Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming
03 February 2013, 06:25 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the scientists are telling us that there has been no significant increase in GBW for the last 16 years or so,and that neither do they predict any for some years to come.
They say that the percentage content of the atmosphere of CO2 by volume is 0.038%.
That seems so low that it must be virtuall immeasurable.
Never mind, the politicians have made an awful lot of money out of the populace with the GBW scare and are continuing to do so. They must love those scientists, including the ones who came up with the big scare story when the GBW measuring device came up with an artificially high reading after solar heating on the lifting balloon caused the temperature readings to be all wrong!
Les
They say that the percentage content of the atmosphere of CO2 by volume is 0.038%.
That seems so low that it must be virtuall immeasurable.
Never mind, the politicians have made an awful lot of money out of the populace with the GBW scare and are continuing to do so. They must love those scientists, including the ones who came up with the big scare story when the GBW measuring device came up with an artificially high reading after solar heating on the lifting balloon caused the temperature readings to be all wrong!
Les
Never mind what the majority of scientists say, we should ignore them, and focus only upon the ones who come up with counter arguments that support the cynical and daft conspiratorial nonsense that prevails on here
So much for keeping an open mind
03 February 2013, 07:50 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 7 years since this thread was first posted, we're all delighted to know that MMGW has been exposed as myth by the sages of SN.
Never mind what the majority of scientists say, we should ignore them, and focus only upon the ones who come up with counter arguments that support the cynical and daft conspiratorial nonsense that prevails on here
So much for keeping an open mind
Never mind what the majority of scientists say, we should ignore them, and focus only upon the ones who come up with counter arguments that support the cynical and daft conspiratorial nonsense that prevails on here
So much for keeping an open mind
03 February 2013, 07:55 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for me EFA = essential fatty acids?
please excuse my ignorance but whats the SN meaning? - its been a response on a few threads - and its been over my head lol
please excuse my ignorance but whats the SN meaning? - its been a response on a few threads - and its been over my head lol
03 February 2013, 09:30 PM
#35
03 February 2013, 10:00 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes complete sense to save resources and encourage recycling as we live on a finite world with finite resources whether you believe in man made global warming or not. Surprises me this generation of kids aren't more into recycling.........but then with the teachers of today...
it suggests they are made very aware of resources and the basic rules for extending them - without them even realising.
recycling, re-using waste is extremely important imo - and while im very sceptical of climate change - as there is no real definitive answer, and its used as a tool to extort income.
climate change cannot be dismissed, or even confirmed at present.
this does not however effect the fact, resources/processess we have are more efficient, when the used for several different purposes - given how we generate energy
03 February 2013, 10:11 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my kids constantly come home from school and ensure i dispose of rubbish in accordance with recycling patterns.
it suggests they are made very aware of resources and the basic rules for extending them - without them even realising.
recycling, re-using waste is extremely important imo - and while im very sceptical of climate change - as there is no real definitive answer, and its used as a tool to extort income.
climate change cannot be dismissed, or even confirmed at present.
this does not however effect the fact, resources/processess we have are more efficient, when the used for several different purposes - given how we generate energy
it suggests they are made very aware of resources and the basic rules for extending them - without them even realising.
recycling, re-using waste is extremely important imo - and while im very sceptical of climate change - as there is no real definitive answer, and its used as a tool to extort income.
climate change cannot be dismissed, or even confirmed at present.
this does not however effect the fact, resources/processess we have are more efficient, when the used for several different purposes - given how we generate energy
03 February 2013, 11:43 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 February 2013, 03:04 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 7 years since this thread was first posted, we're all delighted to know that GW has been exposed as myth by the sages of SN.
Never mind what the majority of scientists say, we should ignore them, and focus only upon the ones who come up with counter arguments that support the cynical and daft conspiratorial nonsense that prevails on here
So much for keeping an open mind
Never mind what the majority of scientists say, we should ignore them, and focus only upon the ones who come up with counter arguments that support the cynical and daft conspiratorial nonsense that prevails on here
So much for keeping an open mind
Les
04 February 2013, 04:11 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMGW is a myth. End of.
Climate change however....of course that exists, but why should you and I have to pay extra money to the government because of it?
Nothing anybody does will change the course of the earths natural climate cycle.
So why do we have to pay £300-£500 to tax our high performance cars???
Climate change however....of course that exists, but why should you and I have to pay extra money to the government because of it?
Nothing anybody does will change the course of the earths natural climate cycle.
So why do we have to pay £300-£500 to tax our high performance cars???
04 February 2013, 05:03 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMGW is a myth. End of.
Climate change however....of course that exists, but why should you and I have to pay extra money to the government because of it?
Nothing anybody does will change the course of the earths natural climate cycle.
So why do we have to pay £300-£500 to tax our high performance cars???
Climate change however....of course that exists, but why should you and I have to pay extra money to the government because of it?
Nothing anybody does will change the course of the earths natural climate cycle.
So why do we have to pay £300-£500 to tax our high performance cars???
05 February 2013, 03:28 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigma Sam retired from Sigma a few years ago. He continued to help Sigma users on other forums (after the old webclown banned him here as he was preparing the forum to fleece IB and use) and he carried on after hed retired too, but he completely stopped a couple of years ago.
05 February 2013, 08:38 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Martin2005;10975831]
You know this for sure.... how?
Call it an educated guess.
Funny how it used to be called Global Warming before they realised that the Earth was actually cooling. So now it is called 'Climate Change'.
Are you saying that you know for sure that MMGW does exist? 100%?
You know this for sure.... how?
Funny how it used to be called Global Warming before they realised that the Earth was actually cooling. So now it is called 'Climate Change'.
Are you saying that you know for sure that MMGW does exist? 100%?
05 February 2013, 09:27 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Gear Head;10975959]
I can tell you with 100% certainty that I DO NOT KNOW.
And I'm 99% you don't either
And I'm 99% you don't either
Last edited by Martin2005; 05 February 2013 at 09:33 AM.
05 February 2013, 09:34 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Martin2005;10975989]Makes two of us then.
But I do know that our government, along with many others, is a corrupt, deviant and soulless group of people that treat the public like idiots.
As I said, it's an educated guess.
But I do know that our government, along with many others, is a corrupt, deviant and soulless group of people that treat the public like idiots.
As I said, it's an educated guess.
05 February 2013, 10:58 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest world figures show there is no Global Warming. There is climate change but not the same thing. More importantly are axis changes. Nothing to do with us.
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/37...ped-the-sahara
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/37...ped-the-sahara
05 February 2013, 03:15 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the GBW supporters claim that "climate change" is caused by GBW? and if so why are they still blaming GBW for it when there is no significant GBW at the moment.
Incidentally, what actual climate change are we seeing at the moment?
Les
Incidentally, what actual climate change are we seeing at the moment?
Les
05 February 2013, 03:30 PM
#49
05 February 2013, 11:54 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, obviously you shouldn't listen to me on this subject, as I have already stated I know very little about the science involved.
I have pasted in a section of an interview with Professor Brian ***, who I believe is far more qualified, you should at very least acknowledge his point of view.
Interviewer: So, as these little tiny things in the vast universe, are we really capable of destroying our Earth?
BC: Oh, yeah! Absolutely. We were more capable of it in the ’60s, if you look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. We still are. We still have enough weapons, but it’s unlikely that we’ll do that at the moment. So now, you’re looking at more subtle issues than just blowing the whole thing up. Climate change is certainly a potential problem. It’s a nasty issue in the U.K., but certainly in the U.S. because all that science does is tell you the most likely thing that will happen given the available data of our understanding of the climate. Given the data we’ve got and the understanding we’ve got, then we’re committed to a temperature rise. At the upper end of the predictions, it’s catastrophic. It’s absolute disaster. If you’re looking at a four-degree temperature rise by the end of the century, then we’re in deep ****. But if you look at the lower end, it is perhaps manageable.
The reason there’s a big range of predictions is because it is difficult. That’s the non-political thing to say. You can’t argue with that, because that’s the science. The science is the science. It’s there. Here’s the data, here’s the understanding, there it is. The policy comes in with the question of, “What do you do with that information?” You can take the view that you do nothing. You could say, “I think the markets will deal with it. Insurance premiums will go up.” Or, you could take a more active role and you increase things and put green taxes on things, so I can see where the political debate comes from. The problem with the issue is that it’s turned into an attack on science on some level. That’s ridiculous. The science is what the science is, and it is completely apolitical. It’s a problematic issue, it’s an issue that will have to have a political solution, but all that scientists can do is tell you what the current level of understanding is. Which is, obviously greenhouse gas emissions raise the temperature. That is true. I don’t think anyone dissents from that. Maybe these people who believe in the Mayan prophecy and that we didn’t land on the moon—the ones who will get hit by a bus—but it’s at that level of nonsense. If you don’t think the greenhouse effect is a problem, then you should be sent to Venus. That would be the only useful thing to do. [Laughs.] Send a spacecraft to Venus full of all the people who don’t think the greenhouse effect is a problem. That’d be fun. Get rid of ’em. They’d melt. Quickly.
06 February 2013, 04:32 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt regarding greenhouse gasses making it warmer, its just the question of how significant industrialised CO2 emmissions affects the climate. And whether green taxes will significantly alter the climate.
I also wonder how much industrial CO2 is roduced to say the extra CO2 produced by the human race increasing by a billion every xx amount of years - and of course the more westernised the globe becomes the more battery farming of CO2 producing food we create, some would argue natural progression of life increasing CO2.. Then compare that to all the natural sources of CO2, volcanoes etc.
It would be interesting to see what the data is, then compare that to the effects of solar seasons and other natural forces that affect climate other than CO2..
I'm all for being energy efficiant and carbon aware but is the stuff that green taxes are aimed at really going to save the planet? Not sure!!
I also wonder how much industrial CO2 is roduced to say the extra CO2 produced by the human race increasing by a billion every xx amount of years - and of course the more westernised the globe becomes the more battery farming of CO2 producing food we create, some would argue natural progression of life increasing CO2.. Then compare that to all the natural sources of CO2, volcanoes etc.
It would be interesting to see what the data is, then compare that to the effects of solar seasons and other natural forces that affect climate other than CO2..
I'm all for being energy efficiant and carbon aware but is the stuff that green taxes are aimed at really going to save the planet? Not sure!!
07 February 2013, 03:19 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, obviously you shouldn't listen to me on this subject, as I have already stated I know very little about the science involved.
I have pasted in a section of an interview with Professor Brian ***, who I believe is far more qualified, you should at very least acknowledge his point of view.
Interviewer: So, as these little tiny things in the vast universe, are we really capable of destroying our Earth?
BC: Oh, yeah! Absolutely. We were more capable of it in the ’60s, if you look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. We still are. We still have enough weapons, but it’s unlikely that we’ll do that at the moment. So now, you’re looking at more subtle issues than just blowing the whole thing up. Climate change is certainly a potential problem. It’s a nasty issue in the U.K., but certainly in the U.S. because all that science does is tell you the most likely thing that will happen given the available data of our understanding of the climate. Given the data we’ve got and the understanding we’ve got, then we’re committed to a temperature rise. At the upper end of the predictions, it’s catastrophic. It’s absolute disaster. If you’re looking at a four-degree temperature rise by the end of the century, then we’re in deep ****. But if you look at the lower end, it is perhaps manageable.
The reason there’s a big range of predictions is because it is difficult. That’s the non-political thing to say. You can’t argue with that, because that’s the science. The science is the science. It’s there. Here’s the data, here’s the understanding, there it is. The policy comes in with the question of, “What do you do with that information?” You can take the view that you do nothing. You could say, “I think the markets will deal with it. Insurance premiums will go up.” Or, you could take a more active role and you increase things and put green taxes on things, so I can see where the political debate comes from. The problem with the issue is that it’s turned into an attack on science on some level. That’s ridiculous. The science is what the science is, and it is completely apolitical. It’s a problematic issue, it’s an issue that will have to have a political solution, but all that scientists can do is tell you what the current level of understanding is. Which is, obviously greenhouse gas emissions raise the temperature. That is true. I don’t think anyone dissents from that. Maybe these people who believe in the Mayan prophecy and that we didn’t land on the moon—the ones who will get hit by a bus—but it’s at that level of nonsense. If you don’t think the greenhouse effect is a problem, then you should be sent to Venus. That would be the only useful thing to do. [Laughs.] Send a spacecraft to Venus full of all the people who don’t think the greenhouse effect is a problem. That’d be fun. Get rid of ’em. They’d melt. Quickly.
I have pasted in a section of an interview with Professor Brian ***, who I believe is far more qualified, you should at very least acknowledge his point of view.
Interviewer: So, as these little tiny things in the vast universe, are we really capable of destroying our Earth?
BC: Oh, yeah! Absolutely. We were more capable of it in the ’60s, if you look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. We still are. We still have enough weapons, but it’s unlikely that we’ll do that at the moment. So now, you’re looking at more subtle issues than just blowing the whole thing up. Climate change is certainly a potential problem. It’s a nasty issue in the U.K., but certainly in the U.S. because all that science does is tell you the most likely thing that will happen given the available data of our understanding of the climate. Given the data we’ve got and the understanding we’ve got, then we’re committed to a temperature rise. At the upper end of the predictions, it’s catastrophic. It’s absolute disaster. If you’re looking at a four-degree temperature rise by the end of the century, then we’re in deep ****. But if you look at the lower end, it is perhaps manageable.
The reason there’s a big range of predictions is because it is difficult. That’s the non-political thing to say. You can’t argue with that, because that’s the science. The science is the science. It’s there. Here’s the data, here’s the understanding, there it is. The policy comes in with the question of, “What do you do with that information?” You can take the view that you do nothing. You could say, “I think the markets will deal with it. Insurance premiums will go up.” Or, you could take a more active role and you increase things and put green taxes on things, so I can see where the political debate comes from. The problem with the issue is that it’s turned into an attack on science on some level. That’s ridiculous. The science is what the science is, and it is completely apolitical. It’s a problematic issue, it’s an issue that will have to have a political solution, but all that scientists can do is tell you what the current level of understanding is. Which is, obviously greenhouse gas emissions raise the temperature. That is true. I don’t think anyone dissents from that. Maybe these people who believe in the Mayan prophecy and that we didn’t land on the moon—the ones who will get hit by a bus—but it’s at that level of nonsense. If you don’t think the greenhouse effect is a problem, then you should be sent to Venus. That would be the only useful thing to do. [Laughs.] Send a spacecraft to Venus full of all the people who don’t think the greenhouse effect is a problem. That’d be fun. Get rid of ’em. They’d melt. Quickly.
He is right of course about greenhouse gases and their effects and his example of the Venusian atmosphere is perfectly apt.
The point however is whether the CO2 in our atmosphere is actually causing an increase in global warming, at the moment it appears not!
The other point which has not been made is that water vapour is a very much more effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere than CO2.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pro-Line Motorsport
Car Parts For Sale
2
29 September 2015 07:36 PM