FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Global Warming numbers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't and its actually the earths natural cycle " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" 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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
" 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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" 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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"Its on tonight again 10pm bbc4 " Thanks - just set the wee box thingy to record it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |