We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion
Comments
-
Bloody hell science for the insane!
spend your time rubbishing all sorts of data, take one fact out of context [which you of course now accept as worth more than all the other facts put together] put it into the next ice age mixer and shake well.
Warning may contain nuts.
I cant even be bothered to create a login for the torygraph to explain it to them. If anyone can be bothered can they ask which part of the system of carbon/co2/trapped heat they disagree with?Unsecured Debt [STRIKE]11,000 ish [/STRIKE]Feb 08 ok honestly more or less 12,000 and no more Credit available
Dec 09 4,100ish -waiting for the credit card bill,
I look forward to getting the bill through the post now.0 -
when yellowstone goes off again we won't need to care anymore been lots of quakes there lately are you worried?Nothing to see here, move along.0
-
username2003 wrote: »If anyone can be bothered can they ask which part of the system of carbon/co2/trapped heat they disagree with?
I think it's the" = Global Warming" bit they disagree with.
You can tell people the world is getting warmer until you are blue in the face, but when those people are suffering the highest snowfalls on record they just won't believe you.0 -
A brief period of very cold weather doesn't mean much more than those few exceptionally hot days (which the media also obsess over when it suits them). It's the media, not scientists that put much value in these vauge observations. It's the statistics over long periods of time that matter, and despite deviations, the average has cotinued to steadily rise for a long time now. This issue isn't being debated, it's an observation we can't really argue with. The Earth's average temperature has been going up significantly. The causes are being debated, but the warming itself isn't, which is why much of the media debate is so very misguided as it attacks the warming itself.
Also, many climate models that support global warming do predict global cooling for the next few years. The global warming predictions are complex, and many do take in to account that the temperature can go down as well as up. However, by reducing the concept of warming to the most simple issues the media have got the general public (and themselves) in to the idea that global warming predictions can never accomodate the idea of global cooling.
The can and do however. A couple of months ago I wrote a post on this board saying that short term global cooling (in the range of several decades at the most) caused by ocean cycles was being predicted, and that it doesn't mean global warming isn't also possible, just that it would hide many of the signs. I also said the media would jump on the topic and present it that global warming is wrong.0 -
It's the statistics over long periods of time that matter,
For the record, can you define what you mean by "long periods of time"?and despite deviations, the average has cotinued to steadily rise for a long time now.
But that's the point, it hasn't been getting warmer! Scientists can produce all the figures they like, but the plain fact is it is no warmer now than it was decades ago.This issue isn't being debated,
Yes it is, it is being debated by millions of people all over the world!it's an observation we can't really argue with.
Yes we can, IT'S NOT GETTING ANY WARMER!The Earth's average temperature has been going up significantly.
No it hasn't.The causes are being debated, but the warming itself isn't,
Yes it is, it's being debated all over the world!which is why much of the media debate is so very misguided as it attacks the warming itself.
That's because there isn't any warming.Also, many climate models that support global warming do predict global cooling for the next few years.
Surely ALL of the models should say the same thing? If some are predicting cooling first and others aren't then some of them, at least, are wrong.0 -
So basically it's all smoke, mirrors, guessing and some old bollox throw in for good measure. Anyway it won't matter when we all get wiped out by a big ole lump of passing space rock that could hit at any time.Nothing to see here, move along.0
-
It's the statistics over long periods of time that matter, and despite deviations, the average has cotinued to steadily rise for a long time now.
Oh dear ! the same old misleading stuff, the Al Gore movie has been dusted off again !
Yes - IT IS the statistics over "long periods of time that matter" - why then, do the man-made global warming fraternity only quote back a few tens of years or even "since records began". Events such as the Medieval Warm Period or the similar events around Viking and Roman times are ignored - or even worse, are deliberately deleted (a la Stalin) from the record.
I do not dispute that in the last 30 years the climate has changed - but I can remember the winter of 1962/63 and all the talk around that time of an impending ice age.
I am afraid I see nothing to convince me that the minor changes in the Earth's climate are due to man's activities - much more profound changes have happened in the "recent" past without any help from man.
20000 years ago Birmingham was under a mile of ice - what caused this to melt ? Neanderthals in their 4 X 4s ?
Why did the Vikings call Greenland, "Greenland" ? Because there was grass growing there !
To use a statement I have used before - the "science" behind the global warming lobby is akin to me saying :- "it has rained for the past three days, therefore it is going to rain for ever".0 -
Well I have absolutely no idea if we have entered a period of sustained Global Warming.
I have even less idea - if there is indeed GW - how much the human race is contributing to this warming.
Whatever you think of the provocative article, this quote seems to me to make sense:Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world.
As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.0 -
It's fairly simple:
'Long term' temperatures are measured to establish typical baseline rates of temperature change, that is to ascertain what is regarded as 'normal' changes in temperature, throughout time.
Measurements dating from around the beginning of industrialisation are used to show the rate of temperature increase since then. This is compared to the baseline changes and shown to be far in excess of what is regarded as normal.
Just in case you missed it, that's the "Rate of Temperature Increase".0 -
It's fairly simple:
'Long term' temperatures are measured to establish typical baseline rates of temperature change, that is to ascertain what is regarded as 'normal' changes in temperature, throughout time.
Measurements dating from around the beginning of industrialisation are used to show the rate of temperature increase since then. This is compared to the baseline changes and shown to be far in excess of what is regarded as normal.
Just in case you missed it, that's the "Rate of Temperature Increase".
Well, we haven't had thermometers long enough to have "long term" measurements, even less time when people were recording the temperature!
Normal changes in temprature? We know the UK has had tropical plants growing on it in the past and also been covered in ice, so anything in between those two must be considered as normal changes.
Measurements dating from around the beginning of industrialisation are useless. Very few (if any) people were taking measurements and writing them down. I suspect that those (if any) all lived in the UK or Europe. I doubt anyone was regularly taking the temperature in Vietnam, Australia, the artic and ant-artic, north and south america etc. So how can these non-existant measurements be used for anything?
So what you are saying is "measurements that were never taken or written down show that the temprature differers from what is REGARDED as normal". If we don't know what the temprature was, then we don't know what normal was/is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards