FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Global Warming numbers

Global Warming numbers

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

Are you accepting of Global Warming due to human activity?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I don't and its actually the earths natural cycle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

I'm surprised Shag - the earth definitely has its natural cycles, hence the fairly recent ice age in Europe etc. But the evidence is that we're in a period of warming where humans have been the drivers for it, above and beyond any natural changes, that certainly exist too. They're discussing the numbers, and how they've been calculated, on BBC4.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

YEs good program on bbc4 and ur right it seems the earth is warming up as well as glaciers are melting and things.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

They're just explaining now about how they've got the research outcome that they're 95% certain that humans have caused this warming. I quite liked that female scientist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

I shouldn't be thinking about this, I'm stuck on some of my own research on sportsmen.

Just running some data through SPSS, which I loathe. Sadly not my hands over their bodies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Interesting there with the predictions he did.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Hasn't Global Warming been changed to Climate Chnge, for obvious reasons.

And so what, what if it is man made global warming? What is anyone going to realistically do about it? Millions of tall windmills won't help that much.

Mother Nature will prevail, all forms of life will continue to evolve, plants and animals long after mankind had burnt of all the hydrocarbons and severly reduced its own numbers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

Yeah, they've managed to explain things fairly clearly and simply - I thought of you Shag, with his use of football performance.

I guess no one else is watching this Shag.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *mmabluTV/TS  over a year ago

upton wirral


"I don't and its actually the earths natural cycle "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Not buying it while it's this cold outside.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central


"

Hasn't Global Warming been changed to Climate Chnge, for obvious reasons.

And so what, what if it is man made global warming? What is anyone going to realistically do about it? Millions of tall windmills won't help that much.

Mother Nature will prevail, all forms of life will continue to evolve, plants and animals long after mankind had burnt of all the hydrocarbons and severly reduced its own numbers.

"

It's man made global warming to me, as this is the current problem. Climate change would cover all aspects of climate changing, whereas global warming narrows that wider field down to just the warming trend.

There's over 99% certainty that most of the current climate warming is due to humans, according to this show.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Sorry I missed it, was busy in the shed.

It's always been called climate change, one report picked up on a global warming trend that would result in the 70s and a newspaper reported it.

"Scientists predict global warming".

And it stuck ever since.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

With the ever increasingly burgeoning population of England, how hot are we all gonna be when we're rammed together shoulder to shoulder? There'll be no place to sweat the heat off.

Not to mention carbon emission rules.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I've already printed the basic science on another thread.

This natural cycle nonsense is just that nonsense.

There's only one source of energy on earth, solar.

If the sun was causing the warming you would expect the high thermospere to be warming the most, however it's the opposite with the lower stratosphere warming faster and more showing that the heat is coming from below not above.

I'd also add that the sun has been in a low cycle(global dimming) anyway for 30 years which is around it's natural cycle so there would have been less radiation from the sun for the last 30 years not more.

Although that cycle is expected to change into a high cycle around about now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central

I didn't read that thread Sexy-bum, and your position is right, about why the sun's not been the influence.

My concern is about the 33% chance that warming won't be limited to 2 degrees - it could be more! - based on us limiting our output to a trillion tonnes of Carbon output. We're currently more than halfway towards that trillion, and it's rising by the moment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I didn't read that thread Sexy-bum, and your position is right, about why the sun's not been the influence.

My concern is about the 33% chance that warming won't be limited to 2 degrees - it could be more! - based on us limiting our output to a trillion tonnes of Carbon output. We're currently more than halfway towards that trillion, and it's rising by the moment.

"

And?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central


"I didn't read that thread Sexy-bum, and your position is right, about why the sun's not been the influence.

My concern is about the 33% chance that warming won't be limited to 2 degrees - it could be more! - based on us limiting our output to a trillion tonnes of Carbon output. We're currently more than halfway towards that trillion, and it's rising by the moment.

And? "

so to bed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

With the ever increasingly burgeoning population of England, how hot are we all gonna be when we're rammed together shoulder to shoulder? There'll be no place to sweat the heat off.

Not to mention carbon emission rules. "

.

There you've hit the problem head on.

Growth!, there is hardly anybody that you speak to that understands the basic problem with it.

Now I'm not the best at maths.

But the problem is exponential growth.

So I'll try to explain with a resource like oil.

1890 first decade we use 1 million barrels of oil and we increase production by 7% every decade.a 7% increase means your doubling your usage every ten years so in 1900 we used 2 million barrels twice as much as we used in the previous decade 1910 we used 4 million barrels 1920 8 million barrels.

1930 16 million barrels

1940 32 million barrels

1950 64 million barrels

1960 128 million barrels

each decade is using more oil in that decade than you used from the beginning....

So we scroll through to our current decade, were now using more oil in one decade than in 120 years of usage, if we need to find the oil for the next decade we don't just have to find the oil we found in the last decade we need to find as much oil as we found and used in a 130 years.

Or you could take any other element like copper.

We mined it at 15% ore content only 80 years ago, after year on year growth in usage were now mining it at 0.6% ore content.

That means you have to sift through 40 times more stuff to get the same amount of copper

Population growth is exactly the same it took all the time to get to a billon people in 1850 but once the numbers build it rapidly goes up.1960(110 years) to reach 2 billion but only 1974(14 years) to reach 3 billion, we hit 4 billion in 1984(10 years) etc etc...

At a mere 4% growth everything doubles in just 18 years.

At 2% growth it doubles in 35 years.

Population growing exponentially.

Resources being used up exponentially.

A famous mathematician once said only an idiot or an economist can believe you can have continueous growth on a finite planet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I didn't read that thread Sexy-bum, and your position is right, about why the sun's not been the influence.

My concern is about the 33% chance that warming won't be limited to 2 degrees - it could be more! - based on us limiting our output to a trillion tonnes of Carbon output. We're currently more than halfway towards that trillion, and it's rising by the moment.

And? "

.

To put it in a way that's understandable the last time the earth had a 2 degree colder temperature than today is the difference between sitting on a beach in the south of France getting a tan in may and one mile thick ice sitting over the northern land mass.

Now if you can picture what that 2 degree difference did,it's not hard to imagine what another rise of 2 more degrees warmer will do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple  over a year ago

Derbyshire

I'm with you on growth SB, the lazy politician's answer to everything.

But as for climate change, we were told we were entering a new ice-age at school, then suddenly it changed to "we're all gonna fry". Mother nature has survived for millions of years, and will do so despite our meddling. We are really arguing about mankind's future, not the earth's.

Mr ddc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan  over a year ago

nearby

not allowed to post web links on here but check out the Al Barlett lectures on you tube, he's an american professor, an expert on what your talking about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm with you on growth SB, the lazy politician's answer to everything.

But as for climate change, we were told we were entering a new ice-age at school, then suddenly it changed to "we're all gonna fry". Mother nature has survived for millions of years, and will do so despite our meddling. We are really arguing about mankind's future, not the earth's.

Mr ddc"

.

Agreed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"not allowed to post web links on here but check out the Al Barlett lectures on you tube, he's an american professor, an expert on what your talking about."
.

I know al Bartlett very well.

I was quoting from his book on my book shelf

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary."

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icolerobbieCouple  over a year ago

walsall

I am a climate change denier....I have proof. have you seen my gas bill?......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple  over a year ago

Derbyshire


"I'm with you on growth SB, the lazy politician's answer to everything.

But as for climate change, we were told we were entering a new ice-age at school, then suddenly it changed to "we're all gonna fry". Mother nature has survived for millions of years, and will do so despite our meddling. We are really arguing about mankind's fiuture, not the earth's.

Mr ddc.

Agreed "

And if we fuck that up, we don't deserve a future!

I've never liked renewable energy from a philosophical viewpoint, but instead from wanting to make the most from our own renewables rather than be at the mercy of the middle east.

I even understand that renewables, like all new technology, needs a period of 'being more expensive' before improvements and economies of scale come into play.

I just think it's a shame that for every Green saying 'build the Severn Barrage' there's another one saying 'What about the fish'

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icky999Man  over a year ago

warrington

Still waitin for, acid rain

the millennium bug

Global cooling

hole in the ozone

and swine flu.

Think were gonna be ok

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes."

.

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes..

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!"

Because like you I watch the television and documentaries on the issue other than the BBC.

Of course the earth is going to get hotter in the future. This is because The sun is a star and dying as all stars eventually do. As it dies it heats up more and more until it implodes on itself. No amount of throwing the right rubbish in the right coloured bin is going to make any difference.

As for cooling the earth goes through orbital cycles. Scientists state that on every 10,000 year orbital cycle the earth is at its furthest distance away from the sun and this is how the last ice age formed.

Earthquakes ..these have been happening for billions of years before we as a species ever existed. The earth is constantly moving. One piece of earth call it a seismic plate moves over another seismic plate at this point you get an earthquake.

The earth has been undergoing such natural violent acts of nature for billions of years prior to our arrival and creation of fossil fuels and will continue to do so after were gone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm with you on growth SB, the lazy politician's answer to everything.

But as for climate change, we were told we were entering a new ice-age at school, then suddenly it changed to "we're all gonna fry". Mother nature has survived for millions of years, and will do so despite our meddling. We are really arguing about mankind's fiuture, not the earth's.

Mr ddc.

Agreed

And if we fuck that up, we don't deserve a future!

I've never liked renewable energy from a philosophical viewpoint, but instead from wanting to make the most from our own renewables rather than be at the mercy of the middle east.

I even understand that renewables, like all new technology, needs a period of 'being more expensive' before improvements and economies of scale come into play.

I just think it's a shame that for every Green saying 'build the Severn Barrage' there's another one saying 'What about the fish'

"

the tragedy of life.

As somebody once said, in the end it's all we've got, try not to fuck it up too much.

Although I've always looked at big problems with the old sayings ... A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Or at end o day pull yer finger from up arse and get busy.

Actually somebody mentioning all Bartlett reminded me of that story he tells.

Anyway, I ask hon. members to imagine a lily pond. The lily pond will be covered in lily pads in 28 days, but it will be covered in the following way. It will start off with one lily pad, then two lily pads, then four, then eight, then 16, then 32 , then 64. I do not want to go any higher lest I tax some of the Tory backbenchers, but members can see what I mean. These problems tend to grow exponentially. This is the problem with climate change and a lot of other environmental problems.

If that lily pond is to be covered in lily pads in 28 days and that process is taking place exponentially, on the 27th day of that 28 day process, how much of the pond will be left? Fifty per cent. We are sitting there on the 27th day and somebody is saying that if we do not do something about this, some day the lily pond will be covered and we will have a problem, because it is important to us to have open water. There will be people, whether they be Liberals, Conservatives or others, who will say, “What is with you guys? Half the pond is left. What are you worrying about? There is nothing to worry about”. Then on the 28th day, bingo, the game is over. The system has collapsed and it is too late to do anything about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple  over a year ago

Derbyshire

But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icked weaselCouple  over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

If we condense this inconceivable time-span into an understandable concept,we can liken Earth to a person of 46years of age..

Nothing is known about the first seven years of this person's life, and whilst only scattered information exists about the middle span, we know that only at the age of 42 did the Earth begin to flower.

Dinosaurs and the great reptiles did not appear until one year ago, when the planet was 45. Mammals arrived only 8 months ago; in the middle of last week man-like apes evolved into ape-like men, and at the weekend the last ice age enveloped the Earth.

Modern Man has been around for four hours. During the last hour, Man discovered agriculture. The industrial revolution began a minute ago.

During those 60 seconds of biological time, Modern Man has made a rubbish pit of paradise. He has multiplied his numbers to plague proportions, caused the extinction of 500 species of animals, ransacked the planet for fuels and now stands like a brutish infant, gloating over his meteoric rise to ascendancy..."

Yes We Have turned a paradise into a Shit Hole.. x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?"

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icky999Man  over a year ago

warrington

Those nature reserves on the old coal pits look lovely not sure about those horible grey windmills though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I'm with you on growth SB, the lazy politician's answer to everything.

But as for climate change, we were told we were entering a new ice-age at school, then suddenly it changed to "we're all gonna fry". Mother nature has survived for millions of years, and will do so despite our meddling. We are really arguing about mankind's fiuture, not the earth's.

Mr ddc.

Agreed

And if we fuck that up, we don't deserve a future!

I've never liked renewable energy from a philosophical viewpoint, but instead from wanting to make the most from our own renewables rather than be at the mercy of the middle east.

I even understand that renewables, like all new technology, needs a period of 'being more expensive' before improvements and economies of scale come into play.

I just think it's a shame that for every Green saying 'build the Severn Barrage' there's another one saying 'What about the fish'

the tragedy of life.

As somebody once said, in the end it's all we've got, try not to fuck it up too much.

Although I've always looked at big problems with the old sayings ... A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Or at end o day pull yer finger from up arse and get busy.

Actually somebody mentioning all Bartlett reminded me of that story he tells.

Anyway, I ask hon. members to imagine a lily pond. The lily pond will be covered in lily pads in 28 days, but it will be covered in the following way. It will start off with one lily pad, then two lily pads, then four, then eight, then 16, then 32 , then 64. I do not want to go any higher lest I tax some of the Tory backbenchers, but members can see what I mean. These problems tend to grow exponentially. This is the problem with climate change and a lot of other environmental problems.

If that lily pond is to be covered in lily pads in 28 days and that process is taking place exponentially, on the 27th day of that 28 day process, how much of the pond will be left? Fifty per cent. We are sitting there on the 27th day and somebody is saying that if we do not do something about this, some day the lily pond will be covered and we will have a problem, because it is important to us to have open water. There will be people, whether they be Liberals, Conservatives or others, who will say, “What is with you guys? Half the pond is left. What are you worrying about? There is nothing to worry about”. Then on the 28th day, bingo, the game is over. The system has collapsed and it is too late to do anything about it."

Nature is nature it creates its own extinctions all by itself without any aide from us people.

The earth is contantly changing through its own environment of growth before our existence it has created oceans and then created land locks where ocean once were. It has taken jungles and turned them into deserts so natural extinction patters form the herbivores that eat plants cannot because there habitat is becoming a desert they die ..the carnivores that feed on the herbivores have nothing to hunt so they die to its natural evolution.

Then there Is the threat of a large meteor strike like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. If we really want to save the planet I would state maybe looking to create some meteor strike self defence system rather than deciding on what rubbish goes in what bin!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes..

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!

Because like you I watch the television and documentaries on the issue other than the BBC.

Of course the earth is going to get hotter in the future. This is because The sun is a star and dying as all stars eventually do. As it dies it heats up more and more until it implodes on itself. No amount of throwing the right rubbish in the right coloured bin is going to make any difference.

As for cooling the earth goes through orbital cycles. Scientists state that on every 10,000 year orbital cycle the earth is at its furthest distance away from the sun and this is how the last ice age formed.

Earthquakes ..these have been happening for billions of years before we as a species ever existed. The earth is constantly moving. One piece of earth call it a seismic plate moves over another seismic plate at this point you get an earthquake.

The earth has been undergoing such natural violent acts of nature for billions of years prior to our arrival and creation of fossil fuels and will continue to do so after were gone. "

.

You seem to hold bizarre beliefs about the bbc being a conspirator to thousands of scientists.

Ice ages come and go on natural 100,000 year cycles nobody denys that in fact the same scientists who find and look for evidence of climate change are the ones that found some evidence to show the natural cycle of ice ages, more than likely through a combination of earth axis tilt and orbit.

But ones got nothing to do with the other, it's two different things like saying I fell off my push bike and hurt my head and while I was lay hurt lightning struck me up the arse! there must be a connection.... No there two seperate problems, one was your fault because you were riding to fast and not wearing a helmet, a totally preventable occurrence and the other was a random act of nature you could do nothing about

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm with you on growth SB, the lazy politician's answer to everything.

But as for climate change, we were told we were entering a new ice-age at school, then suddenly it changed to "we're all gonna fry". Mother nature has survived for millions of years, and will do so despite our meddling. We are really arguing about mankind's fiuture, not the earth's.

Mr ddc.

Agreed

And if we fuck that up, we don't deserve a future!

I've never liked renewable energy from a philosophical viewpoint, but instead from wanting to make the most from our own renewables rather than be at the mercy of the middle east.

I even understand that renewables, like all new technology, needs a period of 'being more expensive' before improvements and economies of scale come into play.

I just think it's a shame that for every Green saying 'build the Severn Barrage' there's another one saying 'What about the fish'

the tragedy of life.

As somebody once said, in the end it's all we've got, try not to fuck it up too much.

Although I've always looked at big problems with the old sayings ... A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Or at end o day pull yer finger from up arse and get busy.

Actually somebody mentioning all Bartlett reminded me of that story he tells.

Anyway, I ask hon. members to imagine a lily pond. The lily pond will be covered in lily pads in 28 days, but it will be covered in the following way. It will start off with one lily pad, then two lily pads, then four, then eight, then 16, then 32 , then 64. I do not want to go any higher lest I tax some of the Tory backbenchers, but members can see what I mean. These problems tend to grow exponentially. This is the problem with climate change and a lot of other environmental problems.

If that lily pond is to be covered in lily pads in 28 days and that process is taking place exponentially, on the 27th day of that 28 day process, how much of the pond will be left? Fifty per cent. We are sitting there on the 27th day and somebody is saying that if we do not do something about this, some day the lily pond will be covered and we will have a problem, because it is important to us to have open water. There will be people, whether they be Liberals, Conservatives or others, who will say, “What is with you guys? Half the pond is left. What are you worrying about? There is nothing to worry about”. Then on the 28th day, bingo, the game is over. The system has collapsed and it is too late to do anything about it.

Nature is nature it creates its own extinctions all by itself without any aide from us people.

The earth is contantly changing through its own environment of growth before our existence it has created oceans and then created land locks where ocean once were. It has taken jungles and turned them into deserts so natural extinction patters form the herbivores that eat plants cannot because there habitat is becoming a desert they die ..the carnivores that feed on the herbivores have nothing to hunt so they die to its natural evolution.

Then there Is the threat of a large meteor strike like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. If we really want to save the planet I would state maybe looking to create some meteor strike self defence system rather than deciding on what rubbish goes in what bin! "

.

Nobody's denying that... That's the most common knowledge that even children know.

What your saying is were going to die one day I might as well kill myself now.

That must be the most bizarre way of looking at a problem I've ever read.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes..

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!

Because like you I watch the television and documentaries on the issue other than the BBC.

Of course the earth is going to get hotter in the future. This is because The sun is a star and dying as all stars eventually do. As it dies it heats up more and more until it implodes on itself. No amount of throwing the right rubbish in the right coloured bin is going to make any difference.

As for cooling the earth goes through orbital cycles. Scientists state that on every 10,000 year orbital cycle the earth is at its furthest distance away from the sun and this is how the last ice age formed.

Earthquakes ..these have been happening for billions of years before we as a species ever existed. The earth is constantly moving. One piece of earth call it a seismic plate moves over another seismic plate at this point you get an earthquake.

The earth has been undergoing such natural violent acts of nature for billions of years prior to our arrival and creation of fossil fuels and will continue to do so after were gone. .

You seem to hold bizarre beliefs about the bbc being a conspirator to thousands of scientists.

Ice ages come and go on natural 100,000 year cycles nobody denys that in fact the same scientists who find and look for evidence of climate change are the ones that found some evidence to show the natural cycle of ice ages, more than likely through a combination of earth axis tilt and orbit.

But ones got nothing to do with the other, it's two different things like saying I fell off my push bike and hurt my head and while I was lay hurt lightning struck me up the arse! there must be a connection.... No there two seperate problems, one was your fault because you were riding to fast and not wearing a helmet, a totally preventable occurrence and the other was a random act of nature you could do nothing about "

you have your opinion and beliefs I have mine. The recycling industry has become a multi million pound industry so people within that sector are always going to say global warming is man made as there jobs depend on it like the pro scientists future funding depends on making people believe its out fault. then theres the green party, whose only policies seem to be save the planet from us ...They have to try to make us believe we are responsible to push there agenda as they don't seem to have much in the way of any other policy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. "

.

Nuclear may or may not be the answer but until we actually friggin try something else we'll never know!.

I have already pointed out the problems of nuclear on another thread.

It's bloody expensive

It's inherently dangerous

It's not renewable which means it has limits... There's only so much uranium on earth a 3 gw reactor would use 100,000kg of it,

If you carried on the growth of energy exponentially and swapped to 100% nuclear... All the uranium would be gone in 40 years!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes..

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!

Because like you I watch the television and documentaries on the issue other than the BBC.

Of course the earth is going to get hotter in the future. This is because The sun is a star and dying as all stars eventually do. As it dies it heats up more and more until it implodes on itself. No amount of throwing the right rubbish in the right coloured bin is going to make any difference.

As for cooling the earth goes through orbital cycles. Scientists state that on every 10,000 year orbital cycle the earth is at its furthest distance away from the sun and this is how the last ice age formed.

Earthquakes ..these have been happening for billions of years before we as a species ever existed. The earth is constantly moving. One piece of earth call it a seismic plate moves over another seismic plate at this point you get an earthquake.

The earth has been undergoing such natural violent acts of nature for billions of years prior to our arrival and creation of fossil fuels and will continue to do so after were gone. .

You seem to hold bizarre beliefs about the bbc being a conspirator to thousands of scientists.

Ice ages come and go on natural 100,000 year cycles nobody denys that in fact the same scientists who find and look for evidence of climate change are the ones that found some evidence to show the natural cycle of ice ages, more than likely through a combination of earth axis tilt and orbit.

But ones got nothing to do with the other, it's two different things like saying I fell off my push bike and hurt my head and while I was lay hurt lightning struck me up the arse! there must be a connection.... No there two seperate problems, one was your fault because you were riding to fast and not wearing a helmet, a totally preventable occurrence and the other was a random act of nature you could do nothing about

you have your opinion and beliefs I have mine. The recycling industry has become a multi million pound industry so people within that sector are always going to say global warming is man made as there jobs depend on it like the pro scientists future funding depends on making people believe its out fault. then theres the green party, whose only policies seem to be save the planet from us ...They have to try to make us believe we are responsible to push there agenda as they don't seem to have much in the way of any other policy. "

.

No you have beliefs and opinions

I'm going off available scientific data that's

1 peer reviewed

2 repeatable in experiments

3 is the overall consensus of independent experts around the world.

Your problem is you think there's a massive elaborate conspiracy to rob you off £25 a week and force you to sperate rubbish into different bins ... The heinous bastards

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Its like religion, some cant accept others thoughts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I like the way you wrote " the recycling industry has become a multi million pound industry"...... As opposed to the petroleum/coal/gas/plastics industry who are on their arse?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple  over a year ago

near cardiff

There's a lot of this planet that don't have anywhere near the amount of convenience and waste that we do.

Large sections of rain forest are burnt to the ground by subsistence farmers every year.

Copper mine in America is currently extracting eight years worth of rock before it hits the next load of ore.

Huge amounts of antibiotics are used to keep our meat edible.

We'll be long gone before we get a grip on the issues that face us.hopefully there will be a few trees left by the time we do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. "

Not as inefficient as you'd think

http://m.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2397404/wind-energy-myths-lead-british-public-to-over-estimate-renewables-costs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ordic36Man  over a year ago

Manchester

maybe its time to put some of that waste into good use and slow down the warming? Every day we throw away glass bottles. Broken glass has very similar light reflective qualities as snow and it does not melt. if there were a way to cover enough land mass such as parts of antarctica already unfrozen, with broken glass or mirrors, we would have artificial glaciers that start to reflect light back into the space again, hopefully some of it gets through the carbon layer. And there's no need to especially make that glass. we already throw enough of it away every day. Just an idea. Probably not viable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I like your thinking but the Arctic and Antarctica already reflects the sunlight, that's another exponential problem with climate change, when that's reducing in size we get even more warmth.

What's been happening over 30 years is the oceans have been absorbing the extra heat, there now warmer than they have been in hundreds of years ,there is also the little known little brother of climate change the problem of ocean acidity, 40% of the c02 dissolves into the oceans, there now more acidic than they have been in 2 million years.

Acidity causes problems for nearly every creature that lives in them from algae to star fish to whales.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. .

Nuclear may or may not be the answer but until we actually friggin try something else we'll never know!.

I have already pointed out the problems of nuclear on another thread.

It's bloody expensive

It's inherently dangerous

It's not renewable which means it has limits... There's only so much uranium on earth a 3 gw reactor would use 100,000kg of it,

If you carried on the growth of energy exponentially and swapped to 100% nuclear... All the uranium would be gone in 40 years!"

Total poppycock

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. .

Nuclear may or may not be the answer but until we actually friggin try something else we'll never know!.

I have already pointed out the problems of nuclear on another thread.

It's bloody expensive

It's inherently dangerous

It's not renewable which means it has limits... There's only so much uranium on earth a 3 gw reactor would use 100,000kg of it,

If you carried on the growth of energy exponentially and swapped to 100% nuclear... All the uranium would be gone in 40 years!

Total poppycock"

.

No total poppycock is somebody shouting "go nuclear" without having a fucking clue about nuclear power!.

The standard light water rector we use today consumes around 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, you could of course go to fast breeder reactors but you step up a notch on the inherently dangerous scale with them!.

So if you read what I wrote produced worldwide electricity from uranium alone and factored in growth of 7%, you would consume all the uranium on earth in around 40 years

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Hello SB,

whatever facts you find you will find opposing facts by other researchers. It depends whose opinion you value. For some reason the IPCC reports are written by scientists who do not specialise in the subject they are writing about.

What is clear that there is no proof that increase in CO2 does create an increase in global temperature. Even the IPCC admit they are surprised that the current stable global temperature despite an increase in CO2, contrary to the many computer models which disagree with that fact.

The ocean is at approximately 8 ph, and as you will know from chemistry that is alkaline. It has decreased very slightly (0.1) or so butt daily local variations are greater than that on a daily basis.

The problem with renewables, and wind in particular, is that it is unreliable and you do not have power when you require it. This means running conventional power stations as back up to allow for such unreliability. some stations can be switched on instantly such as pump storage but steam powered stations take two or three days from start to producing power, We need to be able to increase generation by the hour not the day.

Alec

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

44AD to 400AD. Roman occupation of these Islands. There were large vineyards in Northumberland. Wine was a major export from here to other parts of the "empire".

It is certainly not warm enough to do that now....was the warmer climate then a problem? Did the world flood!

1600s....ice fairs were a regular thing on the Thames as it froze solid with ice 3feet thick. Far colder than now. Problems? (Yes, crop failures and poor yields to be fair).

The cyclical nature of our weather patterns is there for all to see. Man may or may not be responsible for the current upturn in temperatures but this irrational fear of it all seems a bit OTT to me.

Of more concern to me is the pollution caused by fossil fuels....I do support cutting down on there useage....but not simply on a climate change basis. Nature has coped with far greater changes in the past....and will do so again!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"44AD to 400AD. Roman occupation of these Islands. There were large vineyards in Northumberland. Wine was a major export from here to other parts of the "empire".

It is certainly not warm enough to do that now....was the warmer climate then a problem? Did the world flood!

1600s....ice fairs were a regular thing on the Thames as it froze solid with ice 3feet thick. Far colder than now. Problems? (Yes, crop failures and poor yields to be fair).

The cyclical nature of our weather patterns is there for all to see. Man may or may not be responsible for the current upturn in temperatures but this irrational fear of it all seems a bit OTT to me.

Of more concern to me is the pollution caused by fossil fuels....I do support cutting down on there useage....but not simply on a climate change basis. Nature has coped with far greater changes in the past....and will do so again!"

.

At the height of the mini ice age global temperatures were 1 degree cooler than today, when it was 2 degrees cooler ice a mile thick covered northern Europe. Bearing this in mind, if you have scientific evidence that shows a rise between 1.5-7 degrees on today's temperatures through man made climate change.... Don't you think this will impact human life!.

Nobody's saying "life" or the planet will end through climate change, there saying human life as we know it will and probably in your children's life time, quite possibly in your own.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. .

Nuclear may or may not be the answer but until we actually friggin try something else we'll never know!.

I have already pointed out the problems of nuclear on another thread.

It's bloody expensive

It's inherently dangerous

It's not renewable which means it has limits... There's only so much uranium on earth a 3 gw reactor would use 100,000kg of it,

If you carried on the growth of energy exponentially and swapped to 100% nuclear... All the uranium would be gone in 40 years!

Total poppycock.

No total poppycock is somebody shouting "go nuclear" without having a fucking clue about nuclear power!.

The standard light water rector we use today consumes around 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, you could of course go to fast breeder reactors but you step up a notch on the inherently dangerous scale with them!.

So if you read what I wrote produced worldwide electricity from uranium alone and factored in growth of 7%, you would consume all the uranium on earth in around 40 years"

I work in the nuclear industry and have a background in renewables.

Being able to cut and paste does not make you an expert. You really do talk total bollocks sometimes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. .

Nuclear may or may not be the answer but until we actually friggin try something else we'll never know!.

I have already pointed out the problems of nuclear on another thread.

It's bloody expensive

It's inherently dangerous

It's not renewable which means it has limits... There's only so much uranium on earth a 3 gw reactor would use 100,000kg of it,

If you carried on the growth of energy exponentially and swapped to 100% nuclear... All the uranium would be gone in 40 years!

Total poppycock.

No total poppycock is somebody shouting "go nuclear" without having a fucking clue about nuclear power!.

The standard light water rector we use today consumes around 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, you could of course go to fast breeder reactors but you step up a notch on the inherently dangerous scale with them!.

So if you read what I wrote produced worldwide electricity from uranium alone and factored in growth of 7%, you would consume all the uranium on earth in around 40 years

I work in the nuclear industry and have a background in renewables.

Being able to cut and paste does not make you an expert. You really do talk total bollocks sometimes. "

.

Ahhh you work in the nuclear industry... A bit of a conflict of interest then in declaring your solution!.

Which nuclear plant are you at, I've demo at nearly all of them I might know it, what's your background in renewables? I'm always interested in listening to people with practical expertise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"But even if we can't all agree on global warming, what's wrong with looking to renewables for energy security? So we're not reliant on the Middle East, or Russia, or the Ukrainian pipeline. I don't see what's wrong with renewables anyway?

Nothing. They are just inefficient. Nuclear is the way to go. Although the 5 tidal developments announced today look interesting. .

Nuclear may or may not be the answer but until we actually friggin try something else we'll never know!.

I have already pointed out the problems of nuclear on another thread.

It's bloody expensive

It's inherently dangerous

It's not renewable which means it has limits... There's only so much uranium on earth a 3 gw reactor would use 100,000kg of it,

If you carried on the growth of energy exponentially and swapped to 100% nuclear... All the uranium would be gone in 40 years!

Total poppycock.

No total poppycock is somebody shouting "go nuclear" without having a fucking clue about nuclear power!.

The standard light water rector we use today consumes around 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, you could of course go to fast breeder reactors but you step up a notch on the inherently dangerous scale with them!.

So if you read what I wrote produced worldwide electricity from uranium alone and factored in growth of 7%, you would consume all the uranium on earth in around 40 years

I work in the nuclear industry and have a background in renewables.

Being able to cut and paste does not make you an expert. You really do talk total bollocks sometimes. "

And saying your an expert and deriding the input of others, without adding anything to the discussion or producing any evidence or data to counteract their arguments does make you right.

Cutting and pasting information is a perfectly valid way to show information that supports a point a view, my only criticism is that it's not clearly showing what the source of the information is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West

Same shit - different day.

It was fucking freezing when I got back this morning - could do with a bit more global warming please...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I've had two bans for posting illegal links to obviously I'm weary about posting links and nuclear reactor plans on the internet are obviously hard to come by, I regurgitate most of my figures from memory from books I own so I admit they might be slightly wayward but the basic principle is correct, anyhow I've found this on wiki

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium.

They state a figure of 81 years possibly more with different reactors but like my original point was converting all the energy currently generated from fossil fuel to nuclear world wide and factoring in current growth scale ...I wouldn't be far wrong with 40 years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I guess I should have also pointed out that... Alot of the world's uranium lies in... Russia and the stans!.. And were back to the same problem of oil on that point

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ilk69Man  over a year ago

city.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *bbandflowCouple  over a year ago

South Devon


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths."

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties and periodicity. His genius was to use the known properties to fill in the gaps of periodicity.

That he didn't predict the existence of the noble gases was because none were known, hence no gaps to fill.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *he Stuff Of LegendMan  over a year ago

Hadfield

Lots of evidence both ways as people can manipulate evidence but there is no denying we are polluting the environment and it will have some effect sooner or later.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

With Global Terrorism as it is and bound to get far worse I don't think much will be left before Global warming really starts to affect us.

Islamic Terrorists will most probably have taken over a country that has Nukes well before then and send the whole world to oblivion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect "

.

The point on Mendeleev, is just that a point on how scientists work from a theory to a fact!

The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, go to the NASA website there's dozens of them alone on there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Hello Ebbandflow,

as I said, I'm not a scientist so what you quote is not something I'm able to criticise. It may be true or it may be wrong, or more likely somewhere in between.

To say that only the increase in CO2 has caused the rise in temperature is at best a guess as there are so many factors in play. That there are scientists who believe other than the consensus means there is room for doubt but from what I've read there seems to be little collaboration and those who dissent are just not listened to. Science should be about finding the truth and reviewing and analysing data on both sides. That there has been so many reports of selective data or even wrong type of data being used in the models that a more honest way of working should be used.

Alec

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *bbandflowCouple  over a year ago

South Devon


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect .

The point on Mendeleev, is just that a point on how scientists work from a theory to a fact!

The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, go to the NASA website there's dozens of them alone on there."

But it's a lazy analogy, you are not comparing apples with apples, there are many more apt examples you could have used, the theory of Continental Drift being one of many.

Not sure where I have questioned the validity of the empirical evidence on the greenhouse effect, in fact I haven't, but merely pointing out if your intentions are to educate us on the greenhouse effect throwaway analogies will be challenged.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Hello Ebbandflow,

as I said, I'm not a scientist so what you quote is not something I'm able to criticise. It may be true or it may be wrong, or more likely somewhere in between.

To say that only the increase in CO2 has caused the rise in temperature is at best a guess as there are so many factors in play. That there are scientists who believe other than the consensus means there is room for doubt but from what I've read there seems to be little collaboration and those who dissent are just not listened to. Science should be about finding the truth and reviewing and analysing data on both sides. That there has been so many reports of selective data or even wrong type of data being used in the models that a more honest way of working should be used.

Alec

"

.

So what else had caused the warming Alec?.

You pose many theory's but provide me with no evidence of your own for me to examine, if you think something else let's see the evidence for me to look at.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect .

The point on Mendeleev, is just that a point on how scientists work from a theory to a fact!

The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, go to the NASA website there's dozens of them alone on there.

But it's a lazy analogy, you are not comparing apples with apples, there are many more apt examples you could have used, the theory of Continental Drift being one of many.

Not sure where I have questioned the validity of the empirical evidence on the greenhouse effect, in fact I haven't, but merely pointing out if your intentions are to educate us on the greenhouse effect throwaway analogies will be challenged.

"

.

You claimed there's no posteriori data for it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *randmrsminxyCouple  over a year ago

Gloucester


"Not buying it while it's this cold outside. "

That's exactly what global warming will do , the atmosphere will trap the gasses , then the sun will not penetrate and thus the earth will cool

Then we enter another ice age , those who think we not impacting on the planets climate are fooling them self's

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *bbandflowCouple  over a year ago

South Devon


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect .

The point on Mendeleev, is just that a point on how scientists work from a theory to a fact!

The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, go to the NASA website there's dozens of them alone on there.

But it's a lazy analogy, you are not comparing apples with apples, there are many more apt examples you could have used, the theory of Continental Drift being one of many.

Not sure where I have questioned the validity of the empirical evidence on the greenhouse effect, in fact I haven't, but merely pointing out if your intentions are to educate us on the greenhouse effect throwaway analogies will be challenged.

.

You claimed there's no posteriori data for it."

There was no a posteriori data when Tyndall et al proposed the theory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Not buying it while it's this cold outside.

That's exactly what global warming will do , the atmosphere will trap the gasses , then the sun will not penetrate and thus the earth will cool

Then we enter another ice age , those who think we not impacting on the planets climate are fooling them self's "

This is where people who have a very basic grasp of science start to get sceptical because we all remember from school what the make up of gas is in the atmosphere:

78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases plus variable amounts of water vapour.

The argument here is about the minute variances of a gas that only makes up 4/10 of 1% of the atmosphere anyway.

Also - as an aside, I think you are wrong about the sun not penetrating. I believe the allegation is that the infinitesmly tiny increases of an already tiny amount of gas will actually have a blanketing effect on longer wave energy (heat) after the earth has been heated by short wave radiated energy from the sun.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Not buying it while it's this cold outside.

That's exactly what global warming will do , the atmosphere will trap the gasses , then the sun will not penetrate and thus the earth will cool

Then we enter another ice age , those who think we not impacting on the planets climate are fooling them self's

This is where people who have a very basic grasp of science start to get sceptical because we all remember from school what the make up of gas is in the atmosphere:

78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases plus variable amounts of water vapour.

The argument here is about the minute variances of a gas that only makes up 4/10 of 1% of the atmosphere anyway.

Also - as an aside, I think you are wrong about the sun not penetrating. I believe the allegation is that the infinitesmly tiny increases of an already tiny amount of gas will actually have a blanketing effect on longer wave energy (heat) after the earth has been heated by short wave radiated energy from the sun. "

.

By Jove I think you've got it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect .

The point on Mendeleev, is just that a point on how scientists work from a theory to a fact!

The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, go to the NASA website there's dozens of them alone on there.

But it's a lazy analogy, you are not comparing apples with apples, there are many more apt examples you could have used, the theory of Continental Drift being one of many.

Not sure where I have questioned the validity of the empirical evidence on the greenhouse effect, in fact I haven't, but merely pointing out if your intentions are to educate us on the greenhouse effect throwaway analogies will be challenged.

.

You claimed there's no posteriori data for it.

There was no a posteriori data when Tyndall et al proposed the theory."

but Tyndall didn't purpose the theory he was working on infared experiments and fourier on heat transfer it was later on based on their experiments that arrhenious proposed the greenhouse effect.

Experiments, cause and effect theory, more experiments conclusion. Man made C02 is warming the atmosphere.

They've been working on it for a 150 years... It's not like somebody just dreamt it up overnight with no bleeding facts, there was dozens of scientific theory's over it but only one through scientific examination is now left.... It's not rocket science

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"Alec.

Here is the science for c02 affecting temperature. Please read it and get back to me with any faults you see in it

I copied and pasted it because I want sure the link would be allowed but if you want the website pm me.

good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

The predictive power of the greenhouse gas theory might well turn out to be accurate. However your Mendeleev analogy is a poor one. Mendeleev predicted unknown elements because there existed elements with known properties.

There is no a posteriori data on the greenhouse effect .

The point on Mendeleev, is just that a point on how scientists work from a theory to a fact!

The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect is demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, go to the NASA website there's dozens of them alone on there.

But it's a lazy analogy, you are not comparing apples with apples, there are many more apt examples you could have used, the theory of Continental Drift being one of many.

Not sure where I have questioned the validity of the empirical evidence on the greenhouse effect, in fact I haven't, but merely pointing out if your intentions are to educate us on the greenhouse effect throwaway analogies will be challenged.

.

You claimed there's no posteriori data for it."

I don't see any links only your words. Information obtained from the internet can hardly be classed as proof to your claim.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes..

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!"

how do you know climate change and global warming is man made, did you read it on the internet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

But how do you know its happening ? I hope its not because the BBC tell you it is and you believe them.

A lot of scientists disagree that global warming is man made. A lot of government funded scientists say it is man made so they continue getting there funding and the government keep getting cash from there recycling stealth taxes..

I would answer that with two questions.

1 how do you know there's scientists disagreeing, did you read it on the internet, if you did why do you think someone on the internet with no proof whatsoever is correct but tens of thousands of scientists with tens of thousands of scientifically proven evidence is wrong?.

2 why do you believe that the governments need to keep up this massively elaborate conspiracy just to put your tax up?. I mean they did that anyhow for years long before climate change!

Because like you I watch the television and documentaries on the issue other than the BBC.

Of course the earth is going to get hotter in the future. This is because The sun is a star and dying as all stars eventually do. As it dies it heats up more and more until it implodes on itself. No amount of throwing the right rubbish in the right coloured bin is going to make any difference.

As for cooling the earth goes through orbital cycles. Scientists state that on every 10,000 year orbital cycle the earth is at its furthest distance away from the sun and this is how the last ice age formed.

Earthquakes ..these have been happening for billions of years before we as a species ever existed. The earth is constantly moving. One piece of earth call it a seismic plate moves over another seismic plate at this point you get an earthquake.

The earth has been undergoing such natural violent acts of nature for billions of years prior to our arrival and creation of fossil fuels and will continue to do so after were gone. .

You seem to hold bizarre beliefs about the bbc being a conspirator to thousands of scientists.

Ice ages come and go on natural 100,000 year cycles nobody denys that in fact the same scientists who find and look for evidence of climate change are the ones that found some evidence to show the natural cycle of ice ages, more than likely through a combination of earth axis tilt and orbit.

But ones got nothing to do with the other, it's two different things like saying I fell off my push bike and hurt my head and while I was lay hurt lightning struck me up the arse! there must be a connection.... No there two seperate problems, one was your fault because you were riding to fast and not wearing a helmet, a totally preventable occurrence and the other was a random act of nature you could do nothing about "

why are my beliefs bizzare ? For someone who considers my beliefs bizzare you appear in your own words to agree with what I am saying about earths orbital patterns. I note you write some scientists found some evidence but provide no names or evidence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I wouldn't put three minutes of effort into finding any facts figures or web links for you, it would be pointless as your not rational and everything's a conspiracy!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I wouldn't put three minutes of effort into finding any facts figures or web links for you, it would be pointless as your not rational and everything's a conspiracy!"

Thank you for proving my point.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I wouldn't put three minutes of effort into finding any facts figures or web links for you, it would be pointless as your not rational and everything's a conspiracy!

Thank you for proving my point."

.

Your welcome

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer, instead, the world is getting cooler.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer, instead, the world is getting cooler."
.

No it's not, show some evidence of that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer, instead, the world is getting cooler..

No it's not, show some evidence of that."

Here is quote from it:

Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer, instead, the world is getting cooler..

No it's not, show some evidence of that.

Here is quote from it:

Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

"

.

Ahhh that email.... Bear with me I'll find something for you!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer, instead, the world is getting cooler..

No it's not, show some evidence of that.

Here is quote from it:

Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

.

Ahhh that email.... Bear with me I'll find something for you!"

YEs I will, interesting email it was.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It's a long one but well worth a read and hopefully goes some way in explaining the email.......

Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

in one e-mail, a top "warmist" researcher admits it’s a "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment." As it happens, the writer of that October 2009 e-mail—Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the warmist bible, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report—told Congress two years ago that evidence for manmade warming is "unequivocal." He claimed "the planet is running a ’fever’ and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse." But Trenberth’s "lack of warming at the moment" has been going on at least a decade. (Michael Fumento)

This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m2 over the 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Niña rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!

So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:

Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year

Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year

Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year

Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year

Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year

Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)

These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 1020 joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 1020 joules per year (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance.

A subsequent study by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) determined that over the past decade, approximately 30% of ocean warming has occurred in the deeper layers, below 700 meters. This conclusion goes a long way to resolving the 'missing heat' discrepancy. There is still some discrepancy remaining, which could be due to errors in the satellite measurements, the ocean heat content measurements, or both. But the discrepancy is now significantly smaller, and will be addressed in further detail in a follow-up paper by these scientists.

Summary

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


" It's a long one but well worth a read and hopefully goes some way in explaining the email.......

Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

in one e-mail, a top "warmist" researcher admits it’s a "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment." As it happens, the writer of that October 2009 e-mail—Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the warmist bible, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report—told Congress two years ago that evidence for manmade warming is "unequivocal." He claimed "the planet is running a ’fever’ and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse." But Trenberth’s "lack of warming at the moment" has been going on at least a decade. (Michael Fumento)

This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m2 over the 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Niña rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!

So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:

Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year

Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year

Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year

Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year

Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year

Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)

These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 1020 joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 1020 joules per year (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance.

A subsequent study by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) determined that over the past decade, approximately 30% of ocean warming has occurred in the deeper layers, below 700 meters. This conclusion goes a long way to resolving the 'missing heat' discrepancy. There is still some discrepancy remaining, which could be due to errors in the satellite measurements, the ocean heat content measurements, or both. But the discrepancy is now significantly smaller, and will be addressed in further detail in a follow-up paper by these scientists.

Summary

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email."

Yes interesting that one, so inaway no one is sure really as the system cant analyse it to 100 %.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I was told that one volcanic eruption does mor damage to the ozone layer than humans ever could, and that there are hundreds every year. I'm with shag on this one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West

People can say what they like and believe what they want. If saving the planet from us really was a priority for the green lobbyists then when the world economy crashed in 2008 did world governments suddenly put green agendas such as save the word from global warming on the back burner?

Surely if we really were responsible for global warming and climate change that needed immediate attention as the politicians said so ..at the time then the politicians would have continued with there green plans regardless of the worlds economy crashing.

strangely enough you don't hear any more of g3 or the Tokyo summit meeting set up by world leaders to address the global warming issue ....since the collapse of the economy back in 2008.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I live in Malvern. 700ft above sea level. Global warming = melting ice caps n glaciers = sea level rises......= beach is closer to my house. BONUS!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was told that one volcanic eruption does mor damage to the ozone layer than humans ever could, and that there are hundreds every year. I'm with shag on this one "
Yes ty and interesting thing that about volcanoes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was told that one volcanic eruption does mor damage to the ozone layer than humans ever could, and that there are hundreds every year. I'm with shag on this one "
.

Again this is just not proven by science.

Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 600 million tonnes of CO2 per year from the world's active 150 volcanoes...

According to the EIA, the us energy and information department.

Humans contribute 30 BILLION tonnes of C02 per year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West

The argument about CO2 is all about a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Doubling the amount of CO2 would mean that CO2 would still equate to the gas being less than 1% of all of the atmospheric gasses.

Remember also that CO2 is an absolute "gas of life" because plants and greenery of all descriptions need and thrive on CO2.

The worst warming gasses are methane and water vapour (clue - how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than on a cloudless night). This is the essence of the blanket theory and is the reason why an increasing number of scientists do not buy a concept that suggests that a gas comprising 4/10 of 1% can have anything like the blanket effect of water vapour.... Methane also is quite outside the mechanics of mans influence as volcanic eruptions add massive mounts of methane to the atmosphere.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"I was told that one volcanic eruption does mor damage to the ozone layer than humans ever could, and that there are hundreds every year. I'm with shag on this one .

Again this is just not proven by science.

Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 600 million tonnes of CO2 per year from the world's active 150 volcanoes...

According to the EIA, the us energy and information department.

Humans contribute 30 BILLION tonnes of C02 per year."

Methane comes from volcanoes and methane is unarguably a worse greenhouse gas than co2

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was told that one volcanic eruption does mor damage to the ozone layer than humans ever could, and that there are hundreds every year. I'm with shag on this one "
.

Also the hole in the ozone layer is not from global warming, it's a completely different problem. Although ozone is one of the greenhouse gases so if volcanoes could destroy it that would be great.... Except you'd all get skin cancer in 12 months without it, so maybe not so great....

I read somewhere on the internet, there's a massive underground bunker that the Americans are building I think it's under Denver, it's huge, like a city and there going to round up all the climate deniers and put them in it... But sshhhh you didn't here it from me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The argument about CO2 is all about a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Doubling the amount of CO2 would mean that CO2 would still equate to the gas being less than 1% of all of the atmospheric gasses.

Remember also that CO2 is an absolute "gas of life" because plants and greenery of all descriptions need and thrive on CO2.

The worst warming gasses are methane and water vapour (clue - how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than on a cloudless night). This is the essence of the blanket theory and is the reason why an increasing number of scientists do not buy a concept that suggests that a gas comprising 4/10 of 1% can have anything like the blanket effect of water vapour.... Methane also is quite outside the mechanics of mans influence as volcanic eruptions add massive mounts of methane to the atmosphere."

.My somebody's been researching.

Your quite current C02 makes up very small quantities in the atmosphere, so bearing in mind it's naturally in the atmosphere in small tiny amounts, but is the main reason it's 28 degrees in Florida not -2 degrees, (it basically keeps the planet earth 30 degrees warmer than it would be of the atmosphere had no C02).

Now if you know that and we do know that from scientific measurements, then you would obviously understand that we only have to add a tiny tiny tiny amount more to fuck up that balance ...

Now if you add a tiny bit more c02 and you warm the atmosphere up like we have done over the last 100 years... What happens to warmer air, can you remember that from school work... Yes it holds more moisture (water vapour) (another greenhouse gas).

And yes your correct methane is a much worse greenhouse gas, we currently emit alot of that too from agriculture and industry, and worse still... Guess where most of it is locked into.. That's right the perma frost sea beds which are currently being melted by higher ocean temperatures...

I never though I'd say this but your making a great case for climate change!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It's what they call exponential climate change.... 1 small thing leads to another small thing and doubling and doubling and before you know it...

Were all screwed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes

Climate change and global warming should not be a matter of belief but a matter of scientific evidence and fact.

One of the problems I have generally with the environmental side of this argument is that, rather than putting forward the science and rebuffing the counter arguments and evidence they have consistently tried to reducible that evidence and discredit those putting it forward. The problem with this approach is that, when the counter argument is actually more in line with what people want to believe, ridiculing and discrediting it rather than properly rebuffing it, tends to reflect more badly on the people or group trying to do the ridicule or discrediting than on those putting forward the counter argument.

You may notice that I've not been saying much on this thread about the actual issues. There is a reason for that. On this thread the better argument seems to be being put forward by Sexy-bum. I'm not saying I agree with it yet but he has put forward some good points and clearly knows the subject better than either myself or many others on here.

Until I'm able to come up with better counter arguments myself I won't argue the points just for the sake of arguing. If I can't find any better counter arguments then I might have to change my point of view.

I don't want to believe in global warming because, whether we act to reduce it or not, if it is happening the consequences for all of us are far too terrible to contemplate. Just trying to hold emission levels constant could make the period from 2008 to now look like a positively booming time in comparison.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Ahhh Moriarty we meet again .

I'm sorry if I get passionate and shout but it's because I am passionate about it, I won't deny that, I think everyone knows already I'm a green party member,a Greenpeace member and I'll admit I'm on the police data base as a domestic extremist ... That's what they call people who demonstrate environmentalism .

I am convinced by the science, it's pretty overwhelming but I'll admit I'm a science geek so I don't have to take peoples word for it(and honestly seeing how the public's trust gets fucked over by the establishment daily!! I can see that being a problem) as I've read it personally and I do believe sometime soon we will answer for it one way or another.

Now what I would like to say is, I can see how people don't want to believe it, who does, but it's the exact same denial that humans portray when facing series illness, we all know the cases of somebody who wouldn't go to the doctor for fearing the worst, burying the head in the sand is a perfectly normal human thing to do, but the logical side of our brain knows really going to the doctor and finding out bad news and not going to the doctor and not knowing, don't influence the outcome, in fact the only influence it serves is a negative outcome.

Being a denier is human, your first step to learning anything is realising our limitations, sometimes people have sudden epitomises of this and it becomes a defining point of their lives.

Mine was losing three relatives to asbestos!.

But if nothing else try and think, what's the worst case scenario.

Well if I'm wrong the worst case scenario is we've spent an awful lot of money on windmills, which some people I'll admit don't like, we may have spent an awful lot of money on other infrastructure changes like more trams more trains, we may have banned cars from city centres, forced people to wear at least a Cardigan on cold days etc etc... We may be poorer, alot poorer,I don't deny it.

Now what's the worst case scenario if your wrong.... And those scientists are right!.

And before you think that's another generations problem (that's also another perfectly normal human thing to do by the way). The worst case scenario on the computer climate model shows it only 20 years away, that's less than a mortgage, or to somebody who's 50 you won't have even retried by then .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think you're banging your head against a brick wall SB.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem. "

.

Does that work if you live in London or Norfolk or Cheshire or Lancashire!.

Ahhh no you just mean places above 70m in the UK ... Oh hang on there's another problem with your prognosis 70 million people into 35% less land, agriculture!, fresh water, all the nuclear power stations would have flooded and give into China syndrome... Oh yeah fuck it will have sunny sunshine like the south of France gee fucking wiz

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem. "

WAHOO!!, Mediterranean climes on the south coast...so what happens to the south of France?...north Africa?, Jesus Christ.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think you're banging your head against a brick wall SB."
.

It's a twenty year habit, but I'm cutting down slowly.... I used to do this in public parks years ago until George Michael ruined it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem. "

I think if I really wanted to live in a country with a climate like in the south of France I'd go and live in France, probably the southern part of it. !!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"My somebody's been researching."

No research needed, just an open mind...


" Your quite current C02 makes up very small quantities in the atmosphere, so bearing in mind it's naturally in the atmosphere in small tiny amounts, but is the main reason it's 28 degrees in Florida not -2 degrees, (it basically keeps the planet earth 30 degrees warmer than it would be of the atmosphere had no C02)."

This is only true if you completely ignore the fact that the atmosphere also absorbs around one third of the suns energy before it even reaches the earths surface. Also you have completely ignored the effect of lattitude and the seasonal declination of the sun which also affects inbound and outbound energy absorption.


" Now if you know that and we do know that from scientific measurements, then you would obviously understand that we only have to add a tiny tiny tiny amount more to fuck up that balance

"

This is absolutely not true and you know it. Also, and more to the point this what really gets my goat about the whole cklimate change argument whereby the cataclysmic tipping point story gets peddled and it has no truth or substance. It is a FACT that the addition of extra CO2 to the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect and that most of the natural IR absorption is already taken up by CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses. In effect the duvet is already on the bed and by adding more and more duvets on top of duvets is not going to make the bed exponentially warmer, it only goes up incrementally by small amounts. The naturally occuring CO2 level is supposedly 250-300 parts per million. What this means is that there should normally be say 27 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air. We have allegedly added 10 molecules of air in a measure of 100,000 - one ten thousandth and we are to believe that this will shortly end life on earth as we know it?????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"My somebody's been researching.

No research needed, just an open mind...

Your quite current C02 makes up very small quantities in the atmosphere, so bearing in mind it's naturally in the atmosphere in small tiny amounts, but is the main reason it's 28 degrees in Florida not -2 degrees, (it basically keeps the planet earth 30 degrees warmer than it would be of the atmosphere had no C02).

This is only true if you completely ignore the fact that the atmosphere also absorbs around one third of the suns energy before it even reaches the earths surface. Also you have completely ignored the effect of lattitude and the seasonal declination of the sun which also affects inbound and outbound energy absorption.

Now if you know that and we do know that from scientific measurements, then you would obviously understand that we only have to add a tiny tiny tiny amount more to fuck up that balance

This is absolutely not true and you know it. Also, and more to the point this what really gets my goat about the whole cklimate change argument whereby the cataclysmic tipping point story gets peddled and it has no truth or substance. It is a FACT that the addition of extra CO2 to the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect and that most of the natural IR absorption is already taken up by CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses. In effect the duvet is already on the bed and by adding more and more duvets on top of duvets is not going to make the bed exponentially warmer, it only goes up incrementally by small amounts. The naturally occuring CO2 level is supposedly 250-300 parts per million. What this means is that there should normally be say 27 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air. We have allegedly added 10 molecules of air in a measure of 100,000 - one ten thousandth and we are to believe that this will shortly end life on earth as we know it?????"

.

No I agree with you entirely.

C02 warms the planet by trapping infared radiation, the duvet example is perfectly apt, the more duvets you chuck on the more heat energy you trap, total agreement.

As you trap heat, the atmosphere warms, warm air allows more water vapour (biggest greenhouse gas), more water vapour means more heat trapped, more heat warmer oceans, more methane (worst greenhouse gas), more methane more warming....

Secondly your other points

What difference does the inclination of the sun make? Don't know about that one.

Atmosphere yes it's absolutely true without greenhouse gases the earth would be 30 degrees colder than it is now, there's a fine balance between solar heat energy( inward) and radiated energy back into space(outward) without them the earth would radiate alot more energy back into space leaving us alot colder brrr.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Are you taking seasonal inclination of the sun?.

Well this is the effect of southern/northern hemispheres warming.

The southern hemisphere consists mostly of ocean so most of the solar heat energy is absorbed by them, it's one of the reasons why you see a lag between c02 emitted and rises in temperature, the oceans act as a giant store of heat energy (notable and consistent rises in ocean temperatures have been measured).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't and its actually the earths natural cycle "

I knew that it had something to do with cyclists

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West

The atmosphere absorbs heat on the way in and on the way out.

Irrespective of that, the sun has its biggest effect when directly overhead because the suns rays are passing perpendicular to the atmosphere in and out. Depending on the season and depending on latitude, the suns rays may pass at right angles or at almost 90 degree to the atmosphere. When the sun is low the heating effect is lower because the suns rays are both not hitting at right angles AND the inbound rays are passing through much more of the atmosphere before striking the surface.

The statement that the earth would be 30 degrees cooler without the atmosphere is made only about "outbound" energy which departs at right angles. This is ignoring the other half of the story - inbound energy.

The science is not sufficiently robust enough to know what would happen to the earths temperature without an atmosphere. It is simply not known by how much hotter the surface would be if 100% of the sun radiated energy would be striking the earth. It would for sure heat it to a massively greater amount than it does at the moment. The atmosphere quite simply protects us from extremes of incoming energy as well as blanketing outgoing heat.

To state that the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere mean that the earth is 30 degrees hotter than it would be without is only true if you ignore incoming energy that is also lost because of atmospheric losses.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think if you look at Mars you can see what happens without an atmosphere.

Or even better look at mercury and Venus,mercury is twice as close to the sun than Venus it's I don't know around 400 degrees but only in the sun and during the day the temperature drops massively at night or in shadow because it's a thin atmosphere not unlike the moon.

Venus is twice as far away but is hotter than mercury , more importantly it's the same temperature all over at the poles, equator, night time ... And why because Venus has a high concentration of c02 with a think atmosphere, so it captures the heat from the sun and stores it.

Now we've got probes to these planets we've measured the atmosphere, we've got satellites that measure sun temperatures and solar highs and lows, now the best conclusion that we can assume from the data is that greenhouse gases are the "forces" of the greenhouse effect.

Now based on these scientific examinations, scientists conclude that earth would be 30 degrees colder without the greenhouse effect, again it's a best guess estimate based on the evidence available.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West

Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem. .

Does that work if you live in London or Norfolk or Cheshire or Lancashire!.

Ahhh no you just mean places above 70m in the UK ... Oh hang on there's another problem with your prognosis 70 million people into 35% less land, agriculture!, fresh water, all the nuclear power stations would have flooded and give into China syndrome... Oh yeah fuck it will have sunny sunshine like the south of France gee fucking wiz "

LMFAO!

That's amazing speculation about something that hasn't actually happened yet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2"
.

Straight from NASA.

The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem. .

Does that work if you live in London or Norfolk or Cheshire or Lancashire!.

Ahhh no you just mean places above 70m in the UK ... Oh hang on there's another problem with your prognosis 70 million people into 35% less land, agriculture!, fresh water, all the nuclear power stations would have flooded and give into China syndrome... Oh yeah fuck it will have sunny sunshine like the south of France gee fucking wiz

LMFAO!

That's amazing speculation about something that hasn't actually happened yet. "

well that would happen in the as you put it "worse case scenario of climate change".

Polar ice caps melting... Sea level rising... Ring a bell...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Here's the thing. ..

Because of where the UK is situated. .. Geometrically. . NOT geographically. .

Global warming at it's WORST for us, would equal the current Climate of the South of France.

The problem is there is NO problem. .

Does that work if you live in London or Norfolk or Cheshire or Lancashire!.

Ahhh no you just mean places above 70m in the UK ... Oh hang on there's another problem with your prognosis 70 million people into 35% less land, agriculture!, fresh water, all the nuclear power stations would have flooded and give into China syndrome... Oh yeah fuck it will have sunny sunshine like the south of France gee fucking wiz

LMFAO!

That's amazing speculation about something that hasn't actually happened yet. well that would happen in the as you put it "worse case scenario of climate change".

Polar ice caps melting... Sea level rising... Ring a bell... "

Seen that film! Kevin Costner was rubbish and the outfits dreadful!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary."

yeh; they said that during the ice age too

whilst everyone sits and worries, I will be out enjoying life

life don't last long so enjoy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Were still in the ice age.... We have been for 2 million years, this bit is called the interglacial or Holocene

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2.

Straight from NASA.

The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.....

"

You should not need NASA to tell you that. Schoolboy stuff.

So are we saying now that despite Mars having a greater CO2 concentration in its atmosphere than ours (by a factor of 100X more ppm), the warming is actually more about atmospheric pressure, water vapour and methane?

That suggests that there could be more to this global warming lark than just CO2 then? Well, if one has a questioning mind it does anyway.

I do appreciate that there are people who would now never change their deeply entrenched views even if the earth failed to warm for the next 50 years just as it has not warmed for the last 17 years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2.

Straight from NASA.

The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.....

You should not need NASA to tell you that. Schoolboy stuff.

So are we saying now that despite Mars having a greater CO2 concentration in its atmosphere than ours (by a factor of 100X more ppm), the warming is actually more about atmospheric pressure, water vapour and methane?

That suggests that there could be more to this global warming lark than just CO2 then? Well, if one has a questioning mind it does anyway.

I do appreciate that there are people who would now never change their deeply entrenched views even if the earth failed to warm for the next 50 years just as it has not warmed for the last 17 years."

.

You've already stated yourself exactly how climate change works and how c02 effects it.... Your disagreeing with your own statement now.

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, water vapour... There all "forces" of the greenhouse effect but you need an atmosphere for them to work on, Mars atmosphere is to thin... That's why NASA wrote "Mars has a thin atmosphere nearly all carbon dioxide", at least try and read what I'm writing or this is pointless.

I quote it straight from nasa because you disbelieve everything everybody says except the people you want to believe.

Me I just go of the available data and science.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I only just noticed your last sentence.

The trend is up for the last 17.

1998 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 and 2010.

These years are the top ten hottest global temperatures on record

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It on again tonight 9pm bbc4

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I've seen a fair few posts recently on global warming, with scepticism it's happening, despite massive scientific near certainty that man is responsible for the current and soon to be major even greater increases in global temperature.

There's a programme about to start on BBC4, highlighting public uncertainty, even though research is clearer than it's been. Starts at 9pm.

Not seen it, just saw the listing, so bound to be some discussion and denial?

I always assume those denying the scientific evidence don't work in this field, or have the expertise that the world's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have. Maybe some will enlighten us to the contrary.

yeh; they said that during the ice age too

whilst everyone sits and worries, I will be out enjoying life

life don't last long so enjoy"

Evidence suggesting scientists claim global warming caused by Natural processes.

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and

0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3]2."There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to natural earth activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4]3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this natural temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[6] These

findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.[7] There have been forty five lists of dissenting

scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[8] the Oregon Petition,[9] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[10]

Each scientist listed here has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, in a fields relevant to

climatology.[B] Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the mainstay report's on man made global warming with three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their

biographical articles. As of August 2012, the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The

rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

See for as many internet agendas on climate change being man made, its just as easy to find as many scientific climate agendas that climate change is simply part of our planets natural continuing progressive evolution.

In relation to the comment that a .5 temperature increase in carbon emissions is the fault of us humans well periodic timetables can prove that there have been temperature increases and decreases over time much greater than the .5 degrees you cling to before man came across the idea of burning fossil fuels.

such as the sudden huge temperature changes that came into effect leading to the ice age.

Let me guess stone age man contributed to climate change by making camp fires with flint and dry grass.

Its not bizzare its actually scientific fact the ice age formed as a result of our planets orbit at that point in time being as far away from the sun as possible and not caused by people.

During the cretaceous and jurrassic periods the earths temperature was much hotter the the .5 degrees you project from us troublesome humans.

So science and history shows us temperature changed over time sometimes the earth heated up sometimes it chilled and guess what the earths own climate changes were of its own doing. It did it all on its own and will continue to do so to point of its death when our star the sun eventually dies.

Out of all the species our planet has given life and home to none are the most ignorant than us. The earths probably laughing at us thinking who do we think we are to lay claim to killing it when all we are is simply a microscopic dot on its backside.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2.

Straight from NASA.

The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.....

You should not need NASA to tell you that. Schoolboy stuff.

So are we saying now that despite Mars having a greater CO2 concentration in its atmosphere than ours (by a factor of 100X more ppm), the warming is actually more about atmospheric pressure, water vapour and methane?

That suggests that there could be more to this global warming lark than just CO2 then? Well, if one has a questioning mind it does anyway.

I do appreciate that there are people who would now never change their deeply entrenched views even if the earth failed to warm for the next 50 years just as it has not warmed for the last 17 years."

The way the atmospheric warming calculation works is to calculate the effective temperature that a planet has to be to reradiate the energy that reaches it from the sun. They do this first assuming that the planet has no atmosphere at all. Then they compare the calculated temperature with that temperature with the measured temperature of the planet from its spectrum. So for example,

Earth has a greenhouse heating effect of about 33C because of its atmosphere and the atmosphere absorbs about 39% of the heat trying to escape the surface

Venus has a greenhouse heating effect of about 490C because of its atmosphere and 98% of the energy trying to escape is trapped in the atmosphere.

Mars has a greenhouse heating effect of about 10C because of its atmosphere and retains about 17% of the energy reflected from the sun in the atmosphere

There is a measurable greenhouse effect on Mars but it is much smaller than on Earth. There are a lot more factors than just amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that account for the differences between Mars and Earth. Not least of these is that Mars average surface temperature is about -50C, so there's very little/no water vapour around to create clouds/absorb radiation.

The way they can say that the greenhouse effect is getting worse on the earth is to compare the measured temperature of the planet from space against the theoretical model. What scientists have been measuring is the rise in temperature above the baseline warming of 33C, which is a real, measured effect.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2.

Straight from NASA.

The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.....

You should not need NASA to tell you that. Schoolboy stuff.

So are we saying now that despite Mars having a greater CO2 concentration in its atmosphere than ours (by a factor of 100X more ppm), the warming is actually more about atmospheric pressure, water vapour and methane?

That suggests that there could be more to this global warming lark than just CO2 then? Well, if one has a questioning mind it does anyway.

I do appreciate that there are people who would now never change their deeply entrenched views even if the earth failed to warm for the next 50 years just as it has not warmed for the last 17 years.

The way the atmospheric warming calculation works is to calculate the effective temperature that a planet has to be to reradiate the energy that reaches it from the sun. They do this first assuming that the planet has no atmosphere at all. Then they compare the calculated temperature with that temperature with the measured temperature of the planet from its spectrum. So for example,

Earth has a greenhouse heating effect of about 33C because of its atmosphere and the atmosphere absorbs about 39% of the heat trying to escape the surface

Venus has a greenhouse heating effect of about 490C because of its atmosphere and 98% of the energy trying to escape is trapped in the atmosphere.

Mars has a greenhouse heating effect of about 10C because of its atmosphere and retains about 17% of the energy reflected from the sun in the atmosphere

There is a measurable greenhouse effect on Mars but it is much smaller than on Earth. There are a lot more factors than just amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that account for the differences between Mars and Earth. Not least of these is that Mars average surface temperature is about -50C, so there's very little/no water vapour around to create clouds/absorb radiation.

The way they can say that the greenhouse effect is getting worse on the earth is to compare the measured temperature of the planet from space against the theoretical model. What scientists have been measuring is the rise in temperature above the baseline warming of 33C, which is a real, measured effect."

Question what has the climate on Mars got to do with climate change on Earth ??? is Mars climate our fault now to lol.

Mars atmosphere is simply its atmosphere in proportion to its orbit and distance from the sun.

If Earth was in Mars position then earth would have the atmosphere of Mars.

Makes mental future note ..must throw in the word "theoretrical." right after recycling my rubbish

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS  over a year ago

Central


"It on again tonight 9pm bbc4 "

It's Horizon tonight Shag - though it's a nice compilation of mainly Horizon shows on Global Warming over recent years. Again, it's nice and simple stuff, and enjoying it here

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Mars does have an atmosphere. It is 95% Carbon Dioxide and although it is much less dense than earths atmosphere it is made up almost entirely of CO2.

Straight from NASA.

The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.....

You should not need NASA to tell you that. Schoolboy stuff.

So are we saying now that despite Mars having a greater CO2 concentration in its atmosphere than ours (by a factor of 100X more ppm), the warming is actually more about atmospheric pressure, water vapour and methane?

That suggests that there could be more to this global warming lark than just CO2 then? Well, if one has a questioning mind it does anyway.

I do appreciate that there are people who would now never change their deeply entrenched views even if the earth failed to warm for the next 50 years just as it has not warmed for the last 17 years.

The way the atmospheric warming calculation works is to calculate the effective temperature that a planet has to be to reradiate the energy that reaches it from the sun. They do this first assuming that the planet has no atmosphere at all. Then they compare the calculated temperature with that temperature with the measured temperature of the planet from its spectrum. So for example,

Earth has a greenhouse heating effect of about 33C because of its atmosphere and the atmosphere absorbs about 39% of the heat trying to escape the surface

Venus has a greenhouse heating effect of about 490C because of its atmosphere and 98% of the energy trying to escape is trapped in the atmosphere.

Mars has a greenhouse heating effect of about 10C because of its atmosphere and retains about 17% of the energy reflected from the sun in the atmosphere

There is a measurable greenhouse effect on Mars but it is much smaller than on Earth. There are a lot more factors than just amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that account for the differences between Mars and Earth. Not least of these is that Mars average surface temperature is about -50C, so there's very little/no water vapour around to create clouds/absorb radiation.

The way they can say that the greenhouse effect is getting worse on the earth is to compare the measured temperature of the planet from space against the theoretical model. What scientists have been measuring is the rise in temperature above the baseline warming of 33C, which is a real, measured effect.

Question what has the climate on Mars got to do with climate change on Earth ??? is Mars climate our fault now to lol.

Mars atmosphere is simply its atmosphere in proportion to its orbit and distance from the sun.

If Earth was in Mars position then earth would have the atmosphere of Mars.

Makes mental future note ..must throw in the word "theoretrical." right after recycling my rubbish "

You just did that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It on again tonight 9pm bbc4

It's Horizon tonight Shag - though it's a nice compilation of mainly Horizon shows on Global Warming over recent years. Again, it's nice and simple stuff, and enjoying it here "

Yes thought it was similar, 5 of 6, but yes very good episode today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it "
sshhhh keep the truth to yourself you don't want a visit from the men in black environmentalists threatening to brainwash you by an aggressive were to blame for the climate change via a letterbox campaign ...be wary of men in cardigans with patches on there elbows

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I spend half my day shoving green grapes up my bottom and farting them out at passing environmentalists (and the occasional traffic warden) - vermin !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it "

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990. "

Yeah, fucking marvellous it is too.

Combined fridge/freezer drops below 5degC and the fucking replacemnt coolant stops working and the freezer frigging warms up.

That's yer global warming problem right there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

right - great - another fact - ta - don't believe any of it - simple as that - long ago stopped believing anything like this that was intrinsically linked to taxing people - those in power couldn't lie straight in bed - have we all not realised that by now ????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

freezer frigging* or vice versa.

* otherwise known as The Ex.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I spend half my day shoving green grapes up my bottom and farting them out at passing environmentalists (and the occasional traffic warden) - vermin ! "

Your my kind of people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990. "

whats cfcf do they do a good line in sofas and beds ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

Yeah, fucking marvellous it is too.

Combined fridge/freezer drops below 5degC and the fucking replacemnt coolant stops working and the freezer frigging warms up.

That's yer global warming problem right there.

"

What you use them outside their operating conditions and they don't work? There's a surprise

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

whats cfcf do they do a good line in sofas and beds ? "

No they're all covered in grapes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I spend half my day shoving green grapes up my bottom and farting them out at passing environmentalists (and the occasional traffic warden) - vermin !

Your my kind of people "

Thank you - you are welcome to come and shove the ammunition up our bottoms anytime - a kilo is the most we've managed in one go !!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

and wish you hadn't blocked couples - you sound yummy x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

whats cfcf do they do a good line in sofas and beds ?

No they're all covered in grapes"

Typo ALERT.

I think you mean drapes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

Yeah, fucking marvellous it is too.

Combined fridge/freezer drops below 5degC and the fucking replacemnt coolant stops working and the freezer frigging warms up.

That's yer global warming problem right there.

What you use them outside their operating conditions and they don't work? There's a surprise"

Your confusing me here, So your saying cfcf isn't a sofa and bed speacialists and that fridge freezers are whats going to save the earth from us polluting it....ime trying to see how here maybe we can catapult them at earth from our space station in the hope the freezer impact upon the earth may knock the earth into a more eco friendly orbit other than that I don't know

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

whats cfcf do they do a good line in sofas and beds ?

No they're all covered in grapes

Typo ALERT.

I think you mean drapes. "

No she definitely wasn't farting out drapes. Unless that was a typo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

Yeah, fucking marvellous it is too.

Combined fridge/freezer drops below 5degC and the fucking replacemnt coolant stops working and the freezer frigging warms up.

That's yer global warming problem right there.

What you use them outside their operating conditions and they don't work? There's a surprise

Your confusing me here, So your saying cfcf isn't a sofa and bed speacialists and that fridge freezers are whats going to save the earth from us polluting it....ime trying to see how here maybe we can catapult them at earth from our space station in the hope the freezer impact upon the earth may knock the earth into a more eco friendly orbit other than that I don't know "

No I'm the one who said the sofas and beds were covered in grapes, not drapes. If you've now started to fart out sofas you may hurt yourself as well as confuse the space station.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

and tbh - this ain't the problem we should all be worried about - the explosion in population over the last 200 years is a far greater worry. Read up on some of the reports on this and it is really scary - the only true answer to the planets ills - and it's an uncomfortable one - is to wipe out the cancer that is actually the human race and let God or whoever start all over again - because we are, as a race, basically destructive evil killers who destroy everything and anything that gets in the way of capitalist progress - from rain forests for fancy furniture to wiping out animals for Chinese medicines etc - absolutely bloody awful as a race - not nice to accept but oh so very true

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"and tbh - this ain't the problem we should all be worried about - the explosion in population over the last 200 years is a far greater worry. Read up on some of the reports on this and it is really scary - the only true answer to the planets ills - and it's an uncomfortable one - is to wipe out the cancer that is actually the human race and let God or whoever start all over again - because we are, as a race, basically destructive evil killers who destroy everything and anything that gets in the way of capitalist progress - from rain forests for fancy furniture to wiping out animals for Chinese medicines etc - absolutely bloody awful as a race - not nice to accept but oh so very true "

Can't believe you now because I've accepted your view that everything is a conspiracy to tax us more and what you just wrote is part of that conspiracy. It's best we all just give up and fart grapes at passing political activists, environmentalists, traffic wardens and skate boarders and ignore all your radical untruths.

Good luck with that one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"we simply haven't had the scientific data for anywhere near long enough - recent measurements are like a millisecond in time compared to the length of the Earth's life - it's just another way to extract tax out of people (carbon footprint shite) - remember the depleting ozone layer that was going to be a catastrophe - miraculously fixed itself despite more carbon and greenhouse gases than ever being pumped out globally - yet gullible people still believe it - oh and many of the scientists rely on funding from erm - Government ! The very ones who want to tax you - don't believe a word of it

Ozone depletion's got nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The main action taken about it has been the virtual removal of CFCs from the atmosphere by banning them in things like fridges and aerosol cans since about 1990.

Yeah, fucking marvellous it is too.

Combined fridge/freezer drops below 5degC and the fucking replacemnt coolant stops working and the freezer frigging warms up.

That's yer global warming problem right there.

What you use them outside their operating conditions and they don't work? There's a surprise"

It was the first time.

Now i have to expend energy to warm the fucker up, yet more global warming.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"and tbh - this ain't the problem we should all be worried about - the explosion in population over the last 200 years is a far greater worry. Read up on some of the reports on this and it is really scary - the only true answer to the planets ills - and it's an uncomfortable one - is to wipe out the cancer that is actually the human race and let God or whoever start all over again - because we are, as a race, basically destructive evil killers who destroy everything and anything that gets in the way of capitalist progress - from rain forests for fancy furniture to wiping out animals for Chinese medicines etc - absolutely bloody awful as a race - not nice to accept but oh so very true "

I agree.

Controversial again, who me, but i do believe population control should start at both ends of the age range.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon "

Pineapples have spiky bits on if you wish to incur small lacerations.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West

My view is if we really want to save the planet we should seriously start investing and planning in some sort of comet /meteor trajectory deflection device system. ...If its left to Bruce Willis and his crew of oil drillers were truly fooked .....btw why did they need a heavy machine gun in order to plant a nuclear device on that comet ? were the film makers imagining the Russians might have got there before them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon "

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"My view is if we really want to save the planet we should seriously start investing and planning in some sort of comet /meteor trajectory deflection device system. ...If its left to Bruce Willis and his crew of oil drillers were truly fooked .....btw why did they need a heavy machine gun in order to plant a nuclear device on that comet ? were the film makers imagining the Russians might have got there before them "

Some of those corrupt money grabbing scientists are already doing the 'how to deflect a meteor/comet' research now. None of the plans involves firing grapes at them - they could have missed a trick.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems."

so what your now saying is methane man in the green catsuit could go critical at any moment and blow the shit out the world by a follow through fart

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems."

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"My view is if we really want to save the planet we should seriously start investing and planning in some sort of comet /meteor trajectory deflection device system. ...If its left to Bruce Willis and his crew of oil drillers were truly fooked .....btw why did they need a heavy machine gun in order to plant a nuclear device on that comet ? were the film makers imagining the Russians might have got there before them

Some of those corrupt money grabbing scientists are already doing the 'how to deflect a meteor/comet' research now. None of the plans involves firing grapes at them - they could have missed a trick."

I think your plan of firing fridge freezers at them is more feasible

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

so what your now saying is methane man in the green catsuit could go critical at any moment and blow the shit out the world by a follow through fart "

That's an excellent summary. The only bit I'd disagree with was the 'what you're now saying' but the rest was passable provided the catsuit isn't too tight on methane man.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks "

Have you notified the Benelux countries of your cunning plan. Of culling Fresians.

Some of them will be chuffed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks "

Leave the badgers out of this, they barely contribute at all to the methane problem and have been victimised too much.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"My view is if we really want to save the planet we should seriously start investing and planning in some sort of comet /meteor trajectory deflection device system. ...If its left to Bruce Willis and his crew of oil drillers were truly fooked .....btw why did they need a heavy machine gun in order to plant a nuclear device on that comet ? were the film makers imagining the Russians might have got there before them

Some of those corrupt money grabbing scientists are already doing the 'how to deflect a meteor/comet' research now. None of the plans involves firing grapes at them - they could have missed a trick."

corrupt money grabbing scientists you say. Your not employed in that scientific sector are you? you seem to have a lot of insider knowledge

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks

shae - we love you - come and join our revolution (which involves ritual sex - and lots of fruit) xx (wish we could message or wink you)"

Environmentalists strongly advise washing any fruit very carefully that anyone from that revolution offers you before eating it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"My view is if we really want to save the planet we should seriously start investing and planning in some sort of comet /meteor trajectory deflection device system. ...If its left to Bruce Willis and his crew of oil drillers were truly fooked .....btw why did they need a heavy machine gun in order to plant a nuclear device on that comet ? were the film makers imagining the Russians might have got there before them

Some of those corrupt money grabbing scientists are already doing the 'how to deflect a meteor/comet' research now. None of the plans involves firing grapes at them - they could have missed a trick.

corrupt money grabbing scientists you say. Your not employed in that scientific sector are you? you seem to have a lot of insider knowledge "

I'll confess all for £5000 a half day ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks

Leave the badgers out of this, they barely contribute at all to the methane problem and have been victimised too much."

and Moles- what the fuck did they ever do wrong? Some twat up our way is a licensed Mole destroyer (via poisonous gas) - I let his van tyres down at least once a fortnight - the cruel fucking arsehole

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"think I`ll switch from grapes to coconuts - more effective weapon

Be careful, the extra friction may set fire to your methane propellant. We wouldn't want you exploding over a traffic warden (or environmentalist) Oh and you'll be glad to know that methane is harmful to the ozone layer too. A fringe benefit to your hobby it seems.

correct on that - apparently farting cows contribute a significant percentage of methane to the atmosphere - perhaps we should start a cull of Fresians a bit like the fuckin Govt instructed cull of those cute little badgers - that achieved fuck all despite all the 'scientific advice' - bollocks M'Lord - utter bollocks

Leave the badgers out of this, they barely contribute at all to the methane problem and have been victimised too much.

and Moles- what the fuck did they ever do wrong? Some twat up our way is a licensed Mole destroyer (via poisonous gas) - I let his van tyres down at least once a fortnight - the cruel fucking arsehole "

No coconut for him then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"right - great - another fact - ta - don't believe any of it - simple as that - long ago stopped believing anything like this that was intrinsically linked to taxing people - those in power couldn't lie straight in bed - have we all not realised that by now ????"
.

I find the whole public perceived "conspiracy" angle of climate change as a very interesting note in its own right, I find it interesting because I'm intrigued by the mysterious and the unknown for which conspiracies fit into.

The human brain is very good at creating a picture of something that fits in with our "held" beliefs and lifestyle, we can mould facts, figures and history, ignore bits that don't fit and research bits that do.

Scientists are actually well aware of this way the brain works, it's why they peer review their experiments,theories and data.

In fact one of the most respected physics professors recently came up with a theory that broke the 1st law of thermodynamics, he wasn't derided or laughed at or shunned, they just went over the science of it, that's how it works that's how things progress, we go off the best theory that the data concludes, right now that best data concludes man made climate change is happening.... Nobody is saying it's infallible nobody is saying it's guaranteed... There saying the best available data we have shows climate is being changed by man made C02.

All these other theories that keep getting mentioned like sun spots, natural variation, volcanoes, El nino,... They've all been scientifically looked at and they ALL failed the science!.

Now there may well be something we haven't thought of, another theory, data we haven't yet thought to collect... But until we find something else.

Man made c02 altering the climate fits with the science, it fits with the data, it fits with the history, it's peer reviewed by thousands and thousand of people, people like Stephen hawking!.

Now before we get all doom and gloom let's remember all we can do is go off the current data and models and those models show that we need to seriously cut back on producing c02 and methane, just like we had to cut back on CFC,s to stop ozone depletion (which we did and hey pesto it got better).

Nobody in science is denying that we might head back into the ice age from the Holocene we currently enjoy... And when the data shows that we might need to increase those gases?, but right now it isn't, its clearly showing a warming trend and this trend is faster than a natural trend that occurred in the past and we know that a warmer planet will cause untold misery and FINANCIAL problems (yeah it's all about the money ).

Now if like me you love a good conspiracy! Look no further than asbestos, used widely in the mid 1800s , doctors first noticed a terrible lung condition that afflicted it's workers around 1880 by 1910 doctors had given the medical condition a specific name and realised the cause was the asbestos the workers were handling by 1930 the major asbestos manufactures had already done there own scientific research which concluded that the asbestos was extremely toxic if ingested. Despite this and even with mounting scientific evidence they pushed on increasing production right through to the 1970,s which by then doctors and scientists had already proven that the asbestos caused a specific cancer, with only small exposure needed, there'd proved that the fibres would lie around polluting for hundreds of years, that the industry has already killed tens of thousands and that tens of thousand more would die without doing something.

Despite this knowledge we didn't actually ban asbestos fully in this country till 1999....100 years of knowing and 70 years after the industry itself knew it was deadly. They managed to get this extra time by bribing unscrupulous doctors, lawyers, politicians and scientists to counter the mounting evidence being brought by the majority of decent doctors and scientists.

Even today in the untied states and many other countries it's still used widely in pipe lagging ,clothes, furniture,because there still managing to lobby the right people and offer counter arguments to the widely accepted science that it causes cancer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"right - great - another fact - ta - don't believe any of it - simple as that - long ago stopped believing anything like this that was intrinsically linked to taxing people - those in power couldn't lie straight in bed - have we all not realised that by now ????.

I find the whole public perceived "conspiracy" angle of climate change as a very interesting note in its own right, I find it interesting because I'm intrigued by the mysterious and the unknown for which conspiracies fit into.

The human brain is very good at creating a picture of something that fits in with our "held" beliefs and lifestyle, we can mould facts, figures and history, ignore bits that don't fit and research bits that do.

Scientists are actually well aware of this way the brain works, it's why they peer review their experiments,theories and data.

In fact one of the most respected physics professors recently came up with a theory that broke the 1st law of thermodynamics, he wasn't derided or laughed at or shunned, they just went over the science of it, that's how it works that's how things progress, we go off the best theory that the data concludes, right now that best data concludes man made climate change is happening.... Nobody is saying it's infallible nobody is saying it's guaranteed... There saying the best available data we have shows climate is being changed by man made C02.

All these other theories that keep getting mentioned like sun spots, natural variation, volcanoes, El nino,... They've all been scientifically looked at and they ALL failed the science!.

Now there may well be something we haven't thought of, another theory, data we haven't yet thought to collect... But until we find something else.

Man made c02 altering the climate fits with the science, it fits with the data, it fits with the history, it's peer reviewed by thousands and thousand of people, people like Stephen hawking!.

Now before we get all doom and gloom let's remember all we can do is go off the current data and models and those models show that we need to seriously cut back on producing c02 and methane, just like we had to cut back on CFC,s to stop ozone depletion (which we did and hey pesto it got better).

Nobody in science is denying that we might head back into the ice age from the Holocene we currently enjoy... And when the data shows that we might need to increase those gases?, but right now it isn't, its clearly showing a warming trend and this trend is faster than a natural trend that occurred in the past and we know that a warmer planet will cause untold misery and FINANCIAL problems (yeah it's all about the money ).

Now if like me you love a good conspiracy! Look no further than asbestos, used widely in the mid 1800s , doctors first noticed a terrible lung condition that afflicted it's workers around 1880 by 1910 doctors had given the medical condition a specific name and realised the cause was the asbestos the workers were handling by 1930 the major asbestos manufactures had already done there own scientific research which concluded that the asbestos was extremely toxic if ingested. Despite this and even with mounting scientific evidence they pushed on increasing production right through to the 1970,s which by then doctors and scientists had already proven that the asbestos caused a specific cancer, with only small exposure needed, there'd proved that the fibres would lie around polluting for hundreds of years, that the industry has already killed tens of thousands and that tens of thousand more would die without doing something.

Despite this knowledge we didn't actually ban asbestos fully in this country till 1999....100 years of knowing and 70 years after the industry itself knew it was deadly. They managed to get this extra time by bribing unscrupulous doctors, lawyers, politicians and scientists to counter the mounting evidence being brought by the majority of decent doctors and scientists.

Even today in the untied states and many other countries it's still used widely in pipe lagging ,clothes, furniture,because there still managing to lobby the right people and offer counter arguments to the widely accepted science that it causes cancer."

Who said anything about man made global warming being a conspiracy its not its a con simply invented to stealth tax us.

Other users have pointed out that the save the planet eco warriors were banging on about us damaging the ozone layer and we needed to recycle immediately to save the ozone layer but as other have pointed out ...The planet saved its own ozone layer all by itself ..so I think there is some proof there to believe as many do that man made global warming is a con simply invented to fleece us for more cash through stealth taxation.

Whats the next conspiracy theory ..That government and councils have tried as hard as they can to stealth tax us with a further road tax simply for sitting in our cars in traffic jams I think that conspiracy theory was called congestion charging.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'm going to throw my hat in to the "I don't give a shit" corner - one way or another the human race is fucked, but not in my lifetime

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Its on tonight again 10pm bbc4

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I'm going to throw my hat in to the "I don't give a shit" corner - one way or another the human race is fucked, but not in my lifetime "

Well fingers crossed that one of those thousands of comets whizzing around in our solar system don't get thrown onto earths orbital path ..that would get the greens knickers in a twist as the impact would heat up the planet a hell of a lot more than 1.5 degrees ...ime getting a conspiracy theory here ..

not to distant future we learn there is a comet ona collision course with with earth. The eco warriors blame us for not throwing the right rubbish in the right bin and also not disposing of enough platic bags...the government get wind of this and suddenly we have to pay a stealth tax for being the merchants of our own doom

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heOwlMan  over a year ago

Altrincham


"Its on tonight again 10pm bbc4 "

Thanks - just set the wee box thingy to record it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Its on tonight again 10pm bbc4

Thanks - just set the wee box thingy to record it "

Yes yw, its a good program

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm going to throw my hat in to the "I don't give a shit" corner - one way or another the human race is fucked, but not in my lifetime "
.

A perfectly admirable stance... but i wouldn't bet on that!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't and its actually the earths natural cycle "

I agree, so damned obvious. Just research historical weather and it's all there to sea.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By *hae300Woman  over a year ago

North West


"I don't and its actually the earths natural cycle

I agree, so damned obvious. Just research historical weather and it's all there to sea. "

give this man a cigar

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

0.3749

0