486 replies to this topic

[Cymro]

Just read this although we shouldn't beleive everything there are good arguements and counter arguments, what are your opinions?

http://www.suite101....ice-age-a288855

[Tom D]

It's currently increasing, isn't it? Or staying the same? It depends which timescale you're going by.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Tom D, on 25 September 2010 - 17:44 , said:

It's currently increasing, isn't it? Or staying the same? It depends which timescale you're going by.

OK, so it's the sun, not my Landrover that's to blame.

Can I claim back all the "Green Taxes" that I've been shafted with for the last 10 yrs ????

[Blitzen]

Some say it should be called ocean warming rather than global warming.

[Cymro]

Blitzen, on 25 September 2010 - 18:15 , said:

Some say it should be called ocean warming rather than global warming.

I quite agree there because take the pacific for example although the ocean itself happens to be much warmer sea ice is still increasing due to surface tempreatures. But the tempreature of the water doesn't mean the global tempreature will also inevitably correspond. The sun spot is at a minnimum but many refuse to acknowledge this because it doesn't suit their everybody panic and drive an electric car or we're doomed agenda haha

[PersianPaladin]

post deleted


whatever

Edited by PersianPaladin, 25 September 2010 - 19:19 .

[Iceberg]

Not a shread of evidence to say it's decreasing but still a fair few votes for it....You've got to laugh...

[vortex_liam]

I agree, it should be ocean warming, it makes more sence. Although the sea dose have a impact on the coast tempretures which means it technically brings the temps down due to makeing the beachs more cold and the spray being more cold!

[su rui ke]

[quote name='adamjones416' date='25 September 2010 - 20:03 ' timestamp='1285441386' post='1864075']
The sun spot is at a minnimum but many refuse to acknowledge this because it doesn't suit their everybody panic and drive an electric car or we're doomed agenda haha
[/quote

Could you please explain that part? Why would anyone refuse to acknowledge a solar minimum?

Edited by su rui ke, 25 September 2010 - 22:05 .

[Cymro]

su rui ke, on 25 September 2010 - 22:00 , said:

Could you please explain that part?

Any of the relatively cool dark spots that appear periodically in groups on the surface of the sun that are associated with strong magnetic fields these then weaken the suns energy and its intensity in which is affects the earth's tempreatures.

http://www.nature.co...s.2010.184.html

http://www.newscient...th-the-sun.html

su rui ke, on 25 September 2010 - 22:05 , said:

Could you please explain that part?

Could you please explain that part? Why would anyone refuse to acknowledge a solar minimum?

Because it proves the suns is behaving unusual and has been for the last 3 - 4 years and thus there's a strong coleration between weak sun activity and cold periods throughout our climate history the last little ice age was akin down to the solar cycle failling to produce sunspots knwon as the Maunder Minimum. So if it's true what's happening now people would fail to acknowledge it because it contradicts global warming completely.

Edited by adamjones416, 25 September 2010 - 22:09 .

[cyclonic happiness]

Iceberg, on 25 September 2010 - 19:57 , said:

Not a shread of evidence to say it's decreasing but still a fair few votes for it....You've got to laugh...

So cynical for one so young

One has to ask one's self why has it been changed from 'global warming' a few years ago to 'climate change' now?
No-one ever seems to mention global warming anymore?

[Blitzen]

cyclonic happiness, on 25 September 2010 - 22:35 , said:

So cynical for one so young

One has to ask one's self why has it been changed from 'global warming' a few years ago to 'climate change' now?
No-one ever seems to mention global warming anymore?

Keep up CH! It is now 'Global Climate Disruption' Sounds like a safety net to me. Perhaps some doubters in the field?

[jethro]

Would a general lowering of global temperatures really be the first symptom of a new ice age?

Deep Solar minimums like the Maunder and Dalton had a different impact upon different parts of the globe, wouldn't it make more sense to look at the research into those eras and compare with today?

The Younger Dryas is not considered to have been as a consequence of Solar variation so the inclusion of that event in the opening article to this thread is a tad misleading.

[The watcher]

IMO, although spewing alot of crap into the atmosphere and oceans has effects and consequences, they are being exaggerated and misunderstood for selfish reasons.

I think a very slight rise has happened in the last 30 years, but nothing substantial enough to consider the doom mongering and nothing that has proven to be of significance to what has happened since humans have inhabited earth. We are indeed looking too deep into things. For this reason I have voted that the climate has remained the same.

[mike Meehan]

I am saying the same because in the last 2000 years it has been warmer than it is today and there will always be fluctuations of warm and cold due to natural cycles, though eventually I see another Ice Age coming in again - in fact at the moment we are only in an inter-glacial period and I believe that over the most recent, say 200,000 years we have spent more time in an Ice Age than out of it.

We do not appear to know too much about the formation of an Ice Age but I suspect that poor summers where the winter snows do not melt has a lot to do with it.

[The watcher]

It actually is very hard to define/split up warm from cold periods...nobody is here long enough to actually know what the planets undisturbed/natural temperatures would actually be, we just assume that these averages taken since records began are what it should be.

[osmposm]

cyclonic happiness, on 25 September 2010 - 22:35 , said:

One has to ask one's self why has it been changed from 'global warming' a few years ago to 'climate change' now?
No-one ever seems to mention global warming anymore?

Oh, dear God, not that old chestnut again?

Repeat after me: IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The name it was given when it was established by the UN twenty-odd years ago in 1988, and the name it still bears today.

If there was over time any significant change in emphasis, it was in an attempt not to alienate those for whom the very words 'global warming' had become a red rag to a bull. The same is probably true of 'Global Climate Disruption' - a vain effort to give the phenomenon a more 'neutral' description that they hope might be agreeable to all. Fat chance!

But yes, of course it is measurably happening, albeit with fluctuations within or over the top of it, as one would expect. Why it has been happening is another matter.

[Tom D]

The watcher, on 26 September 2010 - 00:23 , said:

IMO, although spewing alot of crap into the atmosphere and oceans has effects and consequences, they are being exaggerated and misunderstood for selfish reasons.

I think a very slight rise has happened in the last 30 years, but nothing substantial enough to consider the doom mongering and nothing that has proven to be of significance to what has happened since humans have inhabited earth. We are indeed looking too deep into things. For this reason I have voted that the climate has remained the same.

mike Meehan, on 26 September 2010 - 00:31 , said:

I am saying the same because in the last 2000 years it has been warmer than it is today and there will always be fluctuations of warm and cold due to natural cycles, though eventually I see another Ice Age coming in again - in fact at the moment we are only in an inter-glacial period and I believe that over the most recent, say 200,000 years we have spent more time in an Ice Age than out of it.

We do not appear to know too much about the formation of an Ice Age but I suspect that poor summers where the winter snows do not melt has a lot to do with it.

Two very sound posts IMO. My thoughts exactly why I voted 'stayed the same'.

The Earth's climate has seen temperature fluctuations of a much greater scale and magnitude in it's long life, and people spend too much time analysing the last 100 years when we can tell from ice core analyses etc that flucatuations on a greater timescale and greater magnitude have happened before.

Perhaps it is too early to tell whether human output of CO2 into the atmosphere has had any real effect on temperatures; I know we're told CO2 is higher than ever in concentration, however we do not know Earth's way of dealing with it. Weren't previous Ice Ages preceeded by periods of high CO2 from melt-ice and global warming?

[badboy657]

if an ice age is coming then look to the north,
but global temps need to drop first,
then ocean temps then see the arctic start to expand until ice comes down across the north hemisphere.

i dont think if any increase in global temps over the last 3 or 4 years has been as rapid,
one thing that strikes me is last year in the northern hemisphere it was more like winters of old and considering we had a el nino event it was pretty impressive.

im sure things will cool off in the coming years how cold is another story but 1c to 2c drop would just be enough.

[cyclonic happiness]

osmposm, on 26 September 2010 - 03:30 , said:

Oh, dear God, not that old chestnut again?

Repeat after me: IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The name it was given when it was established by the UN twenty-odd years ago in 1988, and the name it still bears today.

If there was over time any significant change in emphasis, it was in an attempt not to alienate those for whom the very words 'global warming' had become a red rag to a bull. The same is probably true of 'Global Climate Disruption' - a vain effort to give the phenomenon a more 'neutral' description that they hope might be agreeable to all. Fat chance!

But yes, of course it is measurably happening, albeit with fluctuations within or over the top of it, as one would expect. Why it has been happening is another matter.

So even though the globe is warming, they dare not mention "global warming" for fear that people might get the wrong idea?

badboy657, on 26 September 2010 - 08:02 , said:

if an ice age is coming then look to the north,
but global temps need to drop first,
then ocean temps then see the arctic start to expand until ice comes down across the north hemisphere.

i dont think if any increase in global temps over the last 3 or 4 years has been as rapid,
one thing that strikes me is last year in the northern hemisphere it was more like winters of old and considering we had a el nino event it was pretty impressive.

im sure things will cool off in the coming years how cold is another story but 1c to 2c drop would just be enough.

We're still in an ice age, otherwise there'd be little or no snow at the poles in summer, it's just a blip now and could go either way *sits patiently on fence"