Topic: OK. where's all this Global Warming gone ?

[OllieC]

Ah Val, me old China... did a bit of Antiques RS meself... you well?


O x

[les65]

I'm not really interested in talking to you anyway les, we established you were mental back when you accused me of child abuse, you moron. You make me sick.

im mental, because i dont believe in the scaremongery or because i picked holes in your post.

either way im not concerned, my feelings about you have not changed, and if i make you feel sick then we at least have something in common.
your personal attack of me although off topic, was not unexpected but im old enough and wise enough to let it ride. i hope it made you feel better. ;D
i have apologised,  i dont expect one in return and hope that this is not going to be an ongoing thing from you the debate was running along nicely with plenty of information being posted all of which was healthy.

You accused me of child abuse on a public forum, send me a crappy pm in which you tell me again that I'm wrong, and then think everything's okay? You can take your apology, roll it up in your copy of the daily mail and then work out where it fits.

I repeat, you are sick and I can't believe you have the audacity to hang around here, pretending to be reasonable.

And FWIW, your input to this "debate" is pretty dumb too.

ok i am reasonable, my points are valid, and i know a sore loser. ;D
if you cannot be a man about it, you could at least refrain from bringing it back up.

[valmarg]

Ah Val, me old China... did a bit of Antiques RS meself... you well?
O x

Glad you decided to hang on in here, Ollie despite. ;D ;D

Not so dusty myself, how are you?

valmarg

[dtw]

Global warming is just an excuse for governments to charge extra tax.

If it goes the other way, we'll be charged ice tax.

[tonybloke]

Global warming is just an excuse for governments to charge extra tax.

If it goes the other way, we'll be charged ice tax.

so what? if I paid a grand a week in tax I'd be bl**dy happy!

[Bjerreby]

This is a fascinating thread. Regarding the rise in sea level, I’d put it like this:

Area of the Greenland ice cap = 1.7*10^6 km2
Average thickness of the Greenland ice cap = (say) 1.5 km
Volume of ice on the Greenland ice cap is approximately 2.55*10^6 km3
Radius of earth (considered a sphere) = 12,733 km
Say the area of the oceans is 75% of the world’s surface, about 3.8203*10^8 km2

Assuming the Greenland ice cap melts and all the water ends up in the oggin, the rise in sea level is 2.55*10^6 km³ / 3.8203*10^8 km2  = 6.6m. 8)

Great. I want to know however will it melt, and if it does, how much of the water will end up as vapour? As far as I can see, there are plenty of specialists with opinions, but who understands the bigger picture? According to Inuit legend, Greenland has seen plenty of significant thaws over the centuries. And why haven’t we heard any conclusions drawn from bored specimens of ice deep down, telling what the Greenland atmosphere was like a long time ago?

[Robert_Brenchley]

Actually they have, and they've found heavy metal pollution from Roman industry. The ice isn't old enough to get back to significant atmospheric changes though.

As for variations in the climate there, that's well established. The Vikings were able to establish settlements there, where the people eventually starved because the climate got colder, and they couldn't or wouldn't adapt to an Inuit lifestyle. But it's been said before on this thread. It's not the fact of climate change that's scary. It's the speed. The Greenland icecap started to form a couple of million years ago.

[Bjerreby]

Hmmmmmm.

The University of Copenhagen has been drilling up there for a long time. Several decades I think. They have ice core samples hundreds of thousands of years old.

I am confused that the Danes haven't sounded off with information they have gleaned out of all this drilling. If anyone likes to be seen as champions of the environment, it is them (despite my domestic water supply in Denmark requiring special treatment toremove pesticides) :-[

[Robert_Brenchley]

As I say, they do have loads of info from the cores. It's just not the sort of stuff that makes news.

[Kea]

The reason that in the 1970's they were talking about an ice age is because that was where we were supposed to be heading but slowly at the normal speed of natural climate change. Then they noticed that we were actually heading the other way but they didn't realise the speed that the warming was occurring at immediately. The change in global ambient CO2 levels is astounding. When I was doing my MSc I was measuring ambient CO2 as 320ppm (1984) now it's just over 380ppm.

[RobinOfTheHood]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

First hit on Google with the search "historic c02 atmospheric content"

And it's summary:

CONCLUSIONS

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.


Seems a little biased to say the least, but it does back it up well. Worth a look.

[vegmandan]

I'm just waiting for the almighty Gordon to introduce a Vegetarian Mung Bean and Chick Pea eaters, Pay Per Fart Tax,after the evidence that  Cows excessive flatulence is being considered an issue in The Global Warming debate. ;D ;D ;D

[Eristic]

I'm just waiting for the almighty Gordon to introduce a  Pay Per Fart Tax

Shusssh...!

Don't let the gorgon know about Dave the Hearty Joke eater.

[Bjerreby]

I was fascinated by the first program in Simon Schama's series "A History of Britain". At Skara Brae there is a very well preserved stone age settlement, where there were remains of fish that today are only found around Cornwall. According to Schama, all the evidence is that in the stone age, the Orkney Islands were much warmer than they are now.

[Kea]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

First hit on Google with the search "historic c02 atmospheric content"



Seems a little biased to say the least, but it does back it up well. Worth a look.

Yes seems very biased and looking at the graphs which choose a date around 1940 as the point at which hydrocarbon use increases is very strange as that is much too recent. Industrialisation began more than 150 years before then and the world population started to increase rapidly increasing the clearing of land for food production etc removing CO2 sinks. It's not all down to humans driving their cars around.

[Suzanne]

I think you have already coverd this but interesting.

[Robert_Brenchley]

There's a perfectly valid question as to why we're going through such a long interglacial, and one possibility is that a modicum of global warming over historical time has kept the glaciers at bay. in which case, it's possible that if we do succeed in zapping what passes for civilisation, an ice age will follow as the global warming gases decline again.

That article takes a great deal for granted. It's perfectly true that, if left to themselves, plants will tend to become that bit lusher, and use up the extra CO2. The reason why we have arge coal deposits from a specific geological period is that the atmosphere at the time was very high in CO2, and that's the point when plants evolved to the point where they were capable of exploiting it fully. But we're not leaving them to themselves, are we? We're cutting down the forests which soak up so much of the CO2.

[allaboutliverpool]

See my posting today "What snow", it has gone to Liverpool.

I am going skiing to France next week and expect to pull salad leaves on my return
http://www.allaboutliverpool.com/allaboutallotments1_homepage

[OllieC]

I was fascinated by the first program in Simon Schama's series "A History of Britain". At Skara Brae there is a very well preserved stone age settlement, where there were remains of fish that today are only found around Cornwall. According to Schama, all the evidence is that in the stone age, the Orkney Islands were much warmer than they are now.

I've been there several times & presumably these fish remains are in the middens beside the huts... Out of interest, how did they catch the fish?

[RobinOfTheHood]

I was fascinated by the first program in Simon Schama's series "A History of Britain". At Skara Brae there is a very well preserved stone age settlement, where there were remains of fish that today are only found around Cornwall. According to Schama, all the evidence is that in the stone age, the Orkney Islands were much warmer than they are now.

I've been there several times & presumably these fish remains are in the middens beside the huts... Out of interest, how did they catch the fish?

I would suggest a size 20 hook on 3lb monofilament line, with a couple of maggots.