|
PANIC PANIC PANIC
2007 to Be Warmest Year on Record, Forecasters Say John Roach for National Geographic News January 4, 2007 An El Niņo weather phenomenon combined with high levels of greenhouse gases are likely to make 2007 the warmest year ever recorded, British climate scientists said today. 2007 to Be Warmest Year on Record, Forecasters Say or maybe not. |
Originally Posted by Prasius
(Post 7134599)
I am very sceptical of man-made climate change, however, still supports the idea that switching lights off when your not in the room is a good idea. ;)
You mean the millions and millions of acres of rainforest thats torn down in order to grow Soya, mainly eaten, oddly enough, by the same people who demonise me for not walking 90 miles home at weekends? No I don't - or more to the point, they simplify it so massively that the fine details regarding cyclic climate change, and the effect that human activity has on it, are wiped out in order to satisfy the "YOUR KILLING THE PLANET!!!" bunch. What is beyond doubt, however, is that the Government and some companies are cynically exploiting the climate-change issue for revenue raising and profit making reasons. There is so much that could be done to lesson the impact of humans on this planet, yet, because the vast majority of the truely worthwhile ones involve either spending money nationally to subsidise solar panels for housing ect, making a stand against countries such as Brazil to pressure them to halt illegal and legal logging in the amazon, and encouraging and supporting developing nations to utilise renewable energy rather than build coal power station after coal power station. The nonsense such as Vauxhalls latest marketing gimmick encouraging people to trade in their old "polluting" car in order to buy a nice, shiny, newly made "less polluting" car and the BBC's constant unbalanced propoganda is what makes me totally sick of the whole climate change issue; let alone those self-promoting arseholes who claim to be musicians, lecturing me on my carbon footprint, while they fly around the world constantly with their 20 person entourage, burn 1000's of watts of electricity powering their massive screens, huge amps, and shove cocaine up their nose grown and processed in illegally logged rainforest clearings. It wasn't that long ago that the same bunch were warning that all the trees were going to die in 10 years because of acid rain, and looking out of my window - the trees still look fine ;) I agree with pretty much all of that One thing though, companies making a profit from a real solution would be a great thing, that would mean letting the good old market sort it out. |
Originally Posted by Suresh
(Post 7134731)
PANIC PANIC PANIC
2007 to Be Warmest Year on Record, Forecasters Say John Roach for National Geographic News January 4, 2007 An El Niņo weather phenomenon combined with high levels of greenhouse gases are likely to make 2007 the warmest year ever recorded, British climate scientists said today. 2007 to Be Warmest Year on Record, Forecasters Say or maybe not. |
er nope - hottest was 1998 and no average warming since then. You obviously dont read anything I put on here do you?!
|
Read a very good article this evening on global warming / climate change (call it what you like). Keep an open mind and read this. Quite technical at times, but an interesting read none the less.
|
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 7134807)
er nope - hottest was 1998 and no average warming since then. You obviously dont read anything I put on here do you?!
I said 'or one of' and if you look it's pretty clear we are seeing rapid warming, and please don't ask me to read stuff written by Melanie Phillips, hardly gospel is it. All I ever ask is for an open mind. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif |
Thanks for the useful links guys will take a look when I have the time.
I think some people are getting me wrong here, I am not saying man has made no contribution to what is happening and 'yes' I know where man made water vapour etc comes from:rolleyes: its comments like "mainly caused by human activities" that I have a problem with, all this scare mongering without proper debate, and when someone does speak out there shouted down as being a conspiracy theorists, or in the pockets of oil barons if they are scientists, I think some people forget that there is quite an industry forming around alternate energy now, so you can quite easily put such an accusation to the scientists who say its all mans fault. There is overwhelming evidence to support the natural cycle of things in the very ground we walk on on, weather we like it or not the planet will get hotter and the planet will get cooler and we can do jack ****e about it. The only way to be shore about whats bull and whats not I suppose is to learn about it, which I plan on doing, the main reason I posted this thread was because I thought the argument was getting too one sided, and after doing research on some of the supposed facts being used I found them a bit miss leading, this rings alarm bells in my head, I'm no conspiracy theorist:hjtwofing but I ain't no fool ether!, if I think something sounds wrong I'm not one to just go along with it, unlike the majority of our country that seems to be at the moment:rolleyes: . Nice to see more posts and some strong opinions too, find it quite funny how personal people get, and how so many people think they know so much when they in fact know so little, I know little myself actually if I'm honest, but even if I know little about a subject it doesn't stop me from smelling bull**** and want to know whats really going on. |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 7135292)
I dont understand why you want to have a row about this.
I said 'or one of' and if you look it's pretty clear we are seeing rapid warming, and please don't ask me to read stuff written by Melanie Phillips, hardly gospel is it. All I ever ask is for an open mind. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif |
In 1941, a Serbian astrophysicist named Milutin Milankovitch published a mathematical model that mapped out climate change as far back as the Pleistocene era to the far distant future.
His theory was almost ignored until the computer age when new methods of calculation confirmed his theory was correct. Basically, his theory explains the earths orbit around the sun varies in three axis. Eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Eccentricity THe earth does not have a perfectly circular orbit. It varies in eccentricity from 0.0005 degrees to 0.0607 degrees (currently at 0.016). A complete cycle taking aproximately 100,000 years. Obliquity This is the amount of tilt of the earths axis away from the orbital plane. This tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees (currently at 23.5) A complete cycle takes around 40.000 years. Precession This is the change in orientation of the earths rotational axis and takes around 20,000 years for a complete cycle. Using these three cycles, Milankovitch was able to fomulate a mathematical model that acutately mapped out climate change. You can find out all about it by doing a Google search for Milankovitch's orbital variation theory. It explains the REAL truth about global warming. Here is a quote from Milutin Milankovich's memoirs, "not because I thought I was such an important person, but because I have lived in an historically interesting and turbulent period, and I described these events as a trustworthy witness. My work spanning some 30 years, has been closely connected with the works of other scientists who have used my results in their respective fields. The mutual collaboration has been documented with more than 600 letters and 100 publications. Therefore, these memoirs are, for a good part, the history of the branch of the sciences called "Astronomical Theory of Climatic Changes"(translation, Berger, 2001)." |
Came across this tonight, the BBC have an article on the same thing but the two articles differ greatly.
I'm guessing the national geographic is probably a more reliable source for info? The BBC site does seem to sensationalise a bit:rolleyes: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story New Ice Core Reveals 800,000 Years of Climate History An interesting quote from the National G site. "Meanwhile, the warmest period was during the last interglacial period, which is an interval of warmer global average temperature that separates ice ages. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today." from the BBC "Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms." So who are we supposed to believe? and if its true that Co2 is so important to climate change, then where did all that CO2 come from 130,000 years ago? wasn't us was it, and how come if we have higher Co2 now than in the last 800,000 years, how could it have been hotter 130,000 years ago?:wonder: unless its not just down to Co2. |
Another thing to think about. Saw a comment recently, but haven't researched further, that the Russian temperature stations fell into disuse (or a lot did) after the fall of the Soviet Empire. These were used for the calculation of the 'average global' temperature and so how did this lack of information affect things?
Just another data point .... Dave |
Yesterday, I wrote to the Advertising Standards Agency about an advert funded by the government that states that humans carbon footprints are directly linked to climate change. (the one with the tar footprints)
I pointed out that this was at best unproven and at worst an outright lie and that the advert should be banned. I await a response... |
Originally Posted by Abdabz
(Post 7135769)
Yesterday, I wrote to the Advertising Standards Agency about an advert funded by the government that states that humans carbon footprints are directly linked to climate change. (the one with the tar footprints)
I pointed out that this was at best unproven and at worst an outright lie and that the advert should be banned. I await a response... |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 7134782)
I thought it is the hottest ever (or one of the hottest) so far!
I partly like your habit of dismissing other opinions because they dont suit yours Martin, and then when challenged having no response. I challenged your dismal of the 17000 strong petition - NO RESPONSE. I now challenge your dismissal of the Mel Phillips article - did you read it? Did it contain factual inaccuracies? Or do you just like being dismissive with no intellectual basis to back up your position? |
Originally Posted by Martin2005
(Post 7135292)
I dont understand why you want to have a row about this.
I said 'or one of' and if you look it's pretty clear we are seeing rapid warming, and please don't ask me to read stuff written by Melanie Phillips, hardly gospel is it. All I ever ask is for an open mind. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif |
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 7136006)
I was correcting this statement - as I have already said 1998 was the hottest year recently, and during the last interglacial, it was 5C warmer than now.
I partly like your habit of dismissing other opinions because they dont suit yours Martin, and then when challenged having no response. I challenged your dismal of the 17000 strong petition - NO RESPONSE. I now challenge your dismissal of the Mel Phillips article - did you read it? Did it contain factual inaccuracies? Or do you just like being dismissive with no intellectual basis to back up your position? As I've said I have a healthy scepiticism. I also said I believe in cause and effect. |
Originally Posted by jonc
(Post 7136235)
Can you show me a graph that corralates increase of man made CO2 in the atmosphere with this one one?
|
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 7136006)
I was correcting this statement - as I have already said 1998 was the hottest year recently, and during the last interglacial, it was 5C warmer than now.
I partly like your habit of dismissing other opinions because they dont suit yours Martin, and then when challenged having no response. I challenged your dismal of the 17000 strong petition - NO RESPONSE. I now challenge your dismissal of the Mel Phillips article - did you read it? Did it contain factual inaccuracies? Or do you just like being dismissive with no intellectual basis to back up your position? Media Matters - 700 Club anchor touted global warming skeptics' petition reportedly signed by non-scientists, fictitious characters For the last time, I don't have a position, I'm just not prepared to dismiss the notion that GW is man made. There is 2 sides to this debate, you only seem interested in one of them, why is that? PS, I hope and prey you are right, if your not though, god help us. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands