them more amenable to even more taxation.
We are not all stupid and will not necessarily bend the knee or knuckle when the magic word science is mentioned.

[ottar]

Why would Iain be on ARSSE lol.

Why not? You'd be surprised who is on here.

Apparently some people with a crack addiction, so it seems.

[LISpace]

I do not blame you for mistrusting my POV. There is way too many liars on my side. But how can you think that stuff removed from the atmosphere over 300 million years ago being released again can not harm us?

I thought we had agreed that the overwhelming majority of this release is naturally occuring, and that we cannot influence it?

By extension, the fact that we are not all gasping for breath, or under water, indicates that in the global context it cannot be all that harmful. If it is, or becomes so, there is nothing we can do about it - except evolve gills perhaps, which is what I understand the survivors of the last climatic catastrophy did.

You do understand the term carbon cycle I assume?

The point here isn't that 95% of the carbon dioxide would be produced on Earth if we weren't here, that's a red herring that the more idiotic opponents revert to because it is easily misleading and they know it. The important point is that the equilibrium is being disturbed and atmospheric co2 is rapidly increasing because we are setting fire to everything that historically stored that carbon in deep earth sinks, we are also making it difficult for the earth to replicate that natural co2 capture.............. hence atmospheric co2 has risen by a 1/3rd in just over a century (science not conjecture). There's nothing hard to grasp there surely and interestingly no contested science, no-one, and I really mean no-one whatsoever of any credibility is disputing this part of the debate. Now how the Earth will cope with that increased co2 is of interest.

Are you beginning to understand why Monckton is considered a joke in this "debate"

Has the earth not coped with increased levels of CO2, and falling oxygen levels, in the past?

[rauzek]

I do not blame you for mistrusting my POV. There is way too many liars on my side. But how can you think that stuff removed from the atmosphere over 300 million years ago being released again can not harm us?

I thought we had agreed that the overwhelming majority of this release is naturally occuring, and that we cannot influence it?

By extension, the fact that we are not all gasping for breath, or under water, indicates that in the global context it cannot be all that harmful. If it is, or becomes so, there is nothing we can do about it - except evolve gills perhaps, which is what I understand the survivors of the last climatic catastrophy did.

You do understand the term carbon cycle I assume?

The point here isn't that 95% of the carbon dioxide would be produced on Earth if we weren't here, that's a red herring that the more idiotic opponents revert to because it is easily misleading and they know it. The important point is that the equilibrium is being disturbed and atmospheric co2 is rapidly increasing because we are setting fire to everything that historically stored that carbon in deep earth sinks, we are also making it difficult for the earth to replicate that natural co2 capture.............. hence atmospheric co2 has risen by a 1/3rd in just over a century (science not conjecture). There's nothing hard to grasp there surely and interestingly no contested science, no-one, and I really mean no-one whatsoever of any credibility is disputing this part of the debate. Now how the Earth will cope with that increased co2 is of interest.

Are you beginning to understand why Monckton is considered a joke in this "debate"

Has the earth not coped with increased levels of CO2, and falling oxygen levels, in the past?

It has indeed, hundreds of times.
Just this time, theres humans.

[LISpace]

I do not blame you for mistrusting my POV. There is way too many liars on my side. But how can you think that stuff removed from the atmosphere over 300 million years ago being released again can not harm us?

I thought we had agreed that the overwhelming majority of this release is naturally occuring, and that we cannot influence it?

By extension, the fact that we are not all gasping for breath, or under water, indicates that in the global context it cannot be all that harmful. If it is, or becomes so, there is nothing we can do about it - except evolve gills perhaps, which is what I understand the survivors of the last climatic catastrophy did.

For humans breathing rate doubles when CO2 concentration is at 3%, 3 to 4 times at 4% and starts to reach fatal levels at 5%, we're a fair way from that. Water levels requiring us to have gills? I'll leave that to SF writers like Stephen Baxter.

It's certainly not agreed that the release is naturally occurring:
http://freenet-homepage.de/fboehm/Bo...d_preprint.pdf
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/i...PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/.../6351/report/0

I could carry on producing links to various scientific papers and sites that all highlight man-made changes.

From the second paper you linked to:

Prediction of future climatic conditions will become possible provided we have a reasonably thorough understanding of the physico-chemical processes that are operating on the Earth’s system.

My bold. Not at the moment then.

The paper goes on to say that 'our ability to reconstruct past climates has considerably improved', suggesting that we still have some way to go.

It seems odd that this paper heavily caveats our ability to predict future climatic conditions, and our understanding of past climates, and yet the IPCC would have us believe that the issue is settled. Who is right? In the face of seemingly contradictory statements, can you blame those of us who would wish to see slightly more robust evidence before we are to be convinced?

The gills comment was a reference to the climatic catastrophe which wiped out the dinosaurs - I think it was only very tiny lifeforms and those with gills that survived?

[LISpace]

Has the earth not coped with increased levels of CO2, and falling oxygen levels, in the past?

It has indeed, hundreds of times.
Just this time, theres humans.

So if rising CO2 has occurred in the past, before humans arrived, why should we assume that, on this occasion, humans can do anything to influence it one way or the other?

Chief tiff, can you link to something that discusses the 1/3 rise in atmospheric CO2? Not suggesting it doesn't exist for a moment, I would just like to read about it.