what do you think
global warming bullshit, truth ,man myth or just nature????
- Thread starter Harbourwoodwork
- Start date
Sponsored Links
So explain the earths major climate changes before the industrial revolution?
Nature I would expect. Are we having a major climate change now?
I don't think so. But definately a change.
Maybe you could call it nature.
Mans destructive "nature".
Edit.
Google wrote
Sponsored Links
I'm sure the weather people said September was the wettest for 30 years. And of course said in a manner to suggest we're all doomed due to global warming.
Conveniently forgetting of course the little detail of things being drier than 30 years ago.
Hottest summer since 76
Coldest winter since whenever
They can't have it both ways.
Building houses in flood plains ain't the wisest thing to do. Why the homeowners seem surprised when they flood is beyond me.
Conveniently forgetting of course the little detail of things being drier than 30 years ago.
Hottest summer since 76
Coldest winter since whenever
They can't have it both ways.
Building houses in flood plains ain't the wisest thing to do. Why the homeowners seem surprised when they flood is beyond me.
C
calorific
A lad I know has never achieved less then a grade A in any of his exams (GCSE and AS levels). He is a high achieving scientist who is on track to study medicine at Oxford. Oddly enough in a General Studies paper sat at the end of Year 12 he was awarded a grade E which, upon paying the fee and getting a re-mark was upgraded to a grade C.
Now read this or, as it#s long winded I'll quote the relevant section:
In preparation for the exam, the lad had read widely and knew a great deal of both sides of the argument. He will have looked at the sources in the booklet handed out prior to the exam(heavily promoting global warming) in the exam and created well researched counterarguments. Looks like he may have been punished by knowing too much. Absolute disgrace which may well endanger his chances of getting into Oxford because of political bias and not his ability.
Now read this or, as it#s long winded I'll quote the relevant section:
In preparation for the exam, the lad had read widely and knew a great deal of both sides of the argument. He will have looked at the sources in the booklet handed out prior to the exam(heavily promoting global warming) in the exam and created well researched counterarguments. Looks like he may have been punished by knowing too much. Absolute disgrace which may well endanger his chances of getting into Oxford because of political bias and not his ability.
My take on it from reading the opinions of various scientists or the scientific inclined.
C02 will cause a few degrees of warming (not really much to worry about, slight changes, easy to adapt).
This is pretty much undisputed.
Further warming (over several degrees on top of this) is based upon feedback loops in climate models, these are unproven, and many argue that historical examples disprove them (more c02 = more warming = more water vapour = more warming). Also, even if true (and it's contentions), others argue that even if true, more water vapour = more rain = more crops.
Other theories on C02 warming assume it is not logarithmic, tests have shown it is. (By this I mean if you add 200mm of insulation, you get a big benefit, but less so if you add 400mm, and less so 600mm, diminishing returns).
And lastly other people argue that 1200ppm C02 would be ideal (currently <400ppm), the argument is that much C02 would be great for plant growth, would increase rainfall (turn Africa into a savannah as it used to be).
So basically yes, man can affect the climate.
But whether it will be disastrous climate change is still up for discussion.
C02 will cause a few degrees of warming (not really much to worry about, slight changes, easy to adapt).
This is pretty much undisputed.
Further warming (over several degrees on top of this) is based upon feedback loops in climate models, these are unproven, and many argue that historical examples disprove them (more c02 = more warming = more water vapour = more warming). Also, even if true (and it's contentions), others argue that even if true, more water vapour = more rain = more crops.
Other theories on C02 warming assume it is not logarithmic, tests have shown it is. (By this I mean if you add 200mm of insulation, you get a big benefit, but less so if you add 400mm, and less so 600mm, diminishing returns).
And lastly other people argue that 1200ppm C02 would be ideal (currently <400ppm), the argument is that much C02 would be great for plant growth, would increase rainfall (turn Africa into a savannah as it used to be).
So basically yes, man can affect the climate.
But whether it will be disastrous climate change is still up for discussion.
So far we have had 0.5C of warming over the last 50 years, barely measurable.
About 1.5c warming since 1800s (we had a little ice age 1400-1800, so you would expect things to get warmer).
So far any weather events, any "warming" we have are completely natural.
Man made climate change (from C02), is something we may cause in the near future, not now.
Most climate change is local, and more to do with land changes than actual climate (as you said, building on flood plains, building more houses in tornado valley = more reports of weather doesn't mean more rain or tornadoes)
I don't think it really matters what is causing global warming because whatever it is there's nothing we can do about it. If it's caused by solar activity then, unless somebody comes up with a way of turning the sun down a bit, we'll just have to wait for it to cool down on its own. If it is caused by greenhouse gases then I'm afraid followers who think we can control CO2 by not leaving our TVs on standby are deluding themselves.
Here's a thought; The United States always comes in for a lot of flak over carbon emissions. Over the past decade, CO2 emissions in the USA fell by 1.7%. According to the International Energy Agency the US is now cutting carbon emissions faster than Europe. In the same period China's emissions jumped by 123% and now exceeds the US by more than two billion tons per year. Africa's jumped by 30%, Asia's by 44%, and the Middle East by 57%. If US carbon emissions dropped to zero in the decade global emissions would still have gone up.
Don't let that stop you upgrading insulation and adopting the use of LED lighting. As a surveyor actively designing buildings and advising on the subject I spend a lot of time promoting sensible energy efficiency. For the simple reason that it saves you money and will save you more and more money as fuel costs rise disproportionately to everything else. Which they will continue to do for years to come.
Here's a thought; The United States always comes in for a lot of flak over carbon emissions. Over the past decade, CO2 emissions in the USA fell by 1.7%. According to the International Energy Agency the US is now cutting carbon emissions faster than Europe. In the same period China's emissions jumped by 123% and now exceeds the US by more than two billion tons per year. Africa's jumped by 30%, Asia's by 44%, and the Middle East by 57%. If US carbon emissions dropped to zero in the decade global emissions would still have gone up.
Don't let that stop you upgrading insulation and adopting the use of LED lighting. As a surveyor actively designing buildings and advising on the subject I spend a lot of time promoting sensible energy efficiency. For the simple reason that it saves you money and will save you more and more money as fuel costs rise disproportionately to everything else. Which they will continue to do for years to come.
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,625
- Reaction score
- 666
- Country
Here in England, we were fixing boilers all through Summer.
The global warming myth was Maggies creation. We'll all be dust before the next 'cool' ie Ice Age.
We have weather recordings going back a hunderd years or so. When we have 25000 YEARS of data, at least maybe humans can make some comparisons. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.
Personally I'm not convinced either way. Keep an open mind on it.
You seem to be claiming 25000 years of data doesn't already exist.
I think geologists and scientists would tell you different.
Everything is Maggies fault. When the world ends in about 7 billion years time when the sun blows it will be Maggies fault.
You seem to be claiming 25000 years of data doesn't already exist.
I think geologists and scientists would tell you different.
Everything is Maggies fault. When the world ends in about 7 billion years time when the sun blows it will be Maggies fault.
Post of the day.
Jeds I am not expert and often though that the world was buggered even if it went zero carbon emissions right now - although a have a friend who has a PHD in environmental science and he seems to think differently. As I said i am no expert but he certainly is and the evidence would point towards it being a salvageable project so to speak - who knows he might just be protecting his own career path. however, this is my two pence, even if the end of the world is inevitable due to the damage done then surely reducing your emissions would squeeze the last drops of life out of the planet for maybe one more generation. Surely that would be a good thing. Anyhow, I'm pretty concerned about the pictures of arctic ice melt over the past years. It seems to be pretty bloody drastic!
Sponsored Links
