James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2012, 10:34 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(25-04-2012 10:15 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 09:52 PM)nach_in Wrote:  one thing only, carbon credits are an environmental idea (liberal if you wish) disguised as conservative, actually they tried to use economic methods for liberal ends, so it's a weird mix. They did work a bit, but not to the extent they hoped and they did too little to limit carbon emissions, sadly.
This country has not accomplished anything meaningful since we became the United Corporations of America.
I feel the US is too focused in being the world's protector, you have a collective superman syndrome, so instead of being part of the world you try so hard to differentiate by being the best at everything that you end up exacerbating everything, too much religion and "morals", too much "freedom" (in the corporatist sense of the word), too much military power, too much of everything and in the end you end up isolated because you bite more than you can chew, and you're just humans and you need your fellow humans around the world, but for some reason you see that as a weakness. Just my opinion on the matter Big Grin

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 09:05 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
I really don't understand this...

So someone got a glass half filled with water, filled it the rest of the way with ice, stirred it, and dropped in a thermometer. It reads 0 degrees C. They leave and come back 30 mins later when some ice has melted and it still reads 0 degrees C.

Then they whine saying that science is wrong and our models are off?

See it takes more than just an average global temperature reading to calculate the effects of global warming. You need to know other things like how much heat is trapped in the oceans, and how much is dissipated by melting ice, etc. This planet is far more complex than a cup of water.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 07:22 AM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(26-04-2012 09:05 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  I really don't understand this...

So someone got a glass half filled with water, filled it the rest of the way with ice, stirred it, and dropped in a thermometer. It reads 0 degrees C. They leave and come back 30 mins later when some ice has melted and it still reads 0 degrees C.

Then they whine saying that science is wrong and our models are off?

See it takes more than just an average global temperature reading to calculate the effects of global warming. You need to know other things like how much heat is trapped in the oceans, and how much is dissipated by melting ice, etc. This planet is far more complex than a cup of water.
Exactly the reason why I don't trust climate change science. The only direct evidence they have is that CO2 is up and temp is up. That appears to be it. I'm still not convinced that this isn't merely coincidental. When people stop becoming billionaires off of this 'science' then I might lend it some more credibility. Until then the only way to convince me is to tell me exactly how much temp change 1 million tons of CO2 will cause. Until they are that accurate I simply can't agree.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 09:03 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(27-04-2012 07:22 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Exactly the reason why I don't trust climate change science. The only direct evidence they have is that CO2 is up and temp is up. That appears to be it. I'm still not convinced that this isn't merely coincidental. When people stop becoming billionaires off of this 'science' then I might lend it some more credibility. Until then the only way to convince me is to tell me exactly how much temp change 1 million tons of CO2 will cause. Until they are that accurate I simply can't agree.
It's not seen in terms of temperature change. It's seen in terms of how much heat energy is trapped. We have extremely accurate numbers on how much heat energy is trapped by x ppm co2.

Now determining where that energy goes and whether it will melt ice or circulate in the ocean for a while and come back to bite us later. That's where we haven't got allot of accuracy. Not all the energy added will translate immediately to increases in average global surface temperature.

The equation is simple though... You add energy to something there will be consequences.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
27-04-2012, 10:43 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
All I know is that each day I watch the glaciers dump more ice into the bay... The building I work in has to be checked regularly to make sure the foundation isn't hampering the permafrost base.

When I fly over the ice cap, it's plain to see that it's shifting at a faster rate than ever.

Call it what you like... but this sh*t is melting fast!

"I feel like the weight of the world has been lifted from my shoulders...
Thanks for getting off my back!"
-
Arcticspear Idea
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes arcticspear's post
01-05-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(27-04-2012 10:43 PM)arcticspear Wrote:  All I know is that each day I watch the glaciers dump more ice into the bay... The building I work in has to be checked regularly to make sure the foundation isn't hampering the permafrost base.

When I fly over the ice cap, it's plain to see that it's shifting at a faster rate than ever.

Call it what you like... but this sh*t is melting fast!
And some areas of the globe are experiencing glacial growth that they can't explain. Glaciers don't last forever. If they did then Nebraska would still be covered by a 200 ft thick slab of it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2012 09:10 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(01-05-2012 10:07 AM)germanyt Wrote:  And some areas of the globe are experiencing glacial growth that they can't explain. Glaciers don't last forever. If they did then Nebraska would still be covered by a 200 ft thick slab of it.

Yeah, somewhere around the world there are glaciers that are growing. Who is the "they" that can't explain a glacier growing?

So last summer here was more like winter... Does that mean average global surface temperature is in the decline?

I wish you'd check your facts before you post things.

[Image: Glacier_Mass_Balance.png]

NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites are watching from polar orbit and can measure these changes in glacier mass everywhere.
Gravity doesn't lie. People lie.

When people talk about permafrost melting it's very different from someone talking about seasonal fluctuations in ice.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 11:57 AM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
I wish you wouldn't post a 70 year clip (which is said to be the tail end of a warming period) of a 10,000 year long climate period and call it suffiecient evidence.


Quote:Scientists are now making an alarming claim that the earth is on the brink of entering another Ice Age that could last the next 100,000 years.They believe a 12,000-year warming period is currently winding down.
They say ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age patterns, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Experts point out that most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles.
The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, the shape of the earth’s orbit, and the Precession of the Equinoxes, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years.
The Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation claims that these three astronomical cycles work together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has been recognized as the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists.
However, during the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that “˜greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming.
Now global warming is accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and scientists are encouraging governments to make pivotal changes to prevent its theoretical effects.
The main evidence cited in support of the global warming theory is the famous “˜hockey stick’ graph presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The “˜hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures that began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006 and 2007.
Yet, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007 and 2008 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001.
Some experts believe the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008 and 2009 will probably equal or surpass the previous winter in both snow depth and cold temperatures.
A few researchers claim global warming is flawed because it focuses on evidence from the past one thousand years, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years.
However, some believe the data from paleoclimatology provides an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
The British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ‘s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern.
The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years, which means global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse as claimed by global warming.
In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.
Some say the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature.
So global CO2 levels could continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. Scientists believe we will be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.
The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels that they are at today.


I'm not familiar with this source but it's consistent with dozens of other studies I've seen on the matter. And I looked for any religions or right-wing rhetoric before posting it.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/162...g_ice_age/



And I like how people on a site full of skeptics call me a science denier for being skeptical.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 04:15 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
You label yourself a denier if we suspect that you love the conclusion more than the evidence...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 04:27 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(02-05-2012 04:15 PM)morondog Wrote:  You label yourself a denier if we suspect that you love the conclusion more than the evidence...
But I'm not claiming global warming without evidence. I'm just saying the evidence is not favorable to me. On top of there there is a ton of controversy over the evidence as well as an alternate theory. If I were to deny M-theory in favor of quantum loop gravity would you call me a science denier?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: