Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
What, like there is in 'An Inconvenient Truth'?
For those of you that don't believe in global warming
- Thread starter Jonny69
- Start date
What, like there is in 'An Inconvenient Truth'?
I'm pretty sure in terms of net, no. You might be talking about an isolated inlet or coastline, or something.
All the science of late is actually pointing to the fact that the ice is melting much faster than we'd previously thought in many instances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Ruddinman, W. F (2003) The Anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago Climatic Change 61, p261-293
Read that
Fits what you say except the few millions years bit, but even if you have that showing the last few millions years, it would be useless for proving or disproving 'global warming'
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Read that article too...
Anyway i've lost all my notes on the subject, but the way to do it is to read everything on the references page 2 levels down
I.e, read everything referenced by ruddinman, then everything referenced within all the articles he has referenced. Should be a few thousand pages.. if your hardcore enough that is
One of the main problems for the UK is we dont have any sites at the moment that are suitable in the long term storage of nuclear waste. As a whole we have little to no sites that are truly suitable for the minimum storage of the less radioactive waste (4000 years if i remember correct) + the load of people not wanting a waste storage unit in their back yard
anyway on global warming there is no proof as we do not have the historic records of earths temps to compare, plus it could be a one off thing in our climate.
Saying that i have no doubt that man has contributed to warming of earth in some way (big or small), releasing billion year old carbon cant be good as the air hard a load more carbon content then now.
Anyway global warming can be a good thing aswell.
Last edited:
I do not want to believe or not believe it.
Quite frankly the world and the people in it are as they are and are not going to change drastically, c'est la vie.
Just get off my case about my car, its petrol, burning my fuels in my real coal fire and whether or not I want to keep myself lovely and warm however I damn well please.
Quite frankly the world and the people in it are as they are and are not going to change drastically, c'est la vie.
Just get off my case about my car, its petrol, burning my fuels in my real coal fire and whether or not I want to keep myself lovely and warm however I damn well please.
I don't know - that's basically my stance on the issue. I mean there are a lot of potential factors, like that big ball of nuclear energy we call the sun, then there're other things like global humidity, and the wide variety of things that can be happening in the various layers under the crust of the Earth.
What I'd like to see is some kind of comparison between as many potential factors as possible and the global average temperature over a relatively long time period - unfortunately that data is either very difficult or even impossible to come by. On the other hand, I'm still somewhat on the pro-green side for reasons other than long term climate change, in that I like the whole clean air, non-acidic oceans thing.
What I'd like to see is some kind of comparison between as many potential factors as possible and the global average temperature over a relatively long time period - unfortunately that data is either very difficult or even impossible to come by. On the other hand, I'm still somewhat on the pro-green side for reasons other than long term climate change, in that I like the whole clean air, non-acidic oceans thing.
In fact the last two years have seen a recovery of sea ice in the Arctic. A good point to remember is that given the entire length of Earths biosphere history, the Icecaps and Ice Sheets are relatively uncommon.
We don't understand the mechanisms enough to make any kind of definitive statement either way.
The temperature records are incomplete and largely based on proxy data which is contentious at best. Too many question marks remain over how the station data is compiled and homogenised. None of the current GCMs include data relating to seasonal or localised climate phenomea such as El niño.
The fact is that the GCMs failed to predict the current static temperature phase since 1998, temperature increases has ceased and have in fact dropped slightly. The trouble is with the language used, we are told that it has been the hottest decade on record, that maybe true, but the hottest year was 1934, followed by 1998 since then temperatures have stabilized, if this trend continues then in by 2020, we will see statistically significant drops in temperature, and not the increases the IPCC models predict. According to proxy data the medieval warm period was several degrees higher than current temperatures, and that cannot be attributed to mankind.
Now supporters of AGW can and will argue every point I made, but the fact that I can make them with evidence to back those claims proves that AGW is an unproven hypothesis to explain a gap in our understanding.
Two words for you.
Chaos Theory.
Sometimes seeing the big picture is easier than focussing on the details. Have a read of some of James Gleick's books to see what I mean.
I cannot believe this thread. How can you 'not believe' in Global Warming? It's like saying you don't believe in Cheddar cheese.... Both clearly exist. The general trend (Not absolute, as temperatures have not always gone up) shows the earth is clearly getting warmer at the moment- overwhelming evidence points to this.
Is it caused by humans? Probably.... but we can't be sure. Should we be doing everything we can to reduce our fossil fuel usage to hedge against the possibility that we are causing Global Warming AND to improve air quality/ slow down our tearing up vast quantities of land and mining tar sands in our search for oil/ gas? YES!
Last edited:
Haha true -
i don't know if i believe in global warming or not - all the scientists say it is true. So i get called a ****tard if i disagree
Reading several thousand pages is not a viable option. I would be extremely surprised if there were no conflicts among those pages - thus still not irrefutable.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,032
- Location
- A box in the Astral Plane
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
The other argument is that its inevitable that we will burn all the accessible fossil fuels the world has. Whether we do this in 5 years or 50 years or 100 years, we will do it, so it will all be released as CO2 no matter how many sandals we buy, trees we hug or hybrid cars we order.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 3,772
- Location
- North-West
I read "State of fear" by Michael Crichton, thats all about global warming i dont know how true it is (he did a lot of research) but it basically shows global warming happens in cycles anyway with or without human interference.
There's a lot of interest and debate.
I love the ammount of posters with a car flavoured sig. poo pooing it all hehehe.
still 1 or 2 generations of people that dont care/wont care until oil is too expensive.
What proof, well id like to be upto my waist in sea water or in a desert in my back garden.
still 1 or 2 generations of people that dont care/wont care until oil is too expensive.
What proof, well id like to be upto my waist in sea water or in a desert in my back garden.
A bigger problem for me isn't the acceptance or rejection of Climate Change but more the rejection that we can all do stuff to use less energy and pollute less regardless of the possible outcome.
Too many people seem to work on the basis that they don't agree with Climate Change, and so should continue driving around in enormous cars, leaving 100w bulbs on for no reason and generally living inefficiently. Why not try and be more efficient, regardless of your opinions on Climate Change, it just makes no sence to me.
My dads leccy bill comes in at about £100 a month for a 3 bed end terrace for 3 people (only gas is for the CH) while my leccy comes in at just £36 a month for 2 in a 3 bed semi (gas CH and hob). All we have done is remember to turn stuff off and only have CFLs and its saving us money AND using less energy. So if you believe in Climate change then you are helping to save the polar bears, if you dont beleive then you are just saving money and not polluting as much.
Too many people just CBA even trying.
Too many people seem to work on the basis that they don't agree with Climate Change, and so should continue driving around in enormous cars, leaving 100w bulbs on for no reason and generally living inefficiently. Why not try and be more efficient, regardless of your opinions on Climate Change, it just makes no sence to me.
My dads leccy bill comes in at about £100 a month for a 3 bed end terrace for 3 people (only gas is for the CH) while my leccy comes in at just £36 a month for 2 in a 3 bed semi (gas CH and hob). All we have done is remember to turn stuff off and only have CFLs and its saving us money AND using less energy. So if you believe in Climate change then you are helping to save the polar bears, if you dont beleive then you are just saving money and not polluting as much.
Too many people just CBA even trying.
one question.
Is global warming 100% man made?
Or is it simply accelerated by man?
If it's the latter what's the point in delaying it by a few years only to still get shafted why not build defences etc rather than wasting the money elsewhere?
After all it's not like the climate will stay the same forever.