Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph Can any one of you warmists point to a single prediction made by the AGW lobby that has proved correct ?
Do your research, global warming/climate change doesn't make the temp warmer, in general it will make the weather more changeable and extreme, some areas will get more rain, some less, same with temp changes, that's the theory anyway. :wink:
But global warming was the problem then it became climate change, the theory seems to evolve with time to retrospectively fit the facts but the central theme remains the same, CO2 is the enemy and taxation / subsidy is the solution.
The glaciers are shrinking mightily - because it's hotter. I know this because when you visit them, they have photographs of how they used to look. The difference is staggering. Many will disappear. Also polar ice caps are shrinking visibly. If it were getting colder, they wouldn't be.
But Arctic sea ice is 60% higher than in was this time last year. It had been predicted that Arctic summer sea ice would be non existent by 2013. In the 80's it was said that skiing in the alps would disappear, it hasn't. The goalposts seem to move with time.
that's because none of the 'experts' actually know what is going on. its easy to claim that CO2 is causing the planet to warm, it's a lot harder to prove it. I do believe that we are causing the climate to change but I doubt it is by the amount the alarmists will have you believe. My wife has a masters in micropaeleontology, essentially the study of fossilised microscopic creatures. the smaller the creature is the more the climate has an effect so they can be used to establish what the climate was like at a given period. throughout the fossil record it can be seen that atmospheric CO2 (measured from ice cores) and planetary temperature are linked, the interesting point is that the general rule is that the planet warms before the CO2 level rises not the other way around. I am not saying that is what is happening now but it is something to consider. In essence the main problem is that planetary patterns and changes are so difficult to map and study it is a real challenge to come up with a competent and coherent theory, hence the constant shifting of the terminology and predicted effects. there is no doubt that the planets climate is changing, it has been changing since the formation of our atmosphere, but to what extent we are driving this change is the real question. one thing is for certain, taxation is not going to stop climate change, however, it is a very convenient way of making the world think you are doing something about it...
One of the elements on my ceramic hob gave up the ghost a few days ago. This is the second one to go - the first one went a few months ago. It is clear that sooner or later, all of them will give up the ghost. The problem is, when? It's very hard to know. So I keep replacing elements rather than buy a new hob. The fact that the precise timing of climate change events is uncertain doesn't mean that there is no climate change. I'll bet you it rains in the next 2 months, at least once. But I can't tell you what days it will occur on. Trends in many things can be spotted - eg the stock market. But the precise timing of events is another kettle of fish entirely - or we would all make millions buying and selling at precisely the right moment (or not... if we all did the same thing. But you get my drift).
No one in their right mind denies the climate is changing the question is what is causing it to change. The point I am making is that the IPCC and others have been making dire predictions for the best part of 20 years and few if any have come to pass. The science is settled (?) so we make everything fit the accepted paradigm. The oceans contain large quantities of dissolved gasses including CO2, when the temperature rises CO2 is released so it is not surprising that CO2 follows on from a rise in temperature.
The consensus scientific viewpoint as far as I understand it is that: a) The climate is changing b) mankind is responsible I've written quite a bit on previous threads on this topic. I think that if you want to understand more about it, you have to read a few books. I also think you have to approach the subject with an open mind, rather than believe in conspiracy theories before the evidence has been addressed. I have yet to see a credible conspiracy theory which explains why windfarm or solar manufacturers would have more clout than the oil companies (which are infinitely larger and wealthier concerns).
The climate has always changed, due to natural events, long before the intervention of mankind. At which point did natural events stop driving climate change and mankind take over ? If you had said a) The climate is changing b) mankind is partially responsible c) natural change is still occurring then we might have some agreement. Do you accept that windfarms and solar manufacturers harvest subsidies ? They are paid when the wind doesn't blow, they are paid when the wind does blow and they are paid when the wind blows too strongly. Danish Wind Subsidies to be Cut Note the 'net economic loss to the Danish consumer', and this is from the Renewable Energy Foundation.
Its the other way around John the seas warm, allowing them to absorb more CO2. This makes it more acidic, which in turn makes it more difficult for coral to grow and crustaceans to form their shells.
Take two cans of beer, put one in the fridge and sit one on a radiator, after an appropriate delay open both and see which one releases more CO2 As Attila points out the fossil record shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around.
Sorry but no. The warmer a liquid becomes, the less gas can dissolve in it, other things being equal. There is an interesting point here though. Some sources talk about dissolved CO2 coming out of the oceans into the atmosphere, other sources think more CO2 is dissolving from the atmosphere into the oceans. Seems inconsistent. I have not seen a clear explanation of the whole topic.
I have no doubt that the chemistry of the oceans is a complex subject with temperature being an important factor in controlling pH. The problem I have is that the simplistic view of increasing CO2 leading directly to increased global temperatures is being pushed as being proven beyond scientific doubt and being used as a basis for public policy. Yet the fossil record suggests otherwise. I suggest you do my experiment with the two cans of beer Pete, but do it as a thought experiment, half of it anyway.
Under Gay-Lussac's law there is a direct proportionality between temperature and pressure of a gas at a constant volume. That accounts for the increased pressure in the warmer beer can. Doesn't tell us anything about the dissolving properties of the CO2. Cheers!
The warmer beer releases more gas into that constant volume to contribute to the higher pressure (and the higher pressure will drive some of that gas back into the beer) so it does tell us something about the dissolving properties of CO2. Bottoms up ! Furthermore the interesting point within the experiment is when the can is opened and the pressure over the beer is reduced to atmospheric. The speed at which the gas comes out of the beer tells us about its solubility in relation to temperature (and pressure).
two points 1) that is only true of the fossil records in the antartic 2) it doesn't explain the record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere at present which align directly with industrialisation and increasing average temperatures. therefore it is unwise to conclude that the Antarctic data is conclusive. Interetsing, yes, but it demonstrates that more research needs to be done explain it.
the infra red "blanket" effect has been known of and replicated in physics labs the world over for about 100 years.
