Global Cooling, Its official!!

Aliktren

nice pretty graphs here....

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

moonrakerz

As someone has already said, this issue turns people in "religious zealots".

As usual, this thread has now dissolved into the "true believers" quoting text after text after text to the "non believers"- just as fanatical Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Flat Earthers all do !

Give it a rest !! Please.

Aliktren

err, no, it hasnt, I'm not a zealot, people keep asking questions and I'm pointing them at answers, it's simply convienient for you to assume that this represents zealotry as you probably dont like the results, and if you dont like it dont read it, as I pointed out I think in my first post , had anyone provided significant evidence of an alternate theory, which I cant see they have, then the debate wouldnt be so one sided

exil

This is from a political piece by someone in Fox News. And therefore more or less worthless on its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This shows that 2007 was indeed colder than 2005 or 2006 - but still way above the long term average.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability_figures.html#g_a_r_temp

This shows the Jan. 2008 was unusually cold globally COMPARED WITH RECENT YEARS - but again was no lower than the long-term average.

Meantime in the UK February 2008 was 1.1 degrees warmer than the long term average. My daffs were out VERY early indeed!

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080228.html

Here's the global forecast for 2008

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html

Forecast to be the coolest in 8 years - but again much warmer than the long term average.

You really can't tell very much from 1 year's figures - still less from 1 month's. Global warming does not mean that every year is warmer than the year before.

I look forward to nobel prizes being handed out to people on here who have proved CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Cardelia

My £0.02:

The chemical symbol for carbon dioxide is CO2. Well, strictly speaking the 2 should be a subscript but this board won't allow subscripts so I'll let that slide. Anyway, the point is that it is capital C, capital O, subscript 2. Not co2, Co2, c02 or any of the other representations I've seen in the thread so far.

If you can't even get the basic science correct (and this isn't just the odd typo, it's a consistent misunderstanding from many posters on both sides of the argument), what hope do you have of persuading me that you understand the more complicated aspects of climate science?

Cardew

exil wrote: »

I look forward to nobel prizes being handed out to people on here who have proved CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Well they handed a Nobel prize to Al Gore for showing a PowerPoint presentation as one disgruntled scientist remarked!

Aliktren

you'll notice I've steered clear of mentioning Al Gore

Aliktren

Cardelia wrote: »

My £0.02:

The chemical symbol for carbon dioxide is CO2. Well, strictly speaking the 2 should be a subscript but this board won't allow subscripts so I'll let that slide. Anyway, the point is that it is capital C, capital O, subscript 2. Not co2, Co2, c02 or any of the other representations I've seen in the thread so far.

If you can't even get the basic science correct (and this isn't just the odd typo, it's a consistent misunderstanding from many posters on both sides of the argument), what hope do you have of persuading me that you understand the more complicated aspects of climate science?

you answered your own question - if the board doesnt allow them the best you get anyway is an approximation so why bother with that effort - I dont think anyone is misunderstanding that we are not talking about carbon dioxide whichever view they favour, like saying UR in a text, we might not like it, but its understandable nontheless

RedSpecs

Blimey. Now that's what I call a heated debate! :rotfl:

Its really a very basic concept. Okay, so it isn't, but the basic upshot of it is to consume less and waste less. That, in turn, will save you money (the whole point of this website).

If anybody's watched the brilliant series on the Beeb recently called Earth: The Power of the Planet, then you'll know that we humans have been responsible for more change to the surface of the Earth and its climate than any other species in its entire history. So much so that scientists have declared our times to be known as the Human Era (there was a fancy name for it but I can't remember that right now). We are stripping the planet of its natural resources and dumping it unceremoniously into landfill sites. That's just the start.

Emissions released since the Industrial Revolution have all mounted up and created a cloud of gas at the top of the first layer of atmosphere and with the increase in the world's population this emission cloud is growing at quite a rate. Add to that, oil is being consumed at such a rate, we are now indeed at peak oil, and there ain't much of it left. Good thing too in my opinion. If we can't use oil, then we can't produce emissions :T

I could go on for hours about this, but I really don't have the time.

There have been two types of people in this discussion: those who are aware of the issues over global warming and who see it as a priority to do something about it on both a personal and global level; and those who are totally seduced by consumerism and don't like to be told they have to slow down their consumption and waste less resources. No doubt, alongside your private jets are large gas-guzzling cars, and you have to have the latest this or that gadget to survive (don't get me started on mobile phone components and the Congo). You don't want the party to end.

Unfortunately people, one way or another its going to. Either climate change will tip so bad in the wrong direction that the result will be huge reduction in the world's population by natural disaster, or we will slow down our impact on the planet and may be granted more time before the planet 'decides' (don't want you thinking I'm in any way religous and think the Earth is an autonomous being!) its time for a new dominant species.

As the great Dr Iain Stewart (of Earth: TPotP) says: the Earth is a great survivor, it'll look after itself. Its not the planet we need to save, its us!

I suggest you all buy the BBC DVD and get an education. And no, I don't work for the Beeb or have an agenda. I'm just telling it as it is for the good of the planet and the people on it.

So there.

Cardelia

I didn't mean the 2, I realise the limitations of the board software on this. I meant the CO part. I understand that typing co2 might be considered pure laziness on the part of the poster, but consistently writing c02 isn't laziness, it's a lack of understanding. Likewise consistently writing Co2 - that's dicobalt,* not carbon dioxide.

If you don't understand the difference between c02 and CO2, or Co2 and CO2, then you shouldn't use the terminology. And if you don't understand basic science like this, how can you possibly read the quoted sources and come to an informed conclusion on the issue?


* = yes, I know it doesn't actually exist as a molecule, but that's beside the point