That little old thing called climate change

[chesters1]

"I don't get your logic at all here mate you are going to have to explain your science to me. You seem to think that CO2 does not mix with other gases in the atmosphere but somehow gathers at sea level and is then quickly dissolved into the oceans before it can suffocate us? :confused: confused: Do you imagine that the gases in the atmosphere settle out into layers like some gaseous knickerbocker glory?"

 

its very simple CO2 is heavier than air so it goes slowly down ,all our cars and our own production of CO2 may rise a little on thermals but still slowly comes down ,the atmosphere where all the greenhouse effect counts is high

naughty airplanes fly up in that high place so their output goes into the stratosphere where the various jet streams keep it up there till it slowly sinks through the layers causing the greenhouse effect.

volcanoes help by blasting gasses out their vents with enough force to reach the stratosphere so combined with nasty planes its made worse .

forget land based reasons for the greenhouse effect and note the huge (and i mean huge) increase in flights over the exact same timescale the largest increase in warming occurs.

to counter the effect just plant trees as i have said before but forcing me to pay extra fuel tax isnt going to plant one.

 

i'm quite content to go extinct ,if you dont wish to thats your problem ,i will enjoy the warmer summers and if the gulf stream switches off then "global warming" will balance it out.

humans quite happily exist in temperatures far higher and lower than us brits why would a few degrees bother us? ,it may bother them but thats their problem

Edited June 25, 2007 by chesters1

[snakey1]

If you can't accept that man is causing global warming then we can't have any kind of meaningful discussion on this issue. I would suggest that you go and speak to your scientist colleagues and ask them what they mean when they use the word 'theory'. A theory to a scientist is not some kind of 'guess' and it is different to what we ordinary folk mean when we use the word colloquially. A theory to a scientist is "The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work". There is no theory of Global Climate change, but there are many working hypotheses involved.

 

By the way do you know who John Cristy is? It is true that he is a climatologist, but he is also a Southern Baptist, an ex-missionary and a Fundamentalist Christian (you know these guys who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution and who think that the world is only 6,000 years old.) He and his kind could not give two hoots if the world came to an end tomorrow, as he is going to be raptured off to heaven anyway, in fact he can't wait!

As I said at the time the phlogiston theory and the miasma theory of disease were both accepted scientific theorys and both were proven incorrect i know what the scientific definition of theory is and i have to disagree with you in that the alot of the evidence put forward for the catastrophic man made global warming that is occuring has not been proven or tested with repeated experiments.As for John Christy it seems while he's saying things the IPCC and yourself agree with then hes a legitamate climatologist a soon as he disagrees with you hes a quack and fundmentalist, funny thing is however he actually is one of the scientists who subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic global warming so by discrediting him you are discrediting one of your own.

As for the names of scientists disagreeing with the theory of anthropogenic global warming or the the accuracy of the catostrophic predictions being made by the IPCC how about Richard Lindzen Phd for a start and then theres Phillip Stott, Reid Bryson,Marcel Leroux,Timothy F. Ball,Henedrik Tennekes,Antonino Zichichi, Sallie Baliunas,David Bellamy(yes the beardy man himself),Ian Clark,Robert M. Carter,Don Easterbrook,William M. Gray,David Legates, Tad Murty and Tim Patterson. I could go on but i won't .

You still haven't explained to me how as we cannot effect change at a small localised level how we are to believe we can effect change on a much greater and more complex level. do we really think by reducing the miniscule amount of co2 we put into the atmosphere that we will greatly change anything, not only that how are you going to get china, india and the rest of the emerging nations to sign up to your beliefs, are you going to tell 1.3 billion chinese that they can't have cars because of the effect on the environment I think i can accurately predict what their reply will be.

Edited June 25, 2007 by snakey1

[chesters1]

other mistruths are still bandied about despite being proved wrong ,people still think we all thought the world was flat but even the earliest writings prove the opposite.

the el ninio current has changed or stopped many times completely without our help ,yes it was a bit hard on some humans (archeology agrees with that) but it effected only certain areas it wasent a global catastrophe seen in everyday life with the complete human race on the verge of extinction.

britain is artificially warmer because of the gulf stream if it stopped it wouldnt be the end of the british race ,it may effect us a little till we adjusted and i'm sure by then our temperature would be warmer anyway making the gulf streams rest even less of a problem.

so incase the gulf stream fails in the future logic says we should prepare by burning more fossil fuels now to lessen its effect then.

[corydoras]

As I said at the time the phlogiston theory and the miasma theory of disease were both accepted scientific theorys and both were proven incorrect i know what the scientific definition of theory is and i have to disagree with you in that the alot of the evidence put forward for the catastrophic man made global warming that is occuring has not been proven or tested with repeated experiments.As for John Christy it seems while he's saying things the IPCC and yourself agree with then hes a legitamate climatologist a soon as he disagrees with you hes a quack and fundmentalist, funny thing is however he actually is one of the scientists who subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic global warming so by discrediting him you are discrediting one of your own.

As for the names of scientists disagreeing with the theory of anthropogenic global warming or the the accuracy of the catostrophic predictions being made by the IPCC how about Richard Lindzen Phd for a start and then theres Phillip Stott, Reid Bryson,Marcel Leroux,Timothy F. Ball,Henedrik Tennekes,Antonino Zichichi, Sallie Baliunas,David Bellamy(yes the beardy man himself),Ian Clark,Robert M. Carter,Don Easterbrook,William M. Gray,David Legates, Tad Murty and Tim Patterson. I could go on but i won't .

You still haven't explained to me how as we cannot effect change at a small localised level how we are to believe we can effect change on a much greater and more complex level. do we really think by reducing the miniscule amount of co2 we put into the atmosphere that we will greatly change anything, not only that how are you going to get china, india and the rest of the emerging nations to sign up to your beliefs, are you going to tell 1.3 billion chinese that they can't have cars because of the effect on the environment I think i can accurately predict what their reply will be.

 

 

other mistruths are still bandied about despite being proved wrong ,people still think we all thought the world was flat but even the earliest writings prove the opposite.

the el ninio current has changed or stopped many times completely without our help ,yes it was a bit hard on some humans (archeology agrees with that) but it effected only certain areas it wasent a global catastrophe seen in everyday life with the complete human race on the verge of extinction.

britain is artificially warmer because of the gulf stream if it stopped it wouldnt be the end of the british race ,it may effect us a little till we adjusted and i'm sure by then our temperature would be warmer anyway making the gulf streams rest even less of a problem.

so incase the gulf stream fails in the future logic says we should prepare by burning more fossil fuels now to lessen its effect then.

OK guys you win. Global Climate Change is not happening, carry on as you were. I don't mind having a debate on anything, but I am not going to waste my time banging my head against a couple of mad buggers walls.

 

Just before I quit I'll tell you this Chesters, if the Gulf Stream fails, you better have some money tucked away so that you can move south. You see Global Warming is a really bad name for what is going on, it should really be called Global Climate Change. Without the Gulf Stream the UK may find things a lot COLDER than they were before.

 

Snakey, you sound like you are still quite a young guy. I hope in 40 years time you can look your grandchildren in the eye and tell them that you did as much as you could.

[snakey1]

For your information i'm 37 so only 10 years younger than yourself and i find age really has nothing to do with it. At no time in any of my posts have denied that the globe is warming up however as i have repeatedly stated i do doubt the amount that we have to do with it and i seriously doubt the amount of change we can effect upon it to correct the temperature changes that are now occuring. You asked for the names of scientists who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming and i have given you a list of them it is up to you if you wish to ignore their opinions and listen to one side of the argument alone or poo poo them all as crackpots and fundamentalists, personally i willing to listen to both sides and make my own mind up based on the evidence put forward which is what i have done i'm also happy to regularly revisit my beliefs and ideas and adjust them as new evidence is discovered unfortunately a lot of other people seem to be less open minded.

As for looking my granchildren in the eye 40 years from now i've a feeling that they'll have something else to worry about, in my opinion emerging viruses from africa, south america or possibly something left over from the cold war (like the couple of hundred tons of weaponised smallpox that went missing)are more likely to be causing them problems than global warming but hell we each have our own opinions.

Edited June 25, 2007 by snakey1

[chesters1]

"Without the Gulf Stream the UK may find things a lot COLDER than they were before."

come on ! first you say its global warming now were going to freeze make your mind up

i would prefer colder myself ,winter is cool i could live in it all year round ,and now i have 23 barbeques going at once using charcoal from trees ,i may or not be! according to you

 

so the logical thing is to live life to the full ,when it heats up regulate the gulf stream like a room thermometer i like it

Edited June 25, 2007 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Chesters. I also said that Global Warming is a crap label and that Global Climate Change was better. Without the Gulf Stream the UK will get a lot colder

[chesters1]

looking forward to it ,we need it to cure the damned black spot on the roses

and being the normal temperature for our lattitude is calgary not that bad after all canadians cope

Edited June 25, 2007 by chesters1

[Newt]

Newt I am sorry, I try to refrain from making 'ad hominem' arguments. I will attempt to be a bit more PC in future.

 

Cory - see how much better things are going now that you've switched back to fact & logic. You are at least getting closer to a reasoned debate from others. I would take exception to ad hominem being PC or non-PC though. It is simply fallacious.

 

Note re Norfolk, Virginia sinking - it is sinking by a small but significant amount each year but that has been known for a long time. When I was first in the Navy in the 60s and stationed there, the locals hated sailors (loved our money but hated us) and I took great comfort in knowing the place would be under water in a couple thousand years. I imagine that if a young sailor just recently move from the country knew this, it would be considered common knowledge.

 

At any rate, now that things are back on track with the argument, y'all have fun with it, you hear.

[corydoras]

Cory - see how much better things are going now that you've switched back to fact & logic. You are at least getting closer to a reasoned debate from others. I would take exception to ad hominem being PC or non-PC though. It is simply fallacious.

 

Note re Norfolk, Virginia sinking - it is sinking by a small but significant amount each year but that has been known for a long time. When I was first in the Navy in the 60s and stationed there, the locals hated sailors (loved our money but hated us) and I took great comfort in knowing the place would be under water in a couple thousand years. I imagine that if a young sailor just recently move from the country knew this, it would be considered common knowledge.

 

At any rate, now that things are back on track with the argument, y'all have fun with it, you hear.

Hi Newt. When I was in the Merchant Marine we used to go to Norfolk (actually I think it was Hampton Roads) for coal. I kinda liked the place or what I remember of it. I think the nicest port I ever visited was in the US of A, and that was Savanna, GA. Real nice folks, very clean city for a port, loads of good bars and shops real close to the berths. Loved it.

Savannah.kmz