General Climate Discussion

[Holden McGroin]

Once again Angus, if you ever find yourself without fuel for cooking then you have far more worries than you have mentioned here. 

What... you think Icelanders don't eat sushi?

[Jackal1]

What... you think Icelanders don't eat sushi?

Evidently not. Angus was in a tizzy over not having fuel to cook his fish with recently.
It won`t make any difference though------ WE ARE DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY!
mUAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! <cough>

[Angus]

You forget to take into your calculation that all our consumption electrics come from hydro power 
However tha trawler fleet run on oil.
But being a country of energy export, were it used to the full, we could boo on the oil, there would be electrics enough to generate hydrogen for propulsion such as on sea, and enough to keep everything mobile by electrics.
So, we definately need to be invaded in the forseeable future 

[lazs2]

the only thing wrong with your math is that it depends on you knowing how much oil there is on the planet and how oil is made and if it is replenished and...   that the demand will stay the same or increase...

You can't possibly know any of those things but....

To get back on topic..  you can't have it both ways.... if we are going to run out some time in the near future then there is no need to worry about on degree of "man made global warming" that will happen in 100 years.. we will be out of oil by then according to your simplistic math and simplistic look at how the planet and economies work.

lazs

[Jackal1]

You forget to take into your calculation that all our consumption electrics come from hydro power 

I`d hate to have to depend on a trawler fleet for my fish NOW.

However tha trawler fleet run on oil.

In the type of mass doomsday you have been predicting the trawler fleet will be no more. That`s one less worry for you.

[Angus]

I did not follow the complete doomsday theory just in case you noticed. (Destruction of life on earth due to Venus atmosphere conditions).
My doomsday theory goes at max that if we humans dally on long enough, we'll hit conditions that send our civilization, comfort, technology, whatever you name it, reeling back to the level of hundreds or thousands of years ago in most places of the earth, along with some serious disasters in the process.
IMHO there are still going to be pockets that may be so-so-okay, notably on areas with protection of natural barriers.
(When the crap goes on the loose,the biggest danger may be other humans....for some)

[Baitman]

So, we definately need to be invaded in the forseeable future 

I think you will be safe but Canada on the other hand.
............................. .

Forgot we are already owned by our southern neighbors.

[wrag]

HERE YOU GO.................

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

 

[Baitman]

I brought up the fact that the sun doesn't produce the same heat year to year and people laughed at me but if it is in an article.

(Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming.   "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.")

[Angus]

?


Anyway, here is a link to a very good article:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm


"Similarly, in 2004 when a group of scientists published evidence that the solar activity of the 20th century had been unusually high, they nevertheless concluded that "even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin." When Foukal reviewed the question in 2006, he agreed that there was no good evidence that the Sun had played a role in any climate change back to the Little Ice Age. (Meanwhile, new historical evidence suggested that the cold of the early modern centuries might have been partly due to a spate of volcanic eruptions.)"

[Jackal1]

OH Boy! More charts. 

[Angus]

It's a sun chart STUUPIIIDE!

[lazs2]

angus.. how is it that a chart that shows co2 rise FOLLOWING  global warming is dead on proof that co2 causes global warming yet..   any small delay in the action of the sun heating an entire planet of which 70% is water and ice...  is considered "proof" that the sun has nothing to do with it.   it is just a coincidence I suppose that the climate and sun charts are in such sync?

It is probly more complicated than simply all sun related but it certainly isn't anything us feeble humans are doing...

"According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

harmlessly low...  or.. insignificant... that is what most are saying of mans effect.

lazs

[Angus]

The sun has most to do with it.
Sun + Surface + Atmosphere = result.
And we feeble humans are effecting  the two latter factors to quite an extent.
Not miniscule, and with the flick of a switch we could easily get an iceage sample.
And to carry on with ***cough*** some percentage increase every year as linked above (close enough) it is only a question of when and not if, regarding when there is real real trouble.
I'm not a CO2 camper, you know I always refer to human impact as a total. Surface (including life ) and atmosphere....

[pallero]

I was hoping that we have sunspots back, but noooo....

A sunspot is emerging at the location indicated by the arrow. Magnetograms of the spot show it to be an old Cycle 23 active region. Credit: SOHO/MDI

http://www.spaceweather.com/