Tree Huggers and Government

Excessive compared to what? They haven't been keeping records for very long so why do you think it is excessive?

Reply to
dennis
Loading thread data ...

I think you'll find that there are pretty good records of the extent of ice in the Arctic. Norway, for example, has pretty substantial fishing fleets, and has had for some centuries, and they sail out of ports affected by ice.

Andy

Reply to
Andy Champ

400+ years of exploration, expeditions, whaling ...
Reply to
Paul Herber

Lets see, how accurate were maps 400 years ago?

How much of the ice did they actually map each year?

How did they measure the thickness?

Reply to
dennis

Bit longer than that..ISTR that there were greenland colonies of Norsemen in the 14th century..they got wiped out tho.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Data sets don't do explanations. However, I would not be surprised to discover that hysteresis is involved.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

The message from "nightjar" contains these words:

How?

The items you have been quoting are interpretations, not data sets, and while I have only skimmed them one at least seems to be claiming the Met Office is party to the view that temperatures are not rising which is very definitely not the case.

There is no way we can be sure how truthful the proponents on either side of the argument are which is why I posed a practical question. Dennis lives in my killfile but I see by someone elses response that he is a fully paid up member of the anti brigade which doesn't surprise me in the least.

Reply to
Roger

It's refreshingly different to see David Hansen unquestioningly accept and promote the Official Government view on something.

Ian

Reply to
The Real Doctor

I am not anti, I just don't see any real evidence. I see a lot of opinion but very little data. My interpretation of what data there is is far more valid than someone quoting opinion.

Reply to
dennis

Most natural systems exhibit hysteresis, so I would not be surprised to discover that if there is a period of warming, followed by a period of stable temperature, it would be some years after the temperature stabilises before the ice melt rate achieves a new equlibrium.

I was referring to my first reply, where I mentioned the three sets of global temperature data that showed that there had been no increase in the average global temperature since 1998. The artciles I later quoted were discussions of the questions that have been raised about the reliability of the fourth data set available, that from NASA, which prior to the most recent revision, showed that four of the warmest years on record were in the

1930s.

It says the data gathered by the Met Office Hadley Centre shows that there has been no rise in the average global temperature since 1998. It does not discuss how the Met Office chooses to interpret that data, which is that that ocean currents produced an unusually warm year in 1998, followed by cooler ones, but that overall the trend is still upwards. I look forward with interest to their interpretation of temperature measurements if German scientists are right and ocean currents will cool the globe further over the next decade or so, or if Russian scientists are right and the world is going to enter a global cooling cycle around 2012 or, indeed, if Robert Essenhigh has been right all along and CO2 is the result of global warming, not its driver..

I tend to the opinion that, as the government has firmly nailed its colours to the mast of CO2 reduction, it will not countenance any dissent from any body it finances, so anything they say should be viewed with caution. As anyone expressing dissent these days is treated as an heretic, I take the view that they probably have to be sincere in their beliefs to express them. Personally, I think that government should stop spending money on trying to stop CO2 emissions - it is only one theory and China and India will soon make up for anything we save - and spend it on preparing us for climate change, whichever way it goes over the next few decades. Given any choice, I would plump for warming, as significant cooling would have a more adverse effect on global food production.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

"nightjar.me.uk>"

It doesn't actually matter if you think about it, the greens haven't yet). The solution is the same for cooling as it is for warming as it is for political reasons.. more UK generated power and better use of it, ie. more nuclear stations, better insulation, etc. If it gets colder we will need that power and insulation. What must not happen is for some idiot to decide we don't need the power because we have saved a few percent.

Reply to
dennis

The message from "nightjar" contains these words:

It might make sense to argue that CO2 emissions from the sea lag rises in sea temperature but even there you have to specify the time scale. Polar ice is cyclic on a yearly basis so how do you superimpose a hysteresis lag on that system of, on the figures you ascribe to, at least a decade.

Are you saying that the Met Office have falsified the actual points on the graph they use to show the extent of global warning?

The figure for 1998 sticks out like a sore thumb so using that as the bench mark for 'proving' that there has been no increase in global warming since 1998 is a cynical exercise in rank dishonesty.

Global climate is variable in the short term, it is also variable in the long term, vis the Milankovitch cycles, so over a long period what is actually natural is very difficult to predict. Scope for proponents of either persuasion to manipulate the data to their own advantage.

Whether or not we try to do anything to alleviate a supposed problem is a different argument to whether the problem actually exists. We are too small a country to have a significant effect on our own. Why wear a hair shirt while the rest of the world is seeking silk?

I don't share your enthusiasm for further warming. Further warming means more violent weather, more desertification, more land lost to the sea and, at some point, a step change to a much higher stable temperature regime in which there no snow/ice cover on the ground to act as a reflector.

Reply to
Roger

It might, but why would warm oceans emit CO2? Warm water should be able to dissolve more CO2. Warm water increases plant growth which absorbs more CO2. You will have to explain why warm oceans emit CO2.

8<

That is probably rubbish of course.. if you believe what GW fanatics are advocating then there is the same amount energy arriving from the Sun. It is this that powers the weather systems so there is only the same energy available. It is far more likely that either the reports of freak weather are somewhat exaggerated or that extra energy is being input (which the GW fanatics deny).

Reply to
dennis

^^^^^^^^^^^

Think carefully about what that word means. To me, it means the changes they are seeking to measure are smaller than the errors in the measurement, and further that as a result the measurements are essentially worthless.

Reply to
Huge

If you want me to contiinue to guess at possible mechanisms, I would expect sea temperatures to be more important than air temperatures for ice melt rates - the ice is 90% under water and water is a much better conductor of heat. I would also not expect polar sea temperatures to track global average air temperatures very quickly.

...

I make no claims of any sort. I merely offer commentary, from which you can draw your own conclusions.

Interseting, given that other observers, using the same data, say that global average temperatures peaked in 1998 and remained virtually the same for the following years.

...

Our government seems to be under the impression that we are still a world power that sets the standards that others follow.

I merely choose it as the lesser of two evils, given that the climate will continue to change whether we try to do anything about it or not. Another mini ice age would be far more devastating.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

In message , "dennis@home" writes

WRONG

You claim a degree in Physics and don't know that CO2 solubility in water DECREASES with an increase in temperature ?

noddy website for you here

formatting link

Reply to
geoff

Reply to
dennis

In message , "dennis@home" writes

"Warm water should be able to dissolve more CO2"

a stand alone statement - and completely WRONG

no mention of plant life, plants don't DISSOLVE CO2, and you mentioned that later as another standalone statement

"Warm water increases plant growth which absorbs more CO2."

postal degree, was it ?

Reply to
geoff

The message from "nightjar" contains these words:

Good point but how warm would the sea have to be before other factors became more important. I can't find any actual temperature figures for arctic waters but I did come across one item which said that the polar ice had been thinning since at least as early as the 1970s.

The Met Office graph is too indistinct to extract exact figures (or even to be sure of all separate years) but it seems to show that the peak of

1998 is very much an anomaly at about 0.8C above the base line. Within a year or two before that there was a year at 0.4 and within a year or two after 0.5. Since about 2001 all years have been above 0.7. Before 1998 no year was above 0.55. Given the year on year variability it would take several years from now to show for definite that the steep rise that started in the late 70s has come to an end.

If we had a mini ice age we could at least burn fossil fuels with gay abandon. But seriously a major melting would be an absolute disaster for a number of countries including the UK but particularly countries like Holland and Bangladesh where much of the country is no more than marginally above current sea level. A full melt is predicted to increase sea levels by 70 metres so goodbye much of Southern and Eastern England, currently home to the majority of the population.

Reply to
Roger

I'm actually surprised that you know the difference between absorbed and dissolved. But then anyone can make a mistake as you repeatedly show.

Reply to
dennis

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.