Global Warming not eroding ice shocker

[The Rivet]

No problemo, the only thing I'd ask you to consider is...... that..............it seems strange being called by my forename rather than my surname, even on the interweb!

oops will do........................

 

[Husty]

If climate change were real then surely we would be experiencing record temperatures around the globe and loads of extreme weather too. Anyone noticed any extreme weather recently?

You really are a bit of a simpleton arnt you

 

[BadFish]

You really are a bit of a simpleton arnt you

Compared to you Husty, isn't everyone?

 

[wellquickwoody]

If climate change were real then surely we would be experiencing record temperatures around the globe and loads of extreme weather too. Anyone noticed any extreme weather recently?

Bunch of scientists caught in ice that doesn't exist?

 

[Husty]

Compared to you Husty, isn't everyone?

No, but you certainly are

 

[BadFish]

I bow to your superior intellect Husty. Ask hail the king of the jellyfish.

 

[piersa]

If climate change were real then surely we would be experiencing record temperatures around the globe and loads of extreme weather too. Anyone noticed any extreme weather recently?

Yes, I have. The boiling hot wind and the sizzling rain are unbearable.

 

[Jimmy Come Lately]

Meanwhile there was a recovery in the Arctic ice layer this year.

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1569&cookieConsent=A

Oh please, I didn't even need to read this story to work out what was wrong with your description of it. Arctic ice cover hit a record low last year. Even on a consistent downward trend (which the ice seems to be) it won't break the record progressively every year: the climate is too variable for that, and after some extreme years it will be less extreme the next year. But still lower than the long-term average. This is not a "recovery" in any meaningful sense (i.e. a sense of "getting better"). And here's the paragraph from the article itself where the scientists explicitly remind the reader of this:

However, Shepherd cautions against celebrating. 'Although 2013 has seen a 50 per cent increase in volume over the 2012 minimum, this has to be considered against the backdrop of long-term change. 2013 still ranks among the lowest volumes in the past 30 years.'

 

[SeagullSongs]

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

you know that is the normal process of the scientific method? an observation disproves the theory, you have to propose a new theory to cover the new observation. that seems to be the core problem for climate change, its not really a firm theory, its become a bit of a moving target or at least the consequences are.

and you mention efficient combustion engines being suppressed. this doesnt make sence when you consider since the 1970's oil crisis fuel economy has been a core sales pitch for the vehicle manufacturers. the car that saves big% fuel would be best seller. likewise a lorry with even a small advantage would clean up. the conspiracy that oil companies suppressed tech doesnt really stack up when european car companies (without large oil corps around) havent found the secret, nor russia or china who cont play the same game. and the oil companies didnt exactly help Detriot in the past decade, so you'd think they'd be bring it out by now. doesnt fly.

There's been a number of posts on the fate of the combustion engine here so I thought I'd pipe up. You're right,the combustion engine is going nowhere,but what it burns will change. Water to be precise,and the technology exists and certainly has been suppressed by both manufacturers and governments for obvious reasons. But the day us common people will be allowed to use it is coming closer

 

[HovaGirl]

Your saying that human activity has no effect on nature?

I didn't say that. I said man cannot overpower nature. Nature will always overpower man. It's been doing that for millions, or billions of years. In the scheme of things, man has only been here for a moment, and he really is rather arrogant to think that he has caused what nature does by itself. (That is not to say that we should not take care of our environment for the generations to come, but to say that this planet is behaving as it has always behaved and will carry on behaving, long after man has gone.)

 

[Husty]

There's been a number of posts on the fate of the combustion engine here so I thought I'd pipe up. You're right,the combustion engine is going nowhere,but what it burns will change. Water to be precise,and the technology exists and certainly has been suppressed by both manufacturers and governments for obvious reasons. But the day us common people will be allowed to use it is coming closer

I sense the conspiracy theorist is strong in this one. The reason Hydrogen fuel cells arnt on the mass market is because they are expensive and difficult to produce and because they have short life spans, meaning they're currently no improvement over what we currently use.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Funny that we have a thread disproving 'green science' on exactly the same day that it was announced that Australia's climate for 2013 was 1.2C higher than the long-term average. Perhaps this is the sort of thing an Australian should be focusing on? If green science is like any other industry, attempting to get as much funding to line their pockets, then it's not quite as effective as the financial sector, is it?
I would trust 'green science' more than the sites on which this thread is based. We also need to distinguish between the various elements of climate change research. Some of it is based on observed data -- which is probably the kind of 'hard science' beorthelm is after -- and some of it is based on future projections, amongst others.

So it was 1.2 degrees hotter in 2013 than the average, so what? - Do you think that the climate doesn't vary from year to year and would remain constant if it wasn't for man?

Average means that some years will be hotter and some cooler and the cause can be from a far and wide selection of causes which could all have nothing to do with man and its impact on the planet and more to do with things like the sun and the natural cycles of the Earth in relation to it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

there isn't mate....at the end of the day it all comes down to money.....plenty of people are making a lot of money out of coal /gas / oil they are not going to be proactive in the climate change debate are they...? plenty of people are not earning a penny out of oil , gas etc.......they are the ones who are going to be a bit more vocal against fossil fuel use.....the whole situation is wubbish , millions of tonnes of carbon being released back into the atmosphere in a minute fraction of the time it took to be laid down and created......very short sighted , imho.

Could the whole attitude of this 'green' society thinking have more to do with the Earths dwindling oil, gas and fossil fuel reserves and the need to wean people away from these and one way of selling it's alternatives is to scare people away from traditional fuels (or at least make them less willing to use them wastefully) and help make them prepared to pay far more for their energy needs by using expensive 'green' alternatives and to willingly pay 'green' taxes which they could otherwise reject doing?

When do they estimate that oil, coal and natural gas reserves will now run out? I remember at school they used to teach us that they would have run out by now, and some would have all gone before the turn of the millenium but clearly this was wrong but how much longer can it continue?

Also, wasn't the whole green argument first used / invented by politicans saying that there was a need for cleaner and greener alternatives to fossil fuels, etc in a bid to gain public support for the building of nuclear power stations? - A political spin going on and on as a result of it's first introduction and it's too late to back out now? (too much money tied up in it, etc for too long)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

humans are killing this planet ...slowly but surely , i dread to think what it will be like in a thousand years,the damage done over the last 150 years is undeniable ......barring a meteor strike causing a mass extinction poor old mother earth is fuct....imho.

If things are as bad as you make out, why have soo many extremely common examples of damaging behaviors or practices still uncontrolled?

Such as the use of plastics for food storage rather than much more environmentally friendly alternatives? Why hasn't excessive waste & excessive packaging been completely banned on many products? - only recently have suppliers started to reduce this as a result of public demand after years of being fed the propoganda about being green. why isn't more unwrapped food (like meats) sold, why isn't more packaging made from paper or wood (from sustainable forests)

Why isn't all or most of the potential daily household waste (commonly used household products, etc) required to be recycled? (from metals to card to food waste) why don't they produce products in conatiners that are amek from just 1 easily recyclable material rather than often a mix which makes the whole thing difficult to recycle (plastic over cardboard, etc)

Why do commercial properties have to leave lights on at night? (health & safety i guess in case someone needs access at night) but surely there are motion sensors or simply having the light switch near the entrance would negate this need and mean that an aweful lot of electricity could be saved up and down the country and across the world. (and seriously reducing carbon emissions that are produced in generating this wasted power.)

No - it is far easier to attack the car user, etc as evil, uncaring and killing the planet and anyone who disagrees is scum and shouldn't be listened to because PR and a man in a white coat (scientists with a possible vested interest) has said it will happen (as predicted by using a number of models which often fails to accurately match real life, such as hole in ozone layer taking centuries to repair itself - untrue. and so on and are based on only a short snapshot of the planets history but trying to predict hundreds of years into the future. It's a bit like taking a volume of the encyclopedia Britannia, opening at a random page, reading the first papragraph and claiming you know all of it's contents)

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I sense the conspiracy theorist is strong in this one. The reason Hydrogen fuel cells arnt on the mass market is because they are expensive and difficult to produce and because they have short life spans, meaning they're currently no improvement over what we currently use.

Who said hydrogen fuel cells? I said water. Internal combustion engines that burn water have been invented many times. Free fuel. Wonder why that never sees the light of day

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

If climate change were real then surely we would be experiencing record temperatures around the globe and loads of extreme weather too. Anyone noticed any extreme weather recently?

The climate of the planet is a constantly changing thing. So of course climate change is a real thing.

It's been constantly changing for millions of years.

 

[sydney]

If things are as bad as you make out, why have soo many extremely common examples of damaging behaviors or practices still uncontrolled?

Such as the use of plastics for food storage rather than much more environmentally friendly alternatives? Why hasn't excessive waste & excessive packaging been completely banned on many products? - only recently have suppliers started to reduce this as a result of public demand after years of being fed the propoganda about being green. why isn't more unwrapped food (like meats) sold, why isn't more packaging made from paper or wood (from sustainable forests)

Why isn't all or most of the potential daily household waste (commonly used household products, etc) required to be recycled? (from metals to card to food waste) why don't they produce products in conatiners that are amek from just 1 easily recyclable material rather than often a mix which makes the whole thing difficult to recycle (plastic over cardboard, etc)

Why do commercial properties have to leave lights on at night? (health & safety i guess in case someone needs access at night) but surely there are motion sensors or simply having the light switch near the entrance would negate this need and mean that an aweful lot of electricity could be saved up and down the country and across the world. (and seriously reducing carbon emissions that are produced in generating this wasted power.)

No - it is far easier to attack the car user, etc as evil, uncaring and killing the planet and anyone who disagrees is scum and shouldn't be listened to because PR and a man in a white coat (scientists with a possible vested interest) has said it will happen (as predicted by using a number of models which often fails to accurately match real life, such as hole in ozone layer taking centuries to repair itself - untrue. and so on and are based on only a short snapshot of the planets history but trying to predict hundreds of years into the future. It's a bit like taking a volume of the encyclopedia Britannia, opening at a random page, reading the first papragraph and claiming you know all of it's contents)

i have formed my own opinions , i still drive a car which is fuelled by petrol and the electricity i use comes from a coal powered electrical plant.........i don't know how old you are but the Amazon was pretty well untouched 40 years ago...........extreme/critical uv levels have only come about in the last 15 years with the depletion of the ozone layer , companies like bp , shell , chevron etc are still scouring the planet with massive deposits of coal and oil recently being found in queensland and ghana...........the amount of oil and gas involved in the north west shelf chevron project off the coast of w.a is still un-confirmed but reported to be massive.

the human population of the planet has quadrupled inside the last half a century..........the ocean has huge areas that are "bioligically dead" not to mention the 175,000 sq/k/m,s of plastic rubbish swirling around in the middle of the pacific........as for the questions asked in your first four paragraphs ,i believe it all comes down to money at the end of the day , you would have to ask the c.e.o's of such companies why their policies are what they are.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

i have formed my own opinions , i still drive a car which is fuelled by petrol and the electricity i use comes from a coal powered electrical plant.........i don't know how old you are but the Amazon was pretty well untouched 40 years ago...........extreme/critical uv levels have only come about in the last 15 years with the depletion of the ozone layer , companies like bp , shell , chevron etc are still scouring the planet with massive deposits of coal and oil recently being found in queensland and ghana...........the amount of oil and gas involved in the north west shelf chevron project off the coast of w.a is still un-confirmed but reported to be massive.

the human population of the planet has quadrupled inside the last half a century..........the ocean has huge areas that are "bioligically dead" not to mention the 175,000 sq/k/m,s of plastic rubbish swirling around in the middle of the pacific........as for the questions asked in your first four paragraphs ,i believe it all comes down to money at the end of the day , you would have to ask the c.e.o's of such companies why their policies are what they are.

The human population has not "quadrupled inside the last half a century". It was approx 3 billion in 1960 and approx 7 billion now.

 

[sydney]

The human population has not "quadrupled inside the last half a century". It was approx 3 billion in 1960 and approx 7 billion now.

i'm prepared to give you that with a ,i''m not going to argue that particular point as it is not the main issue......cheers Syd.