Global Cooling?
02 December 2008, 01:04 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no place in within light years that we could possibly go to, not to mention not enough fuel on earth to travel the distance required to find a new planet. Moving is not an option.
02 December 2008, 01:10 PM
#92
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer
02 December 2008, 01:37 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 02:22 PM
#94
The best we can hope for is to negate some of what we have contributed to, but like it or not in our lifetime or not, this planet is going to become hostile to us to some degree.
We are merely residence on this world along with every other creature, as with other creatures, we can go extinct in a blink of an eye.
Someone mentioned that we don't have enough fuel to leave our solar system, the Tech already exists for us to do it, you don't need lots of fuel, the only problem is its too bloomin slow. Plasma engines exist and are being used, they aren't very powerful and prob never will be but it shows there are alternate ways for propulsion in space..maybe we can use it along with stasis but it would be fare from ideal. The chances are that developing ideas now, in a hundred or so years we will be able to do it, people thought the world was flat and you could fall of the edge not so long ago, people didn't think man could fly, let alone go to the moon years ago. Who knows, if man survives long enough maybe we will be able to warrant being arrogant and truly be able to do as we please, but in the meant time we need to muddle along and learn as much as we can, we know a lot, but there is sooo much more we don't know let alone understand, lets hope we get the chance.
03 December 2008, 11:37 AM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we have about 4.5billion years to work out a solution. Otherwise, we're stuffed.
03 December 2008, 11:40 AM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damage our climate. Do you have proof of that (Please exclude the IPCC)? Pollution is something else, but damage climate, what are you talking about?
03 December 2008, 11:43 AM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that some people believe that we can make such a big difference to the world...I'm not saying we aren't having an effect that is why I found the articles I posted a link to so interesting. I think there is plenty of evidence to show we are having an effect.The very fact that we are here is partly due to billions of organisms less complex than us polluting the environment with oxygen over thousands of years, the environment has always changed and always will with or without us. The planet has warmed up several times before, there is clear evidence of this, clear evidence allso that it has happened before we were about too and this is all evidence that it will happen again, no matter what we do.
The best we can hope for is to negate some of what we have contributed to, but like it or not in our lifetime or not, this planet is going to become hostile to us to some degree.
We are merely residence on this world along with every other creature, as with other creatures, we can go extinct in a blink of an eye.
Someone mentioned that we don't have enough fuel to leave our solar system, the Tech already exists for us to do it, you don't need lots of fuel, the only problem is its too bloomin slow. Plasma engines exist and are being used, they aren't very powerful and prob never will be but it shows there are alternate ways for propulsion in space..maybe we can use it along with stasis but it would be fare from ideal. The chances are that developing ideas now, in a hundred or so years we will be able to do it, people thought the world was flat and you could fall of the edge not so long ago, people didn't think man could fly, let alone go to the moon years ago. Who knows, if man survives long enough maybe we will be able to warrant being arrogant and truly be able to do as we please, but in the meant time we need to muddle along and learn as much as we can, we know a lot, but there is sooo much more we don't know let alone understand, lets hope we get the chance.
The best we can hope for is to negate some of what we have contributed to, but like it or not in our lifetime or not, this planet is going to become hostile to us to some degree.
We are merely residence on this world along with every other creature, as with other creatures, we can go extinct in a blink of an eye.
Someone mentioned that we don't have enough fuel to leave our solar system, the Tech already exists for us to do it, you don't need lots of fuel, the only problem is its too bloomin slow. Plasma engines exist and are being used, they aren't very powerful and prob never will be but it shows there are alternate ways for propulsion in space..maybe we can use it along with stasis but it would be fare from ideal. The chances are that developing ideas now, in a hundred or so years we will be able to do it, people thought the world was flat and you could fall of the edge not so long ago, people didn't think man could fly, let alone go to the moon years ago. Who knows, if man survives long enough maybe we will be able to warrant being arrogant and truly be able to do as we please, but in the meant time we need to muddle along and learn as much as we can, we know a lot, but there is sooo much more we don't know let alone understand, lets hope we get the chance.
03 December 2008, 12:45 PM
#98
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's very true, but if say, a planet killing object was detected that would hit the earth in a hundred years or less, wouldn't it be better to set a lifeboat adrift in space with the chance that they may get somewhere rather than just accept extinction?
Geezer
Geezer
03 December 2008, 01:06 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
03 December 2008, 08:19 PM
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
There's gold in green: profiting from climate change ? The Register as one url for reference ...
Dave
03 December 2008, 08:56 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
i think its all a mute point anyway
at some point we are going to get hit by a large bit of space debris -- the clue is above your head, just look at the moon
and then we will go the same way as the dinosuors (or did execessive smoking kill them all, not sure)
anyway we should concentrate on solving problems we can and should solve
at some point we are going to get hit by a large bit of space debris -- the clue is above your head, just look at the moon
and then we will go the same way as the dinosuors (or did execessive smoking kill them all, not sure)
anyway we should concentrate on solving problems we can and should solve
03 December 2008, 09:19 PM
#103
Well I'v e got some news for you guys. We have a new president and he is going to committ the US to dramatically cut down emissions. At long last the worlds biggests populter is going to act.
More news for the left behind, head in the sand SN massive, the debate has moved on, no serious body is having the debate about causation anyomore, the game has moved on. We are hopefully in solution mode now.
Obama brings US in from the cold - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
More news for the left behind, head in the sand SN massive, the debate has moved on, no serious body is having the debate about causation anyomore, the game has moved on. We are hopefully in solution mode now.
Obama brings US in from the cold - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
how can u have a solution to something that isnt a problem? yes maybe carbon emmisions should be cut to reduce smog in citys and give cleaner air in built up areas but it isnt the cause of climate change.
04 December 2008, 10:08 AM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly CO2 is NOT and pollutant and DOESN'T cause smog. Now given how wrong you have been on these fairly basic points, how can we take your last point seriously?
Where are you getting your certianty from (btw the IPCC claim no such certainty, they are only 90% confident that global warming is being casued by human activity).
But OK let's assume that you Phil_WRX KNOW the answer to the question of our time, you KNOW that GW is not casused by human activity; then presumably you KNOW what has caused our rapid temperature rise over the last 40 years.....please enlighten us.
04 December 2008, 11:17 AM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK given your level of certainty on this subject, let's examine you statement in detail.
Firstly CO2 is NOT and pollutant and DOESN'T cause smog. Now given how wrong you have been on these fairly basic points, how can we take your last point seriously?
Where are you getting your certianty from (btw the IPCC claim no such certainty, they are only 90% confident that global warming is being casued by human activity).
But OK let's assume that you Phil_WRX KNOW the answer to the question of our time, you KNOW that GW is not casused by human activity; then presumably you KNOW what has caused our rapid temperature rise over the last 40 years.....please enlighten us.
Firstly CO2 is NOT and pollutant and DOESN'T cause smog. Now given how wrong you have been on these fairly basic points, how can we take your last point seriously?
Where are you getting your certianty from (btw the IPCC claim no such certainty, they are only 90% confident that global warming is being casued by human activity).
But OK let's assume that you Phil_WRX KNOW the answer to the question of our time, you KNOW that GW is not casused by human activity; then presumably you KNOW what has caused our rapid temperature rise over the last 40 years.....please enlighten us.
Did you know that water vapour is many more times effective as a "greenhouse gas". In that case should we be preventing the formation of that as well? Did you also know that NASA have stated that earlier measurements of GBW were flawed because of the effects of solar heating on the balloons which where suspending the temperature measuring equipment, and that it has been stated that the Earth's temperature has not increased over ten years now and in fact has reduced? Did you also know that if there was not a natural amount of GBW anyway that our temperatures would be down in the minus 15C area? Did you know that although we should be out of the periodic sunspot minimum that there have been very few sunspots for a long time now? Worth looking up the work of Professor Maunder.
You seem to have been brainwashed into the GBW mantra which so suits NL, and the scientists whom they pay to study it.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 04 December 2008 at 11:19 AM.
04 December 2008, 11:38 AM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see you have ignored my question yet again. If you don't understand the Maunder Minimum, it is very easy to look it up and there are perfectly simple explanations available.
Did you know that water vapour is many more times effective as a "greenhouse gas". In that case should we be preventing the formation of that as well? Did you also know that NASA have stated that earlier measurements of GBW were flawed because of the effects of solar heating on the balloons which where suspending the temperature measuring equipment, and that it has been stated that the Earth's temperature has not increased over ten years now and in fact has reduced? Did you also know that if there was not a natural amount of GBW anyway that our temperatures would be down in the minus 15C area? Did you know that although we should be out of the periodic sunspot minimum that there have been very few sunspots for a long time now? Worth looking up the work of Professor Maunder.
You seem to have been brainwashed into the GBW mantra which so suits NL, and the scientists whom they pay to study it.
Les
Did you know that water vapour is many more times effective as a "greenhouse gas". In that case should we be preventing the formation of that as well? Did you also know that NASA have stated that earlier measurements of GBW were flawed because of the effects of solar heating on the balloons which where suspending the temperature measuring equipment, and that it has been stated that the Earth's temperature has not increased over ten years now and in fact has reduced? Did you also know that if there was not a natural amount of GBW anyway that our temperatures would be down in the minus 15C area? Did you know that although we should be out of the periodic sunspot minimum that there have been very few sunspots for a long time now? Worth looking up the work of Professor Maunder.
You seem to have been brainwashed into the GBW mantra which so suits NL, and the scientists whom they pay to study it.
Les
Secondly you post THIS against my response to PHILWRX......why?
Thirdly - Brainwashed???? what because I don't buy into the conspiracy clap -trap that you keep banging on about.
If I have an open-mind, I'm accused of being brainwashed, if I close my mind and state with absolute confidence that GW is all rubbish then that seems to be OK with you and other posters on here
Fourth - what the heck has this got to do with New Labour? - It was Maggie Thatcher who pushed this issue on to the political stage, not this government.
Why go one about bloody water vapour? It has a useful habbit of falling back down to earth does it not? CO2 doesn't.
Last edited by Martin2005; 04 December 2008 at 11:40 AM.
04 December 2008, 11:41 AM
#107
Scooby Regular
04 December 2008, 11:52 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion metric tons, no I didn't make that figure up. 
Can you imagine a 'few' humans having such a large impact in such a short time as to accelerate the global temperature in just a few years.
Come on....you're kidding...yes.... tell me your joking...right?
Can you imagine a 'few' humans having such a large impact in such a short time as to accelerate the global temperature in just a few years.
Come on....you're kidding...yes.... tell me your joking...right?
04 December 2008, 11:58 AM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion metric tons, no I didn't make that figure up.
Can you imagine a 'few' humans having such a large impact in such a short time as to accelerate the global temperature in just a few years.
Come on....you're kidding...yes.... tell me your joking...right?
Can you imagine a 'few' humans having such a large impact in such a short time as to accelerate the global temperature in just a few years.
Come on....you're kidding...yes.... tell me your joking...right?
Is this a scientific view or just another feeble attempt at explaining away what appears to be an issue that my kids, and and grand kids will have to deal with?
04 December 2008, 12:10 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
So that I'm clear, you're entire aruement is that because the atmosphere is so big, something relatively small could not have an impact upon it?
Is this a scientific view or just another feeble attempt at explaining away what appears to be an issue that my kids, and and grand kids will have to deal with?
Is this a scientific view or just another feeble attempt at explaining away what appears to be an issue that my kids, and and grand kids will have to deal with?
I didn't say 'could not' have an impact, but rather not 'such' an impact.
Do you remember when the Sellafield reprocessing plant was blamed, by a leading 'expert', for producing a lukemia 'hot spot' close to the plant?
That theory was very quickly and decisively proven to be flawed simply because of the numbers. i.e. Such a small amount of radiation could not have the impact attributed to it. Mathematics rule....
04 December 2008, 01:32 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not so long ago, u got anti capitalist protesting against globalisation, or CND, and loads more lefty pressure groups
you dont here about them no more, they havnt gone away, they just regrouped and its global warming now, sorry i mean climate change, and if u listen carefully to the news, climate change is being replaced by "energy security"
global warming causes everything. its known as watermelon politics, green on the outside red in the middle
you dont here about them no more, they havnt gone away, they just regrouped and its global warming now, sorry i mean climate change, and if u listen carefully to the news, climate change is being replaced by "energy security"
global warming causes everything. its known as watermelon politics, green on the outside red in the middle
Last edited by MrLouKnee; 04 December 2008 at 01:33 PM.
04 December 2008, 01:50 PM
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
not so long ago, u got anti capitalist protesting against globalisation, or CND, and loads more lefty pressure groups
you dont here about them no more, they havnt gone away, they just regrouped and its global warming now, sorry i mean climate change, and if u listen carefully to the news, climate change is being replaced by "energy security"
global warming causes everything. its known as watermelon politics, green on the outside red in the middle
you dont here about them no more, they havnt gone away, they just regrouped and its global warming now, sorry i mean climate change, and if u listen carefully to the news, climate change is being replaced by "energy security"
global warming causes everything. its known as watermelon politics, green on the outside red in the middle
That's about right Mr Loon ....
Though I have today become an advocate of global warming. Why, I hear you ask? Well, in Helston today some woman was selling daffs. There can be no other explanation for their early appearance other than man-made global warming ....
Innit ....??Dave
04 December 2008, 02:46 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're 'kids and grand kids' are safe, apart from 'warming extremism' that is
I didn't say 'could not' have an impact, but rather not 'such' an impact.
Do you remember when the Sellafield reprocessing plant was blamed, by a leading 'expert', for producing a lukemia 'hot spot' close to the plant?
That theory was very quickly and decisively proven to be flawed simply because of the numbers. i.e. Such a small amount of radiation could not have the impact attributed to it. Mathematics rule....
I didn't say 'could not' have an impact, but rather not 'such' an impact.
Do you remember when the Sellafield reprocessing plant was blamed, by a leading 'expert', for producing a lukemia 'hot spot' close to the plant?
That theory was very quickly and decisively proven to be flawed simply because of the numbers. i.e. Such a small amount of radiation could not have the impact attributed to it. Mathematics rule....
What's that got to do with it.
I infantesimally small organisism can kill a whale....does that prove the theory right or wrong....neither i suspect... but it's a seriously flawed arguement that you use
04 December 2008, 02:49 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not so long ago, u got anti capitalist protesting against globalisation, or CND, and loads more lefty pressure groups
you dont here about them no more, they havnt gone away, they just regrouped and its global warming now, sorry i mean climate change, and if u listen carefully to the news, climate change is being replaced by "energy security"
global warming causes everything. its known as watermelon politics, green on the outside red in the middle
you dont here about them no more, they havnt gone away, they just regrouped and its global warming now, sorry i mean climate change, and if u listen carefully to the news, climate change is being replaced by "energy security"
global warming causes everything. its known as watermelon politics, green on the outside red in the middle
Was Maggie Thatcher an Anti-capitalist greenie, is, Cameron or Angela Merkle, is Obama?
come on surely you can make a better case than that?
04 December 2008, 05:30 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont believe any politician, but im more qualified to look at the evidence than any scientist, and it left wing propaganda
i take it your a believer??
antigreen.blogspot.com
maggie did bring global warming to the attention of us during the miners strike, and she used it as an excuse for closing the pits
i take it your a believer??
antigreen.blogspot.com
maggie did bring global warming to the attention of us during the miners strike, and she used it as an excuse for closing the pits
Last edited by MrLouKnee; 04 December 2008 at 05:45 PM.
04 December 2008, 05:57 PM
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont believe any politician, but im more qualified to look at the evidence than any scientist, and it left wing propaganda
i take it your a believer??
antigreen.blogspot.com
maggie did bring global warming to the attention of us during the miners strike, and she used it as an excuse for closing the pits
i take it your a believer??
antigreen.blogspot.com
maggie did bring global warming to the attention of us during the miners strike, and she used it as an excuse for closing the pits
I believe that on the balance of probability that there is an issue with CO2, this is because I believe the science (largely). But I'm quite happy to keep an open mind
Maggie raised the GW issue years after the miners dispute, so please stop trying to reinvent history.
I'm intrigued, at what makes you more qualified than the scientists
BTW any body can go to the internet and find a crack-pot website that supports their view (jsut ask HuttonD, he's holds masterclasses)
Last edited by Martin2005; 04 December 2008 at 05:59 PM.
04 December 2008, 06:18 PM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when a scientist makes a mistake, for eg, prof roy meadows, its not another scientist that prosecutes him, its someone with my qualification, who explains the evidence to 12 ppl who dont even have to be able to read or write so long as they can understand whats going on
u either believe it or u dont, i dont practice any religion, not even the religon of the goreacle
we'll have to agree to disagree
im sure everyone has said at sometime "politicians would tax the air u breath if the could", now they tax the C02 u exhale
co2 is plant food, have u noticed plants have gone huge over the past few years
peace
u either believe it or u dont, i dont practice any religion, not even the religon of the goreacle
we'll have to agree to disagree
im sure everyone has said at sometime "politicians would tax the air u breath if the could", now they tax the C02 u exhale
co2 is plant food, have u noticed plants have gone huge over the past few years
peace