Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

redsquirrel said:
What nonsense, for a start it's called climate change for a reason. And if you look at the past few years then the weather hasn't been 'normal' at all, many of the hottest summers on record have been within the last decade.

Their is no "normal" baseline temperature for the earth.

The only thing we know for sure, is that it changes constiently. It swinges between ice ages, naturely.............

So if the earths temperature wasn't changing it would be proof that something was wrong, as that would be un-natural.
 
pbman said:
So if the earths temperature wasn't changing it would be proof that something was wrong, as that would be un-natural.
Man I'd be worried. Wouldn't want anything unnatural happening now would we?
 
redsquirrel said:
What nonsense, for a start it's called climate change for a reason. And if you look at the past few years then the weather hasn't been 'normal' at all, many of the hottest summers on record have been within the last decade.

The temperature of the earth has increased about 1/2 of a degree over the last hundred years. The debate is about weather that is "normal" or "abnormal".

Over the last 700,000 years, the climate has operated on a relatively predictable schedule of 100,000-year glaciation cycles. Each glaciation cycle is typically characterized by 90,000 years of cooling, an ice age, followed by an abrupt warming period, called an interglacial, which lasts 10,000-12,000 years. The last ice age reached its coolest point 18,000 to 20,000 years ago when the average temperature was 9-12.6° F cooler than present. Earth is currently in a warm interglacial called the Holocene that began 10,700 years ago.

Although precise temperature readings over the entire period of geologic history are not available, enough is known to establish climatic trends. During the Holocene, there have been about seven major warming and cooling trends, some lasting as long as 3000 years, others as short as 650. Most interesting of all, however, is that the temperature variation in many of these periods averaged as much as 1.8° F, .3° F more than the temperature increase of the last 150 years. Furthermore, of the six major temperature variations occurring prior to the current era, three produced temperatures warmer than the present average temperature of 59° F while three produced cooler temperatures.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html

Those are some pretty extream natural changes in the earths temperature, and they are not disputed from either side.

But this is the real key to putting todays small changes in perspective.

Since the Holocene Maximum, the planet has continued to experience temperature fluctuations. In 900 A.D. the planet's temperature roughly approximated today's temperature. Then, between 900 and 1100 the climate dramatically warmed. Known as the Medieval Warm Period, the temperature rose by more than 1° F to an average of 60° or 61° F, as much as 2° F warmer than today. Again, the temperature during this period is similar to Greenhouse predictions for 2100, a prospect global warming theory proponents insist should be viewed with alarm. But judging by how Europe prospered during this era, there is little to be alarmed about. The warming that occurred between 1000 and 1350 caused the ice in the North Atlantic to retreat and permitted Norsemen to colonize Iceland and Greenland. Back then, Greenland was actually green. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages in a period that was characterized by bountiful harvests and great economic prosperity. So mild was the climate that wine grapes were grown in England and Nova Scotia.
 
chooch said:
Man I'd be worried. Wouldn't want anything unnatural happening now would we?

It doesn't make sense to make radical changes "koyoto style" if its just a natural change now does it?
 
jonH said:
What about hot days and cooler evenings?

Small reginal changed have little effect on the average temperature over the entire earth, as the tend to cancel each other out.
 
pbman said:
It doesn't make sense to make radical changes "koyoto style" if its just a natural change now does it?
Natural means fuck all in almost any interesting context.
Non-anthropogenic climate change happens. Nobody denies it does. As you know. The evidence suggests even fast non-anthropogenic changes have happened. Such climate changes in the past have generally been a pisser for anything caught up in them.
All the more reason not to cause a fast change ourselves, if it could be avoided. And token changes 'kyoto style' are likely to be not nearly enough to avoid it.

pbman said:
Medieval Warm Period
wikipedia said:
The IPCC, based on Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
Once more, doubtless you noticed this:...
An unexplained anomaly in the climate seems to have been the result of bad data
 
aurora green said:
Given that even Bush now admits climate change link , I am amazed there's still any sceptics left out there.

Thats not much. He doesn't say how much. It might account for 1% or .001 % change. That would make his statment technicaly correct, but still nothing to worry about.

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.


In any event, my senator jim inhofe, is chairman of the environmental committteee, and nothing comes out of his committtee, that he doens't agree with.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm
 
chooch said:
Natural means fuck all in almost any interesting context.
[/url]

I prefer to keep the discution in simple terms for the casual reader...........

With a slight effort you could do the same.

Non-anthropogenic climate change happens. Nobody denies it does. As you know.

So f-ing what? Its not like we can stop volcano's or comets or things like that. :p :D




Did you read the end of your own link?


It is, nevertheless, doubtful that these papers will end the matter. Studying the climate is a hard problem for three reasons. The system itself is incredibly complex. There is only one such system, so comparative studies are impossible. And controlled experiments are equally impossible. So there will always be uncertainty and therefore room for dissent. How policymakers treat that dissent is a political question, not a scientific one.

You should, that summary hardly backs anything up at all. :cool:
 
pbman said:
Simple terms for the casual reader...With a slight effort you could do the same.
OK. You're a willfully wrongheaded twat. ;)
pbman said:
Did you read the end of your own link?
You should, that summary hardly backs anything up at all. :cool:
It backs up there being uncertainty. You're the one that peddles certainty round here mush.
 
pbman said:
Are you seriousely implying it doesn't?

Solar activity changes the input, into the natural greenhouse effect.

No. I'll label comments with sarcasm tags next time.
 
chooch said:
It backs up there being uncertainty. You're the one that peddles certainty round here mush.

Actually i don't.

I've always said, we don't yet know or understand completly how variouse things effect the global temperature, so the burden of proof is on you guys, you have to prove its real,(beyond a shadow of a doubt) in order to justify radical changes.

Thats why i advocate, not doing anything radical, until we understand it better.

I support converting our coal and gas fired electrical plants to nuclear, as a common sense way to cut down on co2, until we learn more. But the enviro. wacko's :p wouln't let us do this.

But i don't support koyoto, or any other radical changes that will cost us jobs and health care........money. And if you look around the people who do support koyoto, are gov't workers and others, who will not be hurt by economic downturns and such. Other support koyoto, who don't understand how it will affect them vs. the science of the actual risk.........

And hell even if you belive in man made global warming, koyoto, doesn't do shit, to solve the problem it justs export your jobs to others, who don't have koyoto restrictions, like china and india.......

Its just your basic, damn if you do damned if you don't situation.

Koyoto= no win for anyone.
 
scott_forester said:
It seems a lot hotter when the sun is out. Oddly enough it gets cold at night ... mmmm :)

I've noticed its also warmer when the sun is up for longer peirods of time as well. :D -------summertime.

Does anyone still think that solar activity/cycles don't affect global temp.?

lol
 
axon said:
No. I'll label comments with sarcasm tags next time.

Do that, i don't bother to keep track of the complete idiots with low post counts. :p :D

This being urban, i assume people are neive on the basic of global temp. from previouse discutions.............
 
pbman said:
Thats why i advocate, not doing anything radical, until we understand it better.
Other than the continued radical release of CO2? By any measure that's nopt fuckwitted, probable risk from not implementing some sensible measures is greater than risk from doing so. The economy depends on the environmental services the earth provides, not the other way around.
pbman said:
I support converting our coal and gas fired electrical plants to nuclear, as a common sense way to cut down on co2, until we learn more. But the enviro. wacko's :p wouln't let us do this.
May be common sense but (looking across the whole system, rather than just the reactors) it doesn't work unless we're collectively spectacularly lucky and masses of easy to extract, good uranium is found (or unless someone can get a fast breeder reactor to work without being nightmarish. As good uranium becomes harder to find, associated CO2 release per unit fuel goes up until it becomes pointless. Add in the energy (and financial) cost of commissioning and decomissioning and you've got a very poor value 'solution'.
 
pbman said:
Their is no "normal" baseline temperature for the earth.

The only thing we know for sure, is that it changes constiently. It swinges between ice ages, naturely.............

So if the earths temperature wasn't changing it would be proof that something was wrong, as that would be un-natural.
What the fuck are you talking about? That's exactally why I put normal in quote marks.
And your last sentence makes no sense at all (no surprise there then).
 
pbman said:
...

And the last time i checked the tabbaco companies were more correct in their position, than the gov't. Pretty much everyone admits that their are carsonogenics in smoke, but at one point of exposure, is dangerouse is what the debate is about.......... Most people can't help but come into contact every day with something thats a carsonogenic, but that doens't mean they have significant exposure to it.


:rolleyes:

Pbman, this is ridiculous.



Are you seriously suggesting that I ignore the vast majority of scientific opinion in favour of those sponsored by Mr Exxon Oil and Mr General Motors and by Phillip fucking Morris???
It's ridiculous.



These guys do not have our interests at heart.


I mean its not rocket science, Phillip Morris doesn't want to loose a single cigerette sale does he?
I do not trust his studies on the links between smoking and cancer.
The same goes with General Motors, etc etc.

The scientic studies these frighteningly powerful corporations fund are not equal halves of the same story. They are pure vested interests, who are desperately trying to continue what they're doing for as long as they possibly can.
 
pbman said:
And if you look around the people who do support koyoto, are gov't workers and others, who will not be hurt by economic downturns and such.

So you distrust their opinion because they dont have a vested interest?
 
pbman said:
The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

Surely this should read 'Climate expert bets $10000 on warmer world'?


Plus, with democrats and republicans, and the white house, starting to agree with those that agree climate change, your view, pbman, and those like you, is starting to be irrelevent. Phew!

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=vn20050821102937979C730933
 
chooch said:
Other than the continued radical release of CO2? By any measure that's nopt fuckwitted, probable risk from not implementing some sensible measures is greater than risk from doing so. .

Co2 is a very minor greenhouse gas, in the small amounts we are releaseing, it shouldn't be a problem.

And its not like you guys who signed koyoto,can actualy meet your own quotas or anything.

The economy depends on the environmental services the earth provides, not the other way around.

And the economy is far more fragile than the environment, and it it runs into seriouse trouble hundreds of millions or billions of people could die.

The scientic studies these frighteningly powerful corporations fund are not equal halves of the same story. They are pure vested interests, who are desperately trying to continue what they're doing for as long as they possibly can.

It not like go'vt or global warming alarmests don't have their own agenda as well. i for one am damn glad we have rich companies to play off against rich gov'ts if we didn't we would be truly F---ed.
 
redsquirrel said:
What the fuck are you talking about? That's exactally why I put normal in quote marks.
And your last sentence makes no sense at all (no surprise there then).

Think about it more. You guys are freaking out cause the earths temp, is changing you guys did the same back in the 70's when you were running around crying global cooling.

So clearly any slight change scares the hell out of you guys positive or negative.

But like i said, change is complety normal for the earths temperature, its been going up and down for billions of years.
 
tw1ggy5 said:
So you distrust their opinion because they dont have a vested interest?

No it allows them to force other people to pay the price of thier radical agenda. They don't give a shit if the economy go's bad, they still get their checks.

Meanwile the rest of us in the real world don't have jobs.
 
Pbman, it is far more profitable to be an oil geologist (for example) than a climate scientist so I have a hard time believing the conspiracy theory you're spouting here. How can you say that climate scientists are selling out the american people when it is oil dependance that is ultimately setting your economy up for catastrophe when the supplies run out? Climate change isn't the only reason for switching to a green economy.
 
Jared Diamond in his recent "Collapse" asks the following interesting question (my paraphrase because I couldn't be bothered finding the page reference etc)

What did the guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island say as he was doing it?

"Jobs not trees!" or perhaps "Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we'll find a substitute for wood!", or maybe "We don't have proof there are no palms elsewhere on Easter Island, we need more research, your proposed logging ban is premature and driven by commie fear mongering!", "Our way of life, especially building lots of fucking useless great statues is non-negotiable!"
 
pbman said:
<irrelevent>lol

What do you have a 3rd grade knoledge of US politics?

McCains a RINO. :rolleyes:</irrelevent>

Sorry, childish.


You calling him a RINO is fairly predictable (or putting up a link that assassinates him, etc) but you see, thats my point - first it'll be the dem's, then the RINO's, the the R's, then everyone who doesn't want to live underwater. It'll never be you, ever, obviously, but who cares - you'll be on your own. And hopefully we'll have saved your right-wing ass and pulled your head out of it.
 
pbman said:
Think about it more. You guys are freaking out cause the earths temp, is changing you guys did the same back in the 70's when you were running around crying global cooling.

So clearly any slight change scares the hell out of you guys positive or negative.

But like i said, change is complety normal for the earths temperature, its been going up and down for billions of years.
Jesus are you really this thick or just trolling again.
 
bush_lorax.jpg
 
pbman said:
Looks like a couple of Russians have finally admitted the basics, that solar activity has to have an effect on the earth's temp, expically when considering "greenhouse" effect.
This makes no difference to the science. As a scientist, I'm not aware of any theory whose strength was altered by the offer, acceptance, winning or losing of a wager. Why aren't they happy with submitting their research for peer review, and presenting their results at conferences? :(
 
pbman said:
No it allows them to force other people to pay the price of thier radical agenda. They don't give a shit if the economy go's bad, they still get their checks.

Meanwile the rest of us in the real world don't have jobs.
Slowly and simply for me, please: if climate researchers don't have have a vested interest, where do their pay cheques come from which survive as the rest of the global economy goes into meltdown?
 
Back
Top Bottom