Climate Change

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I don't think you have been paying attention . Getting colder is not only all a part of Global Warming. it's now proof.

Global Warming? I've been banging on about the real man made threat to the world for years. and no one has sent me a grant (yet). It's called Cheese. Everywhere in the world that makes Cheese has people dying. Sometimes after 80/90 or more years, but the eventually they all seem to die. You can't say that is a coincidence. In some areas they do not make cheese. and people still die. Which proves it.

Cheese? I blame the French

It's not cheese, it's shoes. According to a document I have read, (which is every bit as credible as what mr. Gore has to say) civilization will reach a "shoe event horizon" at which time our entire global resources will be devoted to manufacturing shoes which are so fashionably uncomfortable that nobody can wear them.

It's all described in "The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe". ( sequel to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy")

There are very strong global trends which conclusively prove this will happen, unless we all immediately start going barefoot.

It is true that the French are to blame...

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It is true that the French are to blame...

It's always good to have an internet source to refer to - hope you don't mind me linking / quoting you - just makes me look like I know what I am talking about

Unequivocal proofthat it is all the fault of the French

(not sure exactly what argument I will refer to this in. Minor detail )

[Trim50]

Don't forget the Canadians!

[Amgine]

Required non-sequitur. (but not mentioning Godwin.)

On-topic content.

[Viking Sailor]

Historical temperatures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:All_palaeotemps.png

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

Historical temperatures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:All_palaeotemps.png

That is why alllllll this stuff is DUUHHHH!!

[David M]

What this seems to show is that a constant temperature for the planet is not normal.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by David M

What this seems to show is that a constant temperature for the planet is not normal.

That depends on the time scale you're considering, and what you mean by 'constant' and 'normal'.

Huge temperature variations occur geologically (millions+ years) because of changing continent configuration. Within that (thousands+ years), small oscillations occur due to orbit and solar cycles (glacial/inter-glacial). On the span of a few human lifetimes (hundreds+ years), you wouldn't expect much change at all, unless you add another forcer (in the present case, burned fossil fuel).

Otherwise, find another (non-anthropogenic) forcer of sufficient magnitude, while explaining why the known laws of physics don't seem to apply to the anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, which just so happen to occur in the right concentrations to cause exactly the magnitude of warming observed. Then collect your Nobel Prize for physics.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by Amgine

Required non-sequitur. (but not mentioning Godwin.)

On-topic content.

I was in downtown Vancouver last week...there is a Starbucks directly across the street from a Starbucks. Lewis Black had something to say about that.

[camaraderie]

Getting back to the ICE COVER in the Arctic and Antarctic for just a moment and forgetting the fact that there has been FLAT or Downward avg. temps for the past 6 years despite significant CO2 measured increases...I give you pictures of the ice cover in the arctic from a week ago and the same week last year. How is the ice growing if there is more CO2. Could be that the shift in sea currents which NASA said was responsible for much of the melt and the recently discovered undersea volcanoes no scientists thought were possible at that depth might have been responsible instead MAN MADE global warming.


and what of Antarctica where we have been told a few posts up from here about the vast devastation. Here's the record.

As you can see...the red line is how much above or below the 40 year average the ice has been over the last year. Most of the year was spent 1-2million square kilometers over the average. I thought it was supposed to be GLOBAL warming?

BTW...all of that was taken from the U of Illinois Polar Research Center and can be accessed at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
...and there is about 800,000 sq. kilometers more sea ice in the Arctic this year than last.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

That depends on the time scale you're considering, and what you mean by 'constant' and 'normal'.

Huge temperature variations occur geologically (millions+ years) because of changing continent configuration. Within that (thousands+ years), small oscillations occur due to orbit and solar cycles (glacial/inter-glacial). On the span of a few human lifetimes (hundreds+ years), you wouldn't expect much change at all, unless you add another forcer (in the present case, burned fossil fuel).

The Sarhar desert climate: 2000 years of green - 1000 years of desert - 3500 years of green - 4500 years desert. Maybe the next 5000 years it will again be green.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0815101317.htm

Caused by a wobble in Earth’s orbit occurring some 12,000 years ago that brought rain to the Sahara.

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Otherwise, find another (non-anthropogenic) forcer of sufficient magnitude, while explaining why the known laws of physics don't seem to apply to the anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, which just so happen to occur in the right concentrations to cause exactly the magnitude of warming observed. Then collect your Nobel Prize for physics.

Dark matter!

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Getting back to the ICE COVER in the Arctic and Antarctic for just a moment and forgetting the fact that there has been FLAT or Downward avg. temps for the past 6 years despite significant CO2 measured increases...<snip>

These types of trends aren't measured over 5 year time scales.

...and the recently discovered undersea volcanoes no scientists thought were possible at that depth might have been responsible instead MAN MADE global warming.

Instead of simply 'stating' that, maybe you could back it up with a scientific journal reference? I'd be interested to read a reviewed, published article that claimed new undersea arctic volcanoes put out enough heat to melt ice caps, as it seems you claim. Can you please find me that reference?

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

The Sarhar desert climate: 2000 years of green - 1000 years of desert - 3500 years of green - 4500 years desert. Maybe the next 5000 years it will again be green.

Yes, maybe. But that's irrelevant here.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Yes, maybe. But that's irrelevant here.

How can an example of recent climate change that directly affected humans be irrelevant in a thread about climate change?

Are you saying that since It has already been decided that the current episode of climate change is anthropogenic any example that challenges this opinion is irrelevant?

How would you like it if I dismissed your comments as irrelevant? That is just bad manners.

[delmarrey]

Co2 has little to do with global warming. It succeeds warming periods on the earth, not proceeds.

Which puts a damper on the theory of man made climate change.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf

See pages 16 on.............

Another point!
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...0&postcount=51