Crozza Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I had a Mars in my pocket once that melted. Was that global warming? Was it near Uranus? No, it was in my inside pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 It's amazing just how little the Earth has to tilt to put temperatures up by 20 degrees (i.e. a few hundred miles tilt in 93 million miles gives the difference in temperature between our summers and winters). A slight variation in the suns output, due to the solar cycle etc. can produce similar effects. Some good points there...I am still a little sceptical regarding the evidence for global warming, even though that view seems unpopular at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I think the evidence for global warming is clear, but the issue is what portion of the temperature increase is man made and which is down to the natural cycles of the atmosphere and sun. There was the little ice age in the 17th century, and the Medieval Warm period, but the current hockey stick is pretty unique in climatology. Whether the changes are natural or man made they could have huge consequences for future generations. I think its an area we have to investigate and put resources into; and even if the changes are due to natural causes we may have to make sacrifices to reduce our contibution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I think the evidence for global warming is clear, but the issue is what portion of the temperature increase is man made and which is down to the natural cycles of the atmosphere and sun. There was the little ice age in the 17th century, and the Medieval Warm period, but the current hockey stick is pretty unique in climatology. Whether the changes are natural or man made they could have huge consequences for future generations. I think its an area we have to investigate and put resources into; and even if the changes are due to natural causes we may have to make sacrifices to reduce our contibution. But...the Little Ice Age didn't affect the whole world, just the northern parts, and by a change of less than 1 degree in temperature (as you can see on your own graph). There is no evidence that this was a worldwide phenomenon. Your graph looks horrendous only because of the tiny scale used. The Romans and medieval Britons grew grapes for wine in Yorkshire - what's wrong with an increase of a few degrees? Did horses and carts have to be taxed to reduce emissions? The world has undergone far greater changes over many millenia - not shown on your 'selective' graph. What is this fascination for trying to keep the temperature stable anyway? This is like King Canute trying to control the tides, especially when you consider the forces and potential forces in action - some things are inevitable and life has to adapt. I think this needs far greater study than has been devoted so far. The danger is that non-science type politicians are on board now, who are, IMHO, making decisions based on lobbyists rather than on real information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 But Albert that is the point: when you say the little ice age only affected the Northern Hemisphere, I'll believe you as I don't know. But the issue with global warming is that it is affecting the whole globe - from the antartic to the artic to Europe, Asia and Africa. When you say what's wrong with an increase of a few degrees I assume you are just been cumogenly. People are not trying to stop the natural cycles, they are trying to ensure human interventions do not drive those cycles catastophically. The most powerful lobbiests are currently saying global warming isn't an issue - they are mainly paid by the oil industry. I agree with you we need more scientific investigations of this problem, but I think the result will be more awareness of it being a real and serious problem; not the issue being abandoned as its all just a natural phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 When you say what's wrong with an increase of a few degrees I assume you are just been cumogenly. But the facts of the matter are very different to what is being pushed at present by highly political global warming fanatics. Between 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase. Global warming fanatics always seem to quote the 28 year period of warming that occurred between 1970 and 1998 and say that this makes for a dangerous man-made warming. They conveniently forget that there was a period of similar warming between 1918 and 1940 (prior to large scale world industrialisation), and the fact that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965 (at exactly the same time human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate). IMO, this issue is far more complicated and natural than is being presented. Rather than trying to fight nature by throwing money at it, we should be spending such money on dealing with the consequences of nature. See Clicky Look at the so called 'scientific-information' we are currently being given on many topics - we are living in an age of pseudo-science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I think I'm with Albert on this one - the jury's still out on the subject of 'Global Warming' and it's causes. A recent book by former American presidential candidate Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It appears to suggest that the case is proven. It isn't. THIS SITE, for example, provides a counter to it that, if not entirely objective, at least makes the case that a great deal more investigation needs to be undertaken before such enormous scaremongering tactics as we're currently experiencing are taken as 'given.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 And 'new' evidence, such as THIS, seems to confirm that we still have a very long way to go before we really understand our planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 ...and remember what they said about the population explosion and all of us starving. There is a glut of food in the world - people only starve because it is not distributed fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 An interesting read _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 What is really funny is that certain scientists are now saying that global warming is actually beig caused by the sun emiting more heat towards the earth and that burning fossil fuels only has a small part to play. Personally i don't know what to belive but i sometimes think that the "Go Green" is common sense but there seems to be a whole industry being created from it. Do we have to "Belive the Hype" ? There was also a russian group of scientists that claim in the next 25 year the planet will cool. Also if the earth moves of its axis a fraction it can cause the earth to heat up. There is so many theories out there that i don't know what to belive anymore. Also china builds a new coal powered power station every 10 days so as the west cleans up the east just keeps polluting more. All i know myself is that our weather seems to stay the same, people saying its milder are talking cr@p. Nobody knows what the waether was like 2000 years ago or even 500 years ago, the weather is in cycles i think of about 200 years if you look at records. I will keep flatuating and adding to the greehouse effect and let the Eco warriors worry for us all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Well while skeptism abounds on here the UN has been having a conference on climate change in Nairobi. Check out this New York Times Story. Two persistent problems were American reluctance to agree to any mandatory emissions limits and increased stubbornness by China and India, two of the world’s fastest-growing polluters, which face no penalties under the Kyoto agreement for all the heat-trapping gases they pump into the atmosphere. Even under conservative projections, scientists predict several degrees of warming this century, and possibly much more, which could shift precipitation patterns, disrupt agriculture and wildlife and eventually melt ice sheets, raising the level of the oceans and submerging low-lying coasts. Delegates from outside the United States expressed growing frustration with the Bush administration’s environmental policy, saying that without clear signals from the world’s largest source of air pollution, other countries would hesitate to move ahead. The United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Albert, I'm sure you'll be happy to agree with the Bush administration on its policies in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Does the title refer to Sports Utility Vehicles or is there an alternate meaning to SUV? Interesting points so far in the debate, although my personal belief is that we could at the very least try and pollute less than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I cannot agree with you more mission i also think we all have a responsability to make sure we do our bit to create minimum pollution. The Yanks are selfish, we need to think of the future generations who have to live here when we have gone. America are f*cked once the oil goes and it will in time. Its like jacko said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.