The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate change: a warning from the past > Comments

Climate change: a warning from the past : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 11/4/2011

Rate of change of temperature has been unprecedented these last two centuries.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Leo Lane - good point.

pedestrian - others have suggested to me that better management of the pipelines was the reason for the methane concentrations no longer growing, although my own thought is that the amounts involved would be too small to make a difference. However, I am prepared to be persuaded. Was there any source on that point??
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 11 April 2011 4:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an interesting dilemma.

Are ocean currents affected by climactic conditions, or are climatic conditions a result of ocean currents?

I would think that records of localised weather conditions going back many thousands of years must take into account the prevailing ocean currents at that time.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 11 April 2011 8:47:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This author continues to post jumbled conglomeration of 'stuff' perhaps hoping it is somehow convincing. Its not coherent and needs to be proof read. Here's an example:

"Inherent in IPCC climate change projections are continuous trends toward mean global temperatures of 1.8 to 3.6 degrees C by 2100"

That's pretty cold in my book!
Posted by Atman, Monday, 11 April 2011 11:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Andrew, what is it about advocates with such stunning academic qualifications, that they fail to recognize that they are flogging the proverbial “dead horse”?

Is it because you nailed your colors to the mast prior to Climategate and are now left with nowhere to go except to keep on “selling” the single orthodoxy? Is it because you have so much academic credibility at stake that academia simply “has to be right”?

The shear volume and effort being invested by those who promote the CAGW syndrome is truly astonishing. What is even more astonishing is the fact that although this highly contentious and divisive debate has changed dramatically since November 2009, the advocacy block has not moved forward at all, it has simply been left behind fighting its “link wars”.

Yes you are well qualified, yes you have lots of “research” to support your theories, yes you have some nice graphics, yes there is evidence of warming, yes there may be a human contribution and yes climate change happening, yes, yes, yes and sodding yes. For goodness sake stop proselytizing that which is generally accepted and move on!

Acceptable “quantification” of magnitude can only come from scientists from BOTH sides, please get on with this next stage.

Why are you hitting the non-scientific public with your science? Should you not be answering the questions raised by “other” contrary minded scientists? Is this because as a scientist you can “impress” the non-scientific flat earthers? Is this not like the one eyed man being King amongst the blind?

Like so many advocates you join the march of folly, the pursuit of which is contrary to self interest. The grinding single source of advocacy science lacks context, relevance, rationality and common sense.

Advocacy has nowhere else to go of course, it cannot move forward, it cannot embrace change, it cannot consider other input and clings desperately to the IPCC, it cannot be open and it survives only through political and not scientific sponsorship. That must be truly terrifying.

Fundamentalism offers only one response to challenge, more fundamentalisms.

Just ask any dictator
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 9:44:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anyone looking at these graphs should be able to draw the obvious conclusion that there is an oscillation factor internal to our climate that operates on a 100 000 year cycle, the odds of some external factor occuring every 100 000 years ten times is remote
Posted by slasher, Thursday, 14 April 2011 9:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy