Global Cooling?
20 November 2008, 11:36 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW the urban heat sink, has been factored out. I think that the measurement are complimented by satelites and ocean temp readings.
I don't believe this is dodgy science, it's the best we've got right now for understand global temps
Coffee....I'll have beer instead
21 November 2008, 03:02 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts are that accurate measurements now show that global warming as such has stopped and even decreased. The Ice at the Poles has also been increasing. It was announced not long ago that the hole in the ozone layer has decreased significantly since the release of CFC's into the atmosphere has been stopped and was nothing to do with so called global warming anyway. Nasa discovered the earlier global temperature measurements were flawed because of the effects of the sun warming the balloons carrying the temperature probes as well!
Yes the climate is changing-as it has done historically on a cyclical basis. The very fact that the authorities now speak of "climate change" rather than that of global warming as said above shows them up for what they are!
Why do they want to double the passenger throughput at LHR if they are truly concerned about greenhouse gases? Do they acknowledge the fact that water vapour is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2? And how about the fact that if there was no natural greenhouse effect in our atmosphere that we would be all frozen stiff in a full Ice Age?
It is time that the lie was given to all this rubbish which is being spouted, which is as usual for the convenience of the politicians-as ever!
Les
Yes the climate is changing-as it has done historically on a cyclical basis. The very fact that the authorities now speak of "climate change" rather than that of global warming as said above shows them up for what they are!
Why do they want to double the passenger throughput at LHR if they are truly concerned about greenhouse gases? Do they acknowledge the fact that water vapour is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2? And how about the fact that if there was no natural greenhouse effect in our atmosphere that we would be all frozen stiff in a full Ice Age?
It is time that the lie was given to all this rubbish which is being spouted, which is as usual for the convenience of the politicians-as ever!
Les
21 November 2008, 03:51 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts are that accurate measurements now show that global warming as such has stopped and even decreased. The Ice at the Poles has also been increasing. It was announced not long ago that the hole in the ozone layer has decreased significantly since the release of CFC's into the atmosphere has been stopped and was nothing to do with so called global warming anyway. Nasa discovered the earlier global temperature measurements were flawed because of the effects of the sun warming the balloons carrying the temperature probes as well!
Yes the climate is changing-as it has done historically on a cyclical basis. The very fact that the authorities now speak of "climate change" rather than that of global warming as said above shows them up for what they are!
Why do they want to double the passenger throughput at LHR if they are truly concerned about greenhouse gases? Do they acknowledge the fact that water vapour is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2? And how about the fact that if there was no natural greenhouse effect in our atmosphere that we would be all frozen stiff in a full Ice Age?
It is time that the lie was given to all this rubbish which is being spouted, which is as usual for the convenience of the politicians-as ever!
Les
Yes the climate is changing-as it has done historically on a cyclical basis. The very fact that the authorities now speak of "climate change" rather than that of global warming as said above shows them up for what they are!
Why do they want to double the passenger throughput at LHR if they are truly concerned about greenhouse gases? Do they acknowledge the fact that water vapour is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2? And how about the fact that if there was no natural greenhouse effect in our atmosphere that we would be all frozen stiff in a full Ice Age?
It is time that the lie was given to all this rubbish which is being spouted, which is as usual for the convenience of the politicians-as ever!
Les
Does this help Les
A significant drop in global average temperature in January 2008 has led to speculation that the Earth is experiencing a period of sustained cooling.
A brief look at any temperature graph depicting January global average reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
There are a number of natural factors contributing to so-called interannual variability, the single most important being the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. The global climate is currently being influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña (see Met Office: Expert speaks on La Niña).
The current La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.
The La Niña has strengthened further during early 2008 and is now the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008 compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature has been influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.
However, once La Niña declines, it is very likely that renewed warming will occur as was the case when the Earth emerged from the strong La Niña events of 1989 and 1999.
January 2008 may seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 — the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño — but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.
In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 November 2008 at 03:52 PM.
21 November 2008, 03:58 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes thank you Martin, very interesting. Just shows how many different influences there are on the World's climate etc. We should also consider the effects of the next "Maunder Minimum" which we are said to be entering now.
Les
Les
21 November 2008, 04:17 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: gravesend, kent
Posts: 4,721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lets be honest, there's no defining answer to this subject is there?
radical weather has been around since year dot, as already said there have been years when you could skate the width of the thames, then there have been years when the river medway has dried up.
my personal take is that it's a cyclic phenomena. it's happened before and it'll happen again.
what i object to is a tax being wrapped up as a 'must do for the good of mankind' thing. every bloody thing you have to pay for for 'the good of the enviroment' FFS.
i can't help but look at it this way, if a politician was given the ultimate choice by [insert your religions maker here
] of resetting the world back to it's original climate or carry on reaping the taxes from the mess this planet is supposed to be in, what do you think they would choose?
i've gone off on a bit of a rant there haven't i
radical weather has been around since year dot, as already said there have been years when you could skate the width of the thames, then there have been years when the river medway has dried up.
my personal take is that it's a cyclic phenomena. it's happened before and it'll happen again.
what i object to is a tax being wrapped up as a 'must do for the good of mankind' thing. every bloody thing you have to pay for for 'the good of the enviroment' FFS.
i can't help but look at it this way, if a politician was given the ultimate choice by [insert your religions maker here
] of resetting the world back to it's original climate or carry on reaping the taxes from the mess this planet is supposed to be in, what do you think they would choose?i've gone off on a bit of a rant there haven't i
21 November 2008, 04:32 PM
#66
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing, no one is able to define exactly what AGW will do, even if it is happening. What exactly are the downsides of a warming planet compared to the benefits?
But, whether the change is man made or natural, the result will be the same, so we should be thinking about how to adapt, not prevent.
All the AGW crowd say we should be stopping this and stopping that, without giving a moments thought to the fact that it may be nothing to do with us, and therefore all our efforts are for nought.
If that is so, then we will be in a position of being totally unprepared to adapt to the changes and untold suffering will occur.
It is also possible that AGW is true, but we will not be able to, or have the will to in time, stop it, and so the chnages will still occur.
Either way, it would be in humankinds interests to look at how we will manage the change, not try to stop it.
Geezer
But, whether the change is man made or natural, the result will be the same, so we should be thinking about how to adapt, not prevent.
All the AGW crowd say we should be stopping this and stopping that, without giving a moments thought to the fact that it may be nothing to do with us, and therefore all our efforts are for nought.
If that is so, then we will be in a position of being totally unprepared to adapt to the changes and untold suffering will occur.
It is also possible that AGW is true, but we will not be able to, or have the will to in time, stop it, and so the chnages will still occur.
Either way, it would be in humankinds interests to look at how we will manage the change, not try to stop it.
Geezer
21 November 2008, 04:39 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing, no one is able to define exactly what AGW will do, even if it is happening. What exactly are the downsides of a warming planet compared to the benefits?
But, whether the change is man made or natural, the result will be the same, so we should be thinking about how to adapt, not prevent.
All the AGW crowd say we should be stopping this and stopping that, without giving a moments thought to the fact that it may be nothing to do with us, and therefore all our efforts are for nought.
If that is so, then we will be in a position of being totally unprepared to adapt to the changes and untold suffering will occur.
It is also possible that AGW is true, but we will not be able to, or have the will to in time, stop it, and so the chnages will still occur.
Either way, it would be in humankinds interests to look at how we will manage the change, not try to stop it.
Geezer
But, whether the change is man made or natural, the result will be the same, so we should be thinking about how to adapt, not prevent.
All the AGW crowd say we should be stopping this and stopping that, without giving a moments thought to the fact that it may be nothing to do with us, and therefore all our efforts are for nought.
If that is so, then we will be in a position of being totally unprepared to adapt to the changes and untold suffering will occur.
It is also possible that AGW is true, but we will not be able to, or have the will to in time, stop it, and so the chnages will still occur.
Either way, it would be in humankinds interests to look at how we will manage the change, not try to stop it.
Geezer
Agreed, and I'm sure that you don't really mean that we shouln't try and stop it.
21 November 2008, 04:50 PM
#68
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't believe in AGW as you know, but even if it were true, then countries like China and India and Brazil are going to far outweigh any action taken by western nations, and the doomsayers say we are already nearly at tipping point, so doesn't it make sense to plan to manage the change?
Geezer
21 November 2008, 04:58 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I do. Ok, that sounds like an odd statement, but whether climate change is caused by us or not, the climate will change eventually outside of our control, as sure as eggs is eggs.
Personally I don't believe in AGW as you know, but even if it were true, then countries like China and India and Brazil are going to far outweigh any action taken by western nations, and the doomsayers say we are already nearly at tipping point, so doesn't it make sense to plan to manage the change?
Geezer
Personally I don't believe in AGW as you know, but even if it were true, then countries like China and India and Brazil are going to far outweigh any action taken by western nations, and the doomsayers say we are already nearly at tipping point, so doesn't it make sense to plan to manage the change?
Geezer
If we do nothing we might have a situation significantly worse than if we do something, that is why doing nothing is such a poor option IMO.
21 November 2008, 07:00 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 November 2008, 07:12 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
I agree with both Geezers and Martins comments completely
Geezers -- basically we can’t do anything about it -- lets play the hand we are dealt with.
And Martin's laudable attitude that it’s still worth being "kind to the environment"
I try and recycle where possible -- hate any of my children wasting food, ride my bike to work etc etc
But I have no illusions that it will change anything on the global scale that would be needed to make a difference
Basically -- if the world powers were serious about stopping GW etc, an obvious first step would be a massive redistribution of wealth and resource consumption to the third world -- but that won’t happen, so I think we have to play the cards we have --- and try and make it as painless as possible
Geezers -- basically we can’t do anything about it -- lets play the hand we are dealt with.
And Martin's laudable attitude that it’s still worth being "kind to the environment"
I try and recycle where possible -- hate any of my children wasting food, ride my bike to work etc etc
But I have no illusions that it will change anything on the global scale that would be needed to make a difference
Basically -- if the world powers were serious about stopping GW etc, an obvious first step would be a massive redistribution of wealth and resource consumption to the third world -- but that won’t happen, so I think we have to play the cards we have --- and try and make it as painless as possible
21 November 2008, 08:15 PM
#72
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not necessarily a bad thing, there are some winners and losers, as in all things.
Geezer
21 November 2008, 08:18 PM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
The hypocrisy ... Forbes.com - Magazine Article
and you heard of 'Reds in your bed' but here we have Greens ... .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
And they wonder why some people are 'sceptical' about GW ......
Dave
and you heard of 'Reds in your bed' but here we have Greens ... .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
And they wonder why some people are 'sceptical' about GW ......
Dave
21 November 2008, 10:29 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hypocrisy ... Forbes.com - Magazine Article
and you heard of 'Reds in your bed' but here we have Greens ... .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
And they wonder why some people are 'sceptical' about GW ......
Dave
and you heard of 'Reds in your bed' but here we have Greens ... .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
And they wonder why some people are 'sceptical' about GW ......
Dave
Using Forbes as a source of info is extremely unwise, they are utterly tied to the right wing anti-global warming lobby in the US. So whilst the story MIGHT be accurate (although most likely spun beyond recognition, as a source they are to put in mildly, dubious
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 November 2008 at 10:32 PM.
22 November 2008, 10:59 AM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 November 2008, 12:40 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air planes flown in the day time actually help to cool the earth as they reflect the suns ray back up. THis reflection of the suns rays cools the earth more than any effect of the C02 emmissions from the plane.
The man made climate change issue is clearly rubbish.
1.There are no accurate figures to show any increase in temperature over a large enough time frame.
2.The planet is constantly changing anyway so it is nigh on immpossible to calculate the difference between cyclical changes and alledged man made changes.
3. Its bloody freezing and has been all summer.
4. Science has a history of being very wrong when money and politics comes into play. ie being a doommonger generates far more money and kudos for a scientist than saying actutally its all ok.
I do however support the idea of conservation. Mankind ultimately has to move towards a sustainable way of living not the strip mining process that we carry out now. What ever we use from soil minerals to oil we need to use in a sustainable manner other wise quite clearly there will be trouble ahead.
The man made climate change issue is clearly rubbish.
1.There are no accurate figures to show any increase in temperature over a large enough time frame.
2.The planet is constantly changing anyway so it is nigh on immpossible to calculate the difference between cyclical changes and alledged man made changes.
3. Its bloody freezing and has been all summer.
4. Science has a history of being very wrong when money and politics comes into play. ie being a doommonger generates far more money and kudos for a scientist than saying actutally its all ok.
I do however support the idea of conservation. Mankind ultimately has to move towards a sustainable way of living not the strip mining process that we carry out now. What ever we use from soil minerals to oil we need to use in a sustainable manner other wise quite clearly there will be trouble ahead.
22 November 2008, 05:19 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you take temp from the same places at the same time of the day from places all over the world, then yes you may not have the global 'average', but you can sure as hell spot the trend.
BTW the urban heat sink, has been factored out. I think that the measurement are complimented by satelites and ocean temp readings.
I don't believe this is dodgy science, it's the best we've got right now for understand global temps
BTW the urban heat sink, has been factored out. I think that the measurement are complimented by satelites and ocean temp readings.
I don't believe this is dodgy science, it's the best we've got right now for understand global temps
Dave
Last edited by hutton_d; 22 November 2008 at 05:20 PM. Reason: Speeling .......
27 November 2008, 12:20 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'll answer this myself. The "geological timeframe" used by the IPCC climate simulations, in terms of global average temperature, is between 1961 - 1990. The IPCC uses the "average global tenperature" (How that was obtained no-one knows) during this period and is know as "normal temperature". The fact the IPCC "averages" it out is crucially suspicious to any absolute temperature and any "prediction" or future outcome based on it.
27 November 2008, 01:21 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 December 2008, 11:54 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the Sun is at it's hottest in nearly 12,000 years, it's in a cooling phase (As well as our oceans). Oh what's up with that? No sunspots, at all! Blowing ALL predictions away! Predictions, in the west at least, faulted. Russian scientists, with nothing to gain, appear to be proven right. We're in for a chill (Again).
That must be pretty inconvenient for Goreites!
That must be pretty inconvenient for Goreites!
01 December 2008, 12:51 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 December 2008, 02:23 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the current Global warming theory will be proved to be false there is still an issue of sustainable living surely ? We can not use up all the natural resources with out trying to find a balance point where we live in harmony with our ecosystem. We are still cutting down rainforest and with no trees left the Planets natural mechanism for equalising C02 in the atmosphere will fail. As much as I hate the dubious science touted around as fact in order to tax us more it does not take a genius to work out that we have to at some point live in harmony with the planet.
01 December 2008, 02:34 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all seriousness,I started a thread on here some time ago re inventions/progress.Apparantly,despite whatever people think about computers etc,we haven't taken any significant steps forward for about a 100 years now on the 'significant inventions/progress of mankind' front.
Perhaps thats another discussion though...what do we do when the planet is full/broken
01 December 2008, 03:01 PM
#89
Hi sorry if this has been posted but thought it interesting. Climate myths: Ice cores show CO<SUB>2</SUB> increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
and this too Heat we emit could warm the Earth - environment - 01 December 2008 - New Scientist
My 2ps worth is that we are having an effect but not as big as we are told, we as humans can be so arrogant its amazing
.
Think the heat thing is quite an interesting idea and has some logic to it, not too shore about it though.
There are so many things we will face in the future, man made or otherwise. I think we need to unite more around the world except each others differences and deal with the things we can, starvation being one. We need to invest more in space too, yes space, one day we will need to be elsewhere, this planet is a ticking time bombe for us(I'm talking a long way into the future here) if we don't start taking space more seriously in a few hundred years we may well regret it as a race.
and this too Heat we emit could warm the Earth - environment - 01 December 2008 - New Scientist
My 2ps worth is that we are having an effect but not as big as we are told, we as humans can be so arrogant its amazing
. Think the heat thing is quite an interesting idea and has some logic to it, not too shore about it though.
There are so many things we will face in the future, man made or otherwise. I think we need to unite more around the world except each others differences and deal with the things we can, starvation being one. We need to invest more in space too, yes space, one day we will need to be elsewhere, this planet is a ticking time bombe for us(I'm talking a long way into the future here) if we don't start taking space more seriously in a few hundred years we may well regret it as a race.
02 December 2008, 11:42 AM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the human race wants to survive, it will need to seek an alternate home, not Mars, not our solar system as our Sun will die, one day (Very probably after us, and before we can physically leave. Mind you Voyager 1 and 2 are still out there).
Last edited by Klaatu; 02 December 2008 at 11:44 AM.