O/T...CLIMATE HISTORY

Submitted: Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 09:24
ThreadID: 57715 Views:2457 Replies:10 FollowUps:23
This Thread has been Archived
This is sure to get some believers all fired up, Trouble is they don't want to believe the truths because that would take away thier pleasures of grandstanding in the media.
Seen a report on Polar bears on TV a couple days ago, reackon they're going to lose thier habitat in a few years time, I am a believer that all species have a limited time on the planet, even us humans, here today...gone tomorrow as has been proven over the last few billion years and there is nothing mankind can do to alter the situation for the future,In the past 600 million years there have been five major mass extinctions that on average extinguished half of all species. The largest mass extinction to have affected life on Earth was in the Permian-Triassic, which ended the Permian period 250 million years ago and killed off 90% of all species. Some will argue we are a contributor, yes I can accept that but the small amount on scale we do contribute is minute to what Earth has experienced in it's past history, as for the Polar ice melting check the Oligocene Climate period in the list on the left side of the link I have added ,
I find reading all the other period history is also very educational.

ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE

Wildfires

The day the Sands Caught Fire

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Gazal Champion - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:04

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:04
Hi doug & Dusty,

I agree with you.

A couple of years ago a friend was in Poland when they had their hottest day in 270 years.
I asked if that was due to global warming???

It was before the industrial revolution began so what was the cause. (The natural ying and yang I suspect)

According to some scientists I have heard on the ABC radio Sea levels during the last ice age about 15000 years ago were between 16 and 160 metres higher. I can/t remember which but either way that is considerably higher than today.

That is evidence that sea levels rise as the planet cools down.

This happens because there are 3 atmospheric circulators either side of the equator which transfer equatorial ocean water back to the poles as snow. As heat is the engine that drives this process then the warmer the planet becomes the lower the sea level becomes and visa versa.

Another scientist was saying the other week on ABC radio that there is no evidence that CO2 has contributed/caused global warming. In fact she said that records show the the planet has been cooling for the last 10 years. To me that makes more sense.

Why do the headlines say " As the planet warms then sea levels will rise"!

There is plenty of research funds available but only if "The Sky is falling Henny Penny".

This carbon that we are releasing into the atmosphere was in fact in the atmosphere 400 million years ago ( there abouts)
It was the giant fern forest according to my information.

I belong to your school of thought Doug.
Regards,
Bruce.
At home and at ease on a track that I know not and
restless and lost on a track that I know. HL.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 304467

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:20

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:20
Bruce
Good to find someone with some ideas on the subject. although I must pick you up on the cause of rising sea level, you kinda got it back to front, Sea levels rise due to a warming climate thus melting the polar ice North or South or both, When a cooler period happens the water is collected at the poles via rain or snow and frozen and locked up for maybe millions of years until once again the ice begins to thaw in another warm period as has happened time and time again , as you would have seen on the graph,
As for Co2 did you read the bit in the Wildfire link, ...as quoted!!
Based on the amount of soot found in sediments deposited soon after the impact event, it has been estimated that ten trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), one-hundred billion tons of methane (CH4), and one trillion tons of carbon monoxide (CO) were pumped into the atmosphere. and all that occured in a couple weeks at the most,
I must add I enjoyed the read about the 4x4 expedition in the Burning Sands link.

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570551

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:31

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:31
Bruce
Here you go mate this is in that link provided by the post below, very interesting reading I must say.

Sealevels, Are They Rising?

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570555

Reply By: age - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:12

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:12
Doug

Have a look around this site Predict weather many articles that give credence to your research and debunk this current green/global warming debate. Very interesting site.

Note - We have also been following this guys long term weather predictions for the last 18 months and he has been remarkibly accurate for SE Qld

Cheers


A
AnswerID: 304469

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:26

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:26
age
I'll do just that , and if it's any good I'll add it to my Impact webpage.

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570554

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:32

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:32
age
Just read one item so far and I like it, thanks.

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570556

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 15:17

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 15:17
age
see what you reackon about this setup.

Climate Page

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570559

Follow Up By: age - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 15:27

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 15:27
Doug

Looks fantastic - great job, colour scheme is excellent

Will get all the guys at work to link to it tomorrow.

Lucky you are currently in balmy NQ - freezing in Bris this afternoon

Cheeers

A
0
FollowupID: 570560

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:19

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:19
Gday Doug,
You just made my day.
I can think of a couple of breeds Im certainly not going to miss at the moment.

Cheers
AnswerID: 304472

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:25

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:25
Hairy
Know what ya mean....but you know they'll still be around long long after some prick say's "Dust to Dust...Ashes to Ashes" over our bodies , Sorry mate if I now have stuffed your day....life.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570553

Follow Up By: Member - Lionel A (WA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:19

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:19
Hey Hairy,

You got a problem with cockroaches have ya........hehehe.

Cheers....Lionel.
0
FollowupID: 570597

Reply By: Gazal Champion - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:27

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:27
Hi doug,
Havn't read your links yet. But I will.

No I didn't get it back to front, that is axactly as the scientist said it. Global warming sea levels dropping, global cooling sea levels rising.

This is our problem, one scientist says this and the other says that.
If someone doesn't like their argument, they can find some one who supports their view. This is the dilema, who do we believe.

Some say sea levels are rising yet the planet has been cooling for the last 10 years. This seems logical when considering the comments by the scientist I have been quoting. On the other hand we have the warming theorists saying sea level rise is due to warming yet the Ice Age records belie that.

Some of IT makes sense some of THEM don't.

Interesting stuff in that reply there to Doug.

regards,
Bruce.
Kempsey NSW
At home and at ease on a track that I know not and
restless and lost on a track that I know. HL.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 304507

Follow Up By: Gazal Champion - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:50

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:50
Doug,
I just read your link "Sea Levels, Are They Rising".

See what I mean. This one is saying that in the last Ice age sea levels were lower than they are now. But I have heard 2 different scientists state categorically that sea levels were higher during the last ice age. Who do we believe.

One thing i've learnt is that you cannot believe it just because it is printed. Von Danican tried that one many years ago.
Their line was " It has been documented" in other words someone wrote it down.

That also happened 2000 years ago, (someone wrote it down) and look at the trouble that caused. People go to war and all because of it. Writing it down I mean.

Im having a giggle here Doug.

Nice to talk to someone on the same wavlength.

Regards,
Bruce.
At home and at ease on a track that I know not and
restless and lost on a track that I know. HL.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570578

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:24

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:24
Gazal
Giggle you might , tell me how the Aboriginals got to Tasmania and what period ....ie how long ago,

Oh and change your favorite scientist , he's a bleep .

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570626

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:25

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:25
The bleep means Richard Head
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570628

Reply By: Ianw - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 18:55

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 18:55
John Laws was a vehement believer in the natural warming of the planet and seriously opposed the views of the people who used other global warming ideas for political advantage. He collected almost unlimited information to debunk these views and it is still on his website even tho' he has retired.
John Laws

Ian
AnswerID: 304535

Reply By: Member - John R (QLD) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:08

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:08
If anyone would like to read an alternative view, I suggest this site:
SkepticalScience
A lot of articles written about the "myth" of global warming are just nonsense, especially the ones that mistake weather for climate. Make up your own mind when you've seen how complex it all is.

Cheers, John
AnswerID: 304543

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:15

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:15
I loved the program on TV a few weeks ago John , detailing how many people in middle east really believe the twin towers in new york never came down and it was all American propaganda.

Perhaps we deserve to become extinct.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570619

Reply By: The Explorer - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:09

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:09
Here we go again - bored Doug?

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 304560

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:20

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:20
Greg
Wonder why you say that, NO I'M NOT BORED, in fact i'm having a great time , but I guess you like to believe all the BS on the subject so go right ahead ,and if that's all you can post ...6 lousy words that has nil to do with subject ....No I don't feel sorry for you, your beyond help.


I'm on the warpath tonight so lookout.

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570622

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:30

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:30
Sorry - just asking.

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 570629

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:33

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:33
Greg
Oh that's ok then .....Your allowed to ask ,

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570630

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:42

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:42
Fhew, got scared there for a minute.

Cheers
Greg

I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 570633

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:45

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:45
Greg
That's a great beach photo.

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570635

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:57

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:57
Hey! you're heading me OT, but since its your thread Im safe...Yes it is a good pic - time to change soon though as its been around for a while. Going to Great Sandy Desert soon so hoping for a Night Parrot shot I can post:)

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 570637

Reply By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:08

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:08
Doug, you are right and wrong on this. Yes, the Earth has had periods of massive climate change and population extinctions before. What is different about this one is the speed at which it is happening. Previous changes have either been (a) superfast, as the result of some planetary trauma such as in the case of huge meteorite hits which caused very fast climate change and massive species extinction (as was the probable event which wiped out most dinasaurs) or (b) very slow as a result of natural changes such as continrental drift or solar radiation. In the case of (b) the changes took place very slowly and the Earth's lifeforms could comfortably adapt.
What is different this time is that we have a very fast change not linked to a planetary trauma. The only data that anyone has come up with that explains this change is the human factor. The modelling originally developed for NASA to look for signs of life on other planets has tracked anf accurately forecast the current changes since the early 70's. Their forecasts remain precisely on target which tends to suggest that the modelling used is correct. Example. That modeling correctly forecast when the world's permafrost would begin to melt. The real crunch is forecast to come around 2020 .
Today's self interested politicians and industrialists who want to try to deny the data are a bit like those, politicians, tame company scientists and industrialists who for decades denied the data on smoking and asbestos to avoid the consequences of taking responsibility.
The real danger around 2020 is forecast to not be the climate change itself, but the human population's reaction to the huge movements of population that will result from people trying to move from one part of the world to another.
AnswerID: 304580

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:47

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:47
Mfewster
Got me beat why you have this notion it's a rapid change, it.s been going on for over 10,000 years so far since the end of the last ice age when Aboriginals actually walked to Tasmania , and that 2020 idea bandied around by activists and politicians is total BS , wait until 2020 arrives and you'll find little has happened ,
Do some more resarch to back up your claims because the average temperatures and weather patterns havn't changed much at all since Cook arrived , Adelaide had a record of 117 Deg back in I think about 1937/8, it hasn't been up there since , The graph shows the range for SA since 1910 to present.
Don't believe the hype the activists want you to believe .

Timeseries - Australian Climate Variability and Change
Image Could Not Be Found
.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570654

Follow Up By: Member - Warfer (VIC) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 02:31

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 02:31
it.s been going on for over 10,000 years so far since the end of the last ice age when Aboriginals actually walked to Tasmania




Oh is that why they all look Frost Bitten !
0
FollowupID: 570686

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 12:30

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 12:30
Doug,

You tell someone to do their research and back up their claims. Then you make a statement that 'average temperatures and weather patterns haven't changed much at all since Cook arrived'. Your research and evidence to back up this claim is a graph showing that Adelaide's average temperature hasn't changed much since 1910.

Well, I'll see your Adelaide and raise you a Melbourne where 'there is an apparent significant warming trend since the 1950s' (The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change - Australian Bureau of Meteorology). Up by over one degree Celsius since 1910.

Or how about the global trend? 'During the last decade or so, global annual mean surface temperatures have been among the
warmest on the instrumental record.' - From the same source (BOM) which you used in your response. Or this 'The annual mean temperature series over Australia is generally consistent with the global trend in showing warming, particularly in recent decades However, this warming trend is not uniform throughout the country'. Presumably this accounts for your ability to use Adelaide as an example to back up your argument.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have a really firm view on the climate change issue one way or another. As robak pointed out, the full understanding is probably beyond most of us and I am prepared to admit that it is certainly beyond me. But I think it is a bit rich to tell others to back their point up with research and data, then back your own up with a selective range of evidence and unsubstantiated statements which only support your obviously strong stance.

Matt.

0
FollowupID: 570733

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 13:50

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 13:50
Matt, you may know. I tried to do some follow up on the graph Doug posted, without much success. Anyone know what a Diurnal T Range Anomaly graph is actually showing?

A further note. Any statement that "temperature records since white settlement in Australia show......" must be treated with suspicion no matter which side of the debate it is claimed they support. Up until the 1940's, the collection of temps was often pretty haphazard and 9in Australia) not available from a wide range of stations. A standardized set of conditions within which temperatures were collected such as the screen boxes now used are relatively recent and is also the reason that many older recorded temperatures show higher than they would if they had been done using today's standards. For reasons like these, researchers such as Chris Turney now are working on compiling the Australian temperature records from the natural history evidence. As I understand it, their work is currently supporting the rising temperature arguments.
0
FollowupID: 570751

Reply By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 22:30

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 22:30
As a previous post said, we are talking global averages. You can't discuss this in terms of one location's climate or weather. The only thing that counts is overall global stats, and they have risen significantly and at an accelerating rate since the industrial revolution. The one person whose work everyone wants to ignore is James Lovell. The greenies hate him because he advocates nuclear power. Some of the crazy right hate him because they don't like his conclusions re the next 100 years. And some of the really crazy right (the really craziest of the fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jewish groups) oppose him on the grounds that it is all natural and they tend to think it means the end of the world after which their own particular brand of God and his(her?) followers will inherit the Earth and all non believers of their particular religion will get their come uppance. and therefore they oppose anyhing that they think will slow down the Day of Judgement. They are often the same lot who can't accept evolution.
Lovell is the person whose research while he worked for NASA drew attention to global warming. This came about accidentally through his development of what is now called the Gaia principle. Lovell's modelling as far as I can see remains the most comprehensive on the subject and his forecasts have been spot on.
Look, there is nothing I would like more than for global warming supporters to have got it all wrong. But that is just not the way the evidence stacks up. Arguments that scientists support warming theories because that is where the $ are are laughable. The politicians and industrialists are more than happy, desperate even, to throw $ at anyone who can make a convincing case that GW has it wrong. But that just isn't the way it is stacking up. There really is no longer any debate about whether it is happening, the only debate is about how quickly; whether it can be reversed and if so how and how much will that cost.
If Lovell is correct, and so far it is his forecasts have been the most accurate, it's now too late and all the carbon schemes etc that the pollies are tryinmg to sell us to convince us that they are d"doing something" are BS. When the permafrost began to melt three years ago, more stored CO2 began being released from this source than anything humans can now do to reverse it. We need to be spending $ not on trying to fix it, but on the infrastructure we will need to live with it.

I think the whole way this debate has gone is a sad commentary on the decline of science teaching in the west and the rise of the kind of "new age" thinking that has so many in the west believing in flying saucers and intelligent designer creation.
AnswerID: 304602

Reply By: robak (QLD) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 11:08

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 11:08
The saddest part of this arguement is that people feel their ideology is correct. Anyone with half a brain (ie not braindead), would realise that as ordinary citizens of this nation, we don't have enough personal knowledge to make an absolute stand either way. 99% of what you find on the internet is garbage. Other media is not much different.

Anyone who feels strongly about this subject and hasn't done their own well documented research, is simply a zealot pushing a warped agenda that comfortably aligns with their life style and/or "religious" beliefs. Such people have little respect for the truth and even less for the people around them.

R.
AnswerID: 304679

Follow Up By: robak (QLD) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 11:18

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 11:18
To prove a point -
I clicked on one of the links above and the opening paragraph contains this sentence.

"We will tell prove this soon."

It is hardly an indication of a well researched, well written document. Anyone who spent years studying this, would not make such mistakes.

I didn't read on.

R.
0
FollowupID: 570721

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)