BBC: What happened to global warming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Sanity -> BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 7:40:03 AM)


Maybe Al Gore shouldn't get too attached to his peace prize.   [;)]


quote:


This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.


But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?


(Full article here).



DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 7:55:20 AM)

Maybe you should read the actual science rather than some science reporter reporting on some guy's press release about his unpublished claims?

1998 to 2008 was the hottest decade on record. 2007 was almost exactly as hot as 1998. And the startling number is that the 8 hottest years on record have all occured since 1997 and the 14 hottest are all since 1990.



LadyEllen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 7:59:36 AM)

so maybe it is all so much overstated guff............. are we seriously then arguing for more pollution and to use up our limited resources at a vast rate? and more than that, are we seriously arguing that strategically we prefer to be bound by the whims of despicable regimes that control our supply of those resources?

either way, whether its true or not, the proposed solutions to it are also the solutions whereby we might otherwise gain enormous side benefits in the resolution of other issues of great concern; one of which is certainly a professed great concern of the Right.

E



Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:09:10 AM)


The BBC has been a leader in the First Global Warming Alarmists Church, Ken.

A Bishop, if not the Pope itself.

The fact that they're wavering is significant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you should read the actual science rather than some science reporter reporting on some guy's press release about his unpublished claims?

1998 to 2008 was the hottest decade on record. 2007 was almost exactly as hot as 1998. And the startling number is that the 8 hottest years on record have all occured since 1997 and the 14 hottest are all since 1990.



TheHeretic -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:21:59 AM)

Save yourself the effort, Sanity.

What the actual environmentalists, as opposed to those who latched onto the movement to further a completely unrelated anti-capitalist agenda, need to worry about here is whether they will have any credibility at left.  I think they might not.  That would be a shame.



Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:58:13 AM)

~ FR ~

Ken is basically right, for what the general claim may be worth (see here). The amount of warming varies among sources (and at various altitudes), as the graphs on the page show. And note the following (from the same link):

global surface air temperatures should only be considered a poor indicator of global climate heat changes, as air has relatively little mass associated with it. Ocean heat changes remain the dominant factor for global heat changes. Global air temperatures, however, continues to attract widespread interest, and many scientist assume that the air temperature at least may be considered a useful proxy for the present state of the global climate system.

For a look at ocean heat, see here.

K.






Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:15:35 AM)

From the same BBC article I posted initially:

...The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.


These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.


So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.


Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."







Alphascendant -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:29:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

For a look at ocean heat, see here


That map is very interesting. Does it look like the water off of the north pole is heating up, while the water off the south is cooling? And what is going on with that Barents Sea?

Could this be related?

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/15198_earth.html



Politesub53 -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 10:35:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The BBC has been a leader in the First Global Warming Alarmists Church, Ken.

A Bishop, if not the Pope itself.

The fact that they're wavering is significant.



The BBC are just reporting the facts, how you make that into them being the Pope is beyond me.



kdsub -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 10:59:40 AM)

I personally look forward to Global warming...I'd love to be kayaking on the rivers here in Missouri in January without freezing my butt off.

Butch



AnimusRex -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 11:13:02 AM)

In a democracy, the people like us have to vote on policy, based on science we don't understand
No one on these boards is a climatologist. No one here has taken anything more than a college level physics class. Yet important decisions must be made, policy determined, that will have drastic long term implications for the world.
Currently, most people take their political ideas and biases, and hunt for favorable scientific papers to back them up, sort of becoming jailhouse lawyers of science.

This is pretty mch how policy is determined in dictatorships- the powers that be determine policy, then find compliant scientists to write justifications. Stalin for example, had botanists write papers that showed that plants could be exhorted to work communally to increase crop yields. Needless to say, the plants were unimpressed.

I would suggest a different approach; we look to the scientific community for a consensus, relying on peer reviewed work. It isn't perfect- sometimes the scientific community can be wrong. But they at least know what the fuck they are talking about.



Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 11:19:45 AM)


The BBC's previous reporting has been very heavy handed in favor of the global warming alarmists, which I sort of jokingly refer to as a religious organization. I say that the BBC was their Pope because of its former totally skewed reporting on behalf of Al Gore's "The End Is Near" crowd, primarily because the highly influential BBC propagandists helped lead the way.

But it appears that the momentum may be shifting, it appears that we may have found a much needed  tipping point that will help steer things back towards a more realistic view of things.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The BBC are just reporting the facts, how you make that into them being the Pope is beyond me.



Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 11:35:30 AM)


Sometimes the common people need to reign in all the self-anointed brilliant scientific minds who would like to run the world. (Too bad that didn't happen when the unquestionable science of Eugenics was all the rage).


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

In a democracy, the people like us have to vote on policy, based on science we don't understand
No one on these boards is a climatologist. No one here has taken anything more than a college level physics class. Yet important decisions must be made, policy determined, that will have drastic long term implications for the world.
Currently, most people take their political ideas and biases, and hunt for favorable scientific papers to back them up, sort of becoming jailhouse lawyers of science.

This is pretty mch how policy is determined in dictatorships- the powers that be determine policy, then find compliant scientists to write justifications. Stalin for example, had botanists write papers that showed that plants could be exhorted to work communally to increase crop yields. Needless to say, the plants were unimpressed.

I would suggest a different approach; we look to the scientific community for a consensus, relying on peer reviewed work. It isn't perfect- sometimes the scientific community can be wrong. But they at least know what the fuck they are talking about.



Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 11:36:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I personally look forward to Global warming...I'd love to be kayaking on the rivers here in Missouri in January without freezing my butt off.

Actually, before the global warming frenzy started, there was concern that the Earth was due (or even overdue) for a slide into an Ice Age. The warming of the past 30 years may yet turn out to be just a blip in that longer trend. Given another 30 years or so, don't be surprised if we find ourselves wanting all the greenhouse gases we can get.

K.





Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 11:52:20 AM)

quote:

Start cursing the weather gods, Chicago.

Snow could be coming to town as early as this weekend. That’s right, snow. Flurries and flakes.

The forecast says that Saturday night rain will turn into the white stuff early Sunday morning.

If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago.

The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/No-Kidding-Snow-on-Sunday--63751227.html



Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 11:55:33 AM)

Yeah I saw that... it should be considered unpatriotic not to drive an SUV up there! [:D]

K.



kdsub -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 12:22:32 PM)

We have to admit though that the reduction of greenhouse gases as well as other admissions will stop a lot of suffering in this world …So why not kill two birds with one stone as they say and keep trying to reduce these harmful admissions.

If there is global warming, and it is harmful, then we will be reducing its affects. If there is no global warming then we will have saved many lives and perhaps preserved our flora for the next generations.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Butch



DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 12:35:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

Start cursing the weather gods, Chicago.

Snow could be coming to town as early as this weekend. That’s right, snow. Flurries and flakes.

The forecast says that Saturday night rain will turn into the white stuff early Sunday morning.

If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago.

The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/No-Kidding-Snow-on-Sunday--63751227.html


I know you have been told that weather is not climate and that global warming is certain to be linked, in the short term, with unusual weather including unusual cold in some locations.



Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 12:35:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We have to admit though that the reduction of greenhouse gases as well as other admissions will stop a lot of suffering in this world …So why not kill two birds with one stone as they say and keep trying to reduce these harmful admissions.

I'm not sure how we are stopping suffering by reducing greenhouse gasses. The atmospheric health dangers we face are not related to greenhouse gasses but rather to levels of particulate pollution, which I join you in being wholly in favor of reducing as much and as fast as we can.

National Resources Defense Council
U. S. Enviornmental Protection Agency

K.





Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 12:49:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We have to admit though that the reduction of greenhouse gases as well as other admissions will stop a lot of suffering in this world …So why not kill two birds with one stone as they say and keep trying to reduce these harmful admissions.

I'm not sure how we are stopping suffering by reducing greenhouse gasses. The atmospheric health dangers was face are not related to greenhouse gasses but rather to levels of particulate pollution, which I join you in being wholly in favor of reducing as much and as fast as we can.

National Resources Defense Council
U. S. Enviornmental Protection Agency

K.




Afternoon,

I completely agree. I am more worried about the pollution, primarily because of health reasons. Too, I wouldn't mind my kids and possible grandkids being able to enjoy swimming in a clean river, lake, or what have you.

The entire climate change debate, goes back and forth. As you pointed out earlier, there were those shouting at the top of their lungs back in the 70s about the next ice age being imminent. When the Earth is done with us, she will shake us off like the fleas we are. Was it Carlin that joked that the only reason the Earth kept us around so long, is it wanted plastic?

Thanks for sharing your balanced point of view on the many subjects, I do appreciate the logical (and sometimes humerous) way you approach these topics.

I wish you well,
Thadius



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125