|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8340293)
To be fair Iolande, if they were growing wheat in Greenland, then one of two things must be trie. Either they had some wheat grain that could survive in very cold climates, or Greenland was warmer than it is today.
http://www.greenland.com/content/eng...n_temperatures |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8340313)
Monash University:
>>Many of those who most strenuously deny any link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change make a great deal of the period from roughly 800 to 1300 AD, when it is possible that temperatures may have been slightly warmer than at present – at least in northern Europe. The argument runs that if temperatures were warmer then, and CO2 levels were lower, then (somehow) that is supposed to show that rising greenhouse gas levels are nothing to worry about because natural variability can lead to warming. There are a few problems with this logic. Firstly, even if temperatures were slightly higher in medieval times, that is irrelevant to our current situation. No-one claims that rising greenhouse gas levels are the only factor that has ever led to higher temperatures. Changes in solar intensity, variations in ocean currents and a number of other factors can influence temperatures. In this case a persistent positive North Atlantic Oscillation from 1050 to 1400 seems to have played an important role.[56] The fact that temperatures appear to have been warm during medieval times in certain regions does not necessarily imply that the warming in our current era can be explained by similar factors. The main reason scientists are so concerned is because they cannot explain the changes over the past century without taking into account rising greenhouse gas levels. Second, recent research suggests that the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ as it now increasingly described by scientists, was warmer than the Little Ice Age, which lasted from around 1500 to 1850, but globally it was probably slightly cooler than the last 30 years. It was also most likely a regional, rather than a global phenomenon.[57] Third, as David Archer has warned, “Beware the bait and switch!â€[58] The projections for global climate change for the current century and beyond do not depict a fraction of a degree increase in temperatures that would usher in a benign era of more pleasant winters and balmy summer evenings. Instead, projections show that even 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures would bring major adverse impacts. As Figure 2 shows, on current trajectories we could see average global temperature increases of 6ºC or more by 2100, which would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe and a dramatically different planet. << |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8340320)
can I have the link for this one please? Am interested in reading it in full. thanks!
http://www-personal.buseco.monash.ed...hangeQ&As.html The site contains many of the frequently voiced objections to the IPCC with rebuttals. Obviously most of us are unable to confirm or deny them - but, unlike most of the sceptics who are usually anonymous the papers are referenced and the author(s) named. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8340330)
Sure - it's a "rebuttal" to sceptics site at Monash Uni.
http://www-personal.buseco.monash.ed...hangeQ&As.html The site contains many of the frequently voiced objections to the IPCC with rebuttals. Obviously most of us are unable to confirm or deny them - but, unlike most of the sceptics who are usually anonymous the papers are referenced and the author(s) named. |
Re: Global warming
Re: the MWP
You will note that I didn't say that the causes were the same. But I think that we can all agree, unless our archeological record is a billion miles off the mark, that it wasn't caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The problem is not that the nature sceptics have to prove that the MWP was not as warm as the archeology suggests, they also have to explain how all previous climate changes are different to the recent one. Global temperatures have levelled off in the past ten years. It's still been a warmer dacade, but no one is arguing against that observation that the world is gradually warming at the moment, but the IPCC model predicts that temperatures should consistently rise in correlation with CO2 levels. CO2 levels have continued to rise. The temperature has not. Either the CO2 effect has reached an upper threshold of some kind, or the CO2 was never a major issue in the first place. |
Re: Global warming
Just out of interest. If Europe is plunged into a new cold period as a result if Global Warming. How much ice would be locked up and how much would it compensate for the land based ice lost in Greenland and Antarctica?
|
Re: Global warming
>>Global temperatures have levelled off in the past ten years. It's still been a warmer dacade, but no one is arguing against that observation that the world is gradually warming at the moment...........<<
But this is a problem I keep having. Sceptics re-arrange the goalposts all the time. Many is the post here and elsewhere saying the last ten years are cooling. Places like the Heartland Institute and the George C Marshall Institute, both funded by such impartial observers as the Oil , Gas and Coal industries of North America (amongst others) have all sorts of arguments, many of which are answered by such sites as I have copied. Frankly I think this is a pointless debate - even if 110% proved there's not a single political leadership on the planet that would actually *do* anything substantive about it anyway. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8338011)
Agreed.
One big problem is that when we do measure it, it doesnt match the calculated expectations. From memory only about 60% of human generated CO2 remans in the atmosphere. I cant remember why. Anyone know??? Keel |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by keel
(Post 8340849)
Lord Monkton on TV yesterday quoted 39%.
Keel Im thinking of changing my name to Lord Tugwell or Sir Basil Smallpiece.... Slapphead Otool gets me zero credibility...:rofl: |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8339683)
Not unworkable at all - just unacceptable to socialists.
We don’t need to calculate individual CO2 impacts per product. We impose a flat GST type of tax on imported goods when a country fails to meet the IPCC agreed global levels (everyone gets the same levels – none of these adjusting for other factors). However, you seem to be falling into the same trap that so many GW activists slip into. You are levelling behind the initial objective – global reduction in CO2 content – for other more politically based motives – e.g. usage of non renewable energy resources. You say: “Surely, the whole point of any serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have to eventually involve slowing the rate we use coal, oil and ultimately gas in favour of renewable energy?" No – it is an effort to reduce CO2. End of story. That means efficient use of coal is as important as reduction in use. You say: "So long as the U.S. and South Africa can be brought on board, then more than 40% of world coal reserves will be taxed at source. Given the problems China already has in exploiting its own coal reserves (they're inconveniently located and of poor quality), this will create added incentive for them to become more efficient energy users". No – taxing 40% of coal reserves makes the other 60% cheaper, and more lucrative. The poor calorific content means they will simply burn more of it to achieve the same energy levels, producing much more CO2, not less. You say: "Coal is a dirty fuel source. 10% of TOTAL GLOBAL CO2 emissions come from coal consumption in China alone. In addition, it is a huge contributor to horrific air quality in some areas and 14 Chinese coal miners die, on average, every day. If the world burns all its coal reserves, this will have catastrophic consequences". So what effect does taxing US coal at source have on them? They buy from Vietnam and Indonesia. You say: "The case for weaning ourselves off oil consumption is every bit as compelling. If we don't start cutting our use of oil, the world economy may drop off a cliff when we reach Peak Oil (the point where demand no longer leads to increased supply) and oil prices sky rocket. Unfortunately, we may already be too late as Peak Oil could occur in the next couple of years". Other than the CO2 content issue, Peak Oil is irrelevant to this argument, and is a common theme of Greenpeace who seem more interested in attacking big oil companies than in global oil supply. What's socialist about taxing coal, oil and gas? How is this more socialists than slapping on import duties? Who says the tax raised by a carbon tax at source can't be given back to tax payers? Should we abolish taxes altogether, maybe get rid of government? Why is it important to make an "effort to reduce coal" but not actually care about reducing it? If China is adding as much coal-fired power generation capacity as Australia has in total in less than one year (not to mention Indian), then gradually increasing the cost of 40% of the world's reserves will not result in reduced coal exports from Australia but it will put pressure on the Chinese to use less of it. I'm sure a few other countries with coal reserves could be convinced to sign up to the carbon tax at source scheme. Even if they didn't, they'd still exploit any increase in the world coal price to their advantage. Why is peak oil irrelevant to this debate? The fact that there are not one, not two but at least three good reasons to use less oil just strengthens the argument to find alternatives. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8340394)
Re: the MWP
You will note that I didn't say that the causes were the same. But I think that we can all agree, unless our archeological record is a billion miles off the mark, that it wasn't caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The problem is not that the nature sceptics have to prove that the MWP was not as warm as the archeology suggests, they also have to explain how all previous climate changes are different to the recent one. Global temperatures have levelled off in the past ten years. It's still been a warmer dacade, but no one is arguing against that observation that the world is gradually warming at the moment, but the IPCC model predicts that temperatures should consistently rise in correlation with CO2 levels. CO2 levels have continued to rise. The temperature has not. Either the CO2 effect has reached an upper threshold of some kind, or the CO2 was never a major issue in the first place. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8340445)
>>Global temperatures have levelled off in the past ten years. It's still been a warmer dacade, but no one is arguing against that observation that the world is gradually warming at the moment...........<<
But this is a problem I keep having. Sceptics re-arrange the goalposts all the time. Many is the post here and elsewhere saying the last ten years are cooling. Places like the Heartland Institute and the George C Marshall Institute, both funded by such impartial observers as the Oil , Gas and Coal industries of North America (amongst others) have all sorts of arguments, many of which are answered by such sites as I have copied. Frankly I think this is a pointless debate - even if 110% proved there's not a single political leadership on the planet that would actually *do* anything substantive about it anyway. I think that is why some people are so intransigent about the whole issue - take my dad, doesn't know anything about climate change, gives me the usual arguments (sunspots, CO2 followed warming, MWP etc) but when given rebuttals he can't refute them as he has never read up about them. Then when I finally ask him why he thinks it's not happening, he says "it just doesn't feel like it is to me". Well, no, I guess it wouldn't. He lives in an air-conditioned house in the middle of the city. He rarely travels, and he doesn't go and enjoy things in a natural setting (e.g. the beach or nature walks) so when these things change he doesn't notice. But the shopping malls he likes to go to have gardeners to make sure that the plants look nice and green (like his over-watered garden). So how would he notice when he lives in a little bubble well away from nature? |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8341843)
I won't bother rebutting all your generraly illogical statements, but here's a go.
What's socialist about taxing coal, oil and gas? How is this more socialists than slapping on import duties? Who says the tax raised by a carbon tax at source can't be given back to tax payers? Should we abolish taxes altogether, maybe get rid of government? Why is it important to make an "effort to reduce coal" but not actually care about reducing it? If China is adding as much coal-fired power generation capacity as Australia has in total in less than one year (not to mention Indian), then gradually increasing the cost of 40% of the world's reserves will not result in reduced coal exports from Australia but it will put pressure on the Chinese to use less of it. I'm sure a few other countries with coal reserves could be convinced to sign up to the carbon tax at source scheme. Even if they didn't, they'd still exploit any increase in the world coal price to their advantage. Why is peak oil irrelevant to this debate? The fact that there are not one, not two but at least three good reasons to use less oil just strengthens the argument to find alternatives. There is a global socialist idea that the West has too much money, and uses too much of the worlds resources. (I agree with this). These socialists believe that it is acceptable to use subterfuge and bulldust to reallocate resources and money. They therefore believe we should tax our natural resources and pay money to other less well off countries. It is classic socialism. (Take note – a large portion of Carbon Taxes are earmarked for disbursement to third world countries, including INDIA!!!!! (who refuse to control its own carbon emission). Taxing the resources makes us less competitive, and is unilateral. Other countries can refuse to tax resources, making their products cheaper. Taxing coal isn’t the point f AGW reduction. Reducing CO2 is. The desperate attempts by some groups to reduce Australia’s coal production are more politically based. Let me say it again in case you miss the point – we are trying to reduce CO2. That can be achieved with more efficient use of coal. 2. China I really cant follow your logic over Chinese coal. Sorry, - maybe I am a bit dumb here. Why the bloody hell would Australia lifting its coal price force China to use less. THEY DON’T BUY OUR COAL!!!! They buy from INDONESIA and VIETNAM!!!!! THEY SELL COAL TO JAPAN!!!!! THEY COMPETE WITH US! 3. Peak oil There are good arguments that we are nowhere near peak oil. Even if we are, it has stuff all to do with CO2. The replacement for oil may be another CO2 producing alternative (coal fired steam cars anyone?). Peak oil is not part of the CO2 argument. What you are doing is wrapping up a whole load of social activism issues under a CO2 banner, and that is exactly what piddles me off about the AGW movement. Why not throw land rights and a 20 hour working week into the argument. What about whaling? AGW is about controlling CO2 content in the atmosphere. Nothing else. It is not a bandwagon for other movements. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8341884)
Perhaps the deniers and sceptics need to prove the the MWP existed in the first place . . .
There is much more evidence of the existence of the MWP than there is about AGW. Some evidence: 1. Habitation in now inhabitable areas There are entire towns buried under 20 feet of permasnow. There are plant roots and Norse burial grounds in permanently frozen soil, indicating that temperatures were 2–4 °C higher than in the twentieth century. A chronology of annual temperature for Iceland, derived from sea-ice records, indicates a peak of warmth around 1100AD, a finding confirmed by evidence of agricultural prosperity: the largest surviving foundations of farmhouses are of Norse origin. Central European vineyards have been found at elevations more than 200 m higher than today, indicating that summers were up to 1.5 °C warmer. Vineyards spread northwards as well as upwards; they were quite widely distributed over southern England. This implies a freedom from late spring frosts, and summers that were relatively dry and sunny. This is confirmed by estimates of seasonal temperature and rainfall compiled by British climatologist Hubert Lamb, who estimated the mean temperature for July and August in central England from 1150 to 1300 at 16.3 °C compared with 15.8 °C for 1900–50. 2. Scientific research In Europe, radiocarbon dates of wood found in moraines indicate a glacial minimum before 1200AD, and it is known that tracks made over several Alpine passes were later overrun by glaciers. the French historian Le Roy Ladurie concluded that a glacial advance in central Europe had begun by the early 1200s. The Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona has analysed carbon isotope ratios in wood from bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) growing in the White Mountains region, which indicate a moist anomaly from 1080 to 1129. This is thought to represent the wettest period of the past thousand years. Rings from trees in the Sierra Nevada region indicate that temperatures exceeded late twentieth-century values between 1100 and 1375. A tree-ring chronology in the southern Canadian Rockies shows a relatively early temperature peak from 950 to 1100 ad, followed by a deterioration in which glaciers are known to have overrun mature forest. This early onset of the MWP at high latitudes is consistent with the results of Greenland ice cores that show rapid cooling as early as 1130 to 1190. Even Michael Mann, who had denied the existence of MWP, now admits its existence, although he calls it Medieval Climate Anomaly to avoid embarrassment. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/share...lScience09.pdf See also: Hughes, M. K. and and Diaz, H. F. (1994) Was there a ‘Medieval Warm Period’, and if so, where and when? Climatic Change, 26 (2–3), 109–42. (See also other papers in the same issue.) Lamb, H. H. (1965) The early Medieval warm epoch and its sequel. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 1, 13–37. Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1972) Times of feast, times of famine: a history of climate since the year 1000. Allen and Unwin, London. Grove, J. M. and and Switsur, R. (1994) Glacial geological evidence for the Medieval Warm Period. Climatic Change, 26 (2–3), 143–69. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8341934)
I think that is why some people are so intransigent about the whole issue - take my dad, doesn't know anything about climate change, gives me the usual arguments (sunspots, CO2 followed warming, MWP etc) but when given rebuttals he can't refute them as he has never read up about them. 1. The global temperature has change through natural causes in the past, the MWP being only the most recent. Why are you certain that it is not happening naturally now? 2. The sun has been outputting more energy in the last half of the 20th century than in the first half. Why is this not considered the cause of the current warming? 3. Carbon dioxide is demonstrably a minor greenhouse gas and a very small component of the atmosphere, why are we so certain it is the cause of current warming? That should get us started. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:45 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.