Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
There would be no point in doing that, as it is simply not relevant in a debate about man made factors that influence climate change. That there are and have been many influences on climate and global temperatures is not disputed. The issue in the thread is the extent to which mankind has contributed to the present rapid changes in climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]

The charts are interesting, let us take 1950, in most caes if I read corretly levels of polutants has doubled since that date.
Growing up in the 50 / 60's I remember the experts telling us we have to modernise, encompass new thinking, new ways of doing things, result the state we have now.
We now have experts telling us we have to moderrnise, encompass new thinking, new ways of doing things.
I think I have been there before.

We have a model of 1950, how we lived, after all a lot of us still here.

Then we delivered bread and milk to the door step in glass bottles, on electric milk floats, bottles were taken back washed and refilled, what is hard in that today ?
This applied to pop, were there was a deposit on bottles, refunded on return, what is hard in that ?
What went down the toilet was converted into fertizer in the bacteria beds, and sold what is hard in that ?
The water that came off was purified, all of it with very little energy.
The shop was local, you could normally live without going farther than 1/4 mile, you walked with your shopping bag, what that was not loose was in paper bags, no super markets or out of town shopping.
If you travelled locally you walked or went by bus, in a number of cases electric trolley busses, or by train.
Everybody had a compost heap, bread was in waxed paper, used for food wrapping ( or polishing the park slide ), what was left was picked up by the rag and bone man and recycled. Land fill was basically dirt, hense dust bin, and dustbin lorry.
Yes we did cut news paper into squares, thread on string, and hang it on the toilet door.
The list endless, but all known technolgy, that could be implemented to-morrow.
It is only experts, or marketing firms that got rid of it.

VW have a new green car on tele, saves so many plastic bags, but they do not tell you haw many plastic bags it took to make, deliver and market. The car is also zero road tax, but has no spare wheel, if it had you would pay road tax as the carbon output would be to high.

Lets recycle, but if we do lets recycle 100% tomorrow, if it's serious lets act as if it is, not this look I've saved a plastic bag, I must go and polish my halo.

Brian
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Interesting that the slope of your 140 year graph is virtually the same between 1910 and 1940 as between 1975 and 2005.

Interesting how your 1000 year temperature graph is one of those, so beloved by proponents of MMGW, that eliminates the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Interesting how you leave out that very minor greenhouse gas, water.

Interesting how your insurance cost graph is normalised for inflation, but not for huge increases in population and population centres, etc.

I wonder, what are the "events" that are numbered? Many (e.g. Altlantic hurricanes), we know, haven't increased. Is it the number of events which result in insurance losses - again affected greatly by population? Or that insurance is far more widespread? EDIT: Just seen that the chart covers insured and uninsured losses, so I got that bit wrong.

However, I don't want to start a "data war" here. After all, the case for MMGW is unquestionable.
 
Re: Global warming has happened before

Yes we know from ice cores that CO2 levels have been high before - and so have sea levels. At that time there were no protests from those whose countries were inundated and couldnt live underwater.
For most of geological time Devon, for example, was under water.
Any significant global warming is going to kill a very large number of people, animals and plants. It will have a very unpleasant impact on your children and grandchildren if not on you.
 
I think a lot of people would agreed with you that we should not waste resource. What I struggle with, with others I think, is hanging Global Warming on this.

I think if real money was spent on understanding GW and not trying to prove the man made bit, I would be happier. That said, a sensible sustainable energy plan going forward that does not criple the economy seems a good thing to do.

Peter
 
Re: Global warming has happened before

I don't claim any special knowledge or expertise on Global Warming, but just on the law of averages, if you burn and emit the energy that has taken millions of years to accumulate in a matter of 150 years or so, with a vast consumption/emission spike in the last sixty years then you run a risk of altering the climatic balance. When the figures begin to suggest the climatic balance is changing measurably and very quickly, then I'd accept the prima facie case made by the scientists. After all..where do all the emissions go? They are not benign emissions after all.

In my 53 years I have noticed significant change in the weather/rainfall patterns in the Yorkshire Dales where I grew up, and where I still spend some time. You only need to have a chat with the reservoir engineers to hear about the less predictable, but more aggressive rainfall patterns. We've all noticed the warmer winters i'm sure.

For this to happen with such speed is what leads me to believe the broad case that mans activity is strongly implicated in these changes. Does anyone recall that after 9/11 when air travel in the US was stopped for a while, the air quality and atmospheric clarity in New York improved dramatically. Food for thought. We all need to consume and emit less.

Tim
 
Re: Global warming has happened before

Read everyones posts and I can finally say that now I know all there is to know about grobal warming and I am now in a position to say that it's time for me to go to bed.
goodnight
 
On a boaty theme

1703: (26/27 November [ old-style calendar ]: 'GREAT BRITISH STORM'
1. Possibly a rejuvinated Atlantic hurricane, this storm produced estimated winds reaching 120mph/104 knots. There was apparently little rain. On the south Wales coast, a TIDAL SURGE drove up the Bristol Channel, leaving the port of Bristol in ruins, and the hinterland under water. Considerable STRUCTURAL DAMAGE occurred across England & Wales, with large loss of standing timber (much as 1987/Oct). The Eddystone lighthouse (newly built) was destroyed, and its designer/builder was killed as he was on site at the time. The storm dealt a severe blow to Merchant and Royal Navy shipping in the Channel and along the English east coast. For the latter, over 1000 seamen were killed, including many senior RN personnel, and 15 ships. (England was then at war with France). Estimates of total loss of life are around 8000, which makes it much worse than the October 1987 event. The depression approached SW England and move across Wales to Yorkshire, with widespread southwesterly SEVERE GALES on the 26th, and a rearward surge of strength affected the eastern English Channel during the early hours of the 27th.


Nothing new.

Brian
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

I also mentioned the new Polo.


I don't think the MMGW proponents will comment on that as it is a plank in the argument that MMGW is a fine marketing and taxing tool for the New Millennium.

2 plastic bags per mile, Pah!
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
..... as it is a plank in the argument that MMGW is a fine marketing and taxing tool for the New Millennium.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confirmation of this provided yesterday by Gordon Brown, when asked for his reaction to the UN report.

"..blah, blah, a wonderful opportunity for British ingenuity to step forward and create thousands of jobs in lowering carbon footprints....blah, blah".

Said it before, and I'll say again. It's all about jobs for the boys.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that the slope of your 140 year graph is virtually the same between 1910 and 1940 as between 1975 and 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, it's interesting, as is also that the 1910 and 1940 period was mostly below the 1961 - 1990 average, as were the previous thousand years. The fairly consistent rises since the mid 1800s do, to my eyes at any rate, look rather out of step with the earlier climatic cycles of the millennium.

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting how your 1000 year temperature graph is one of those, so beloved by proponents of MMGW, that eliminates the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

[/ QUOTE ]That's simply not the case. The graph covers both periods.

As the Wikipedia graph below shows, there are wide ranges of data estimates. However, none detract from the IPCC best estimate figures, and all show that recent soaring temperature increases are out of kilter with, in the case of this graph, the preceding two thousand years.

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


In any case, no one disputes the fact that there have been significant shifts in climate during the earlier periods. The one thousand year period is interesting as it covers a that period up to and including industrialisation and man's ability to pollute of a big scale ie without help from significant volcanic activity, meteorite disturbance etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting how you leave out that very minor greenhouse gas, water.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh, so I left it out, did I? Eh? But, taking your point, international records of cloud cover (for I presume that's what you're referring to) must be a recent thing, and am personally not aware of any proxy data? But I'm not a scientist. Perhaps you can supply that data.

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting how your insurance cost graph is normalised for inflation, but not for huge increases in population and population centres, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]I believe that you are misinterpreting the data. The data only covers a 48 year period from 1950 to 1998, and the greatest two decadal step changes are in the final two decades, ie since 1980. Generally speaking, poor countries have negligible insurance markets, and the greatest increases in population have taken place in countries barely scratched by the quoted insurance data. There simply have not been "huge increases in population" in North America and Europe between 1980 and 1998, ie in the areas with significant insurance cover. They've increased, but in nothing like the same proportions.
 
Specious statesments need debunking too

[ QUOTE ]
A similar case of charity is the Americans forcing some African nations to grow rice to help out village economies, the Africans are getting quite good at it now, but, this is the good bit, the aid sent by America is, highly refined American rice. This tastes better than African rice, but has little nutritional value. But, tasting better means the African farmers can not even sell their own rice in the markets as the people have a taste for American white rice. The Africans do not have the facility or capability to grow such expensive crops.

[/ QUOTE ]

White rice isn't grown - it's made by grinding the bran off the rice.
 
Specious statesments need debunking too

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone recall that after 9/11 when air travel in the US was stopped for a while, the air quality and atmospheric clarity in New York improved dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

The couple of days that air travel was interrupted may have improved air quality, had there not been two airliners full of fuel incinerated over the city. Oh, that and the dust and ashes resulting from the collapse of the towers significantly decreased air quality in New York.
 
Re: Specious statesments need debunking too

[ QUOTE ]
White rice isn't grown - it's made by grinding the bran off the rice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know!

EDIT>> sorry, I just realised I used difficult language, I should of course have been more careful.

Todays new words.

Refined
aid
 
Re: When logical argument fails... resort to abuse?

[ QUOTE ]
I would in fact like to know how many people who express extreme views on here have actually read the Fraser Institute's report. Not too many I would wager....

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about this report from the Fraser Institute:http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/publication_details.aspx?pubID=3184

Here are some excerpts: (I don't know how they support your argument, but then I'm one of the thick ones...)

• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.
• There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions.

• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.

• Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.

• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.
 
Re: Specious statesments need debunking too

scary, was the whole state under a dust storm? I would not have expected that even from a hydrogen bomb. I am surprised with something that big we did not enter a nucular <sic> winter.
 
Re: Specious statesments need debunking too

That would be city and surroundings - the area that would normally have air quality issues. Much of the state is rural and the air quality is very good.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Confirmation of this provided yesterday by Gordon Brown, when asked for his reaction to the UN report.

"..blah, blah, a wonderful opportunity for British ingenuity to step forward and create thousands of jobs in lowering carbon footprints....blah, blah".

Said it before, and I'll say again. It's all about jobs for the boys.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand your point. Isn't it a good thing to develop genuinely 'greener' processes, no matter what you think of climate change and its causes ? Is it not also good for the UK to be in the forefront of this ? Even if you don't believe that it will affect global climate, you must agree that it makes for a healthier and more pleasant environment ?

I was listening to a piece on the BBC about the greening of GE recently. They have a new approach called Ecomagination!! Of course they have seen an opportunity to make money in a changed regulatory environment. Of course they are just hopping on a band wagon to make more money. But provided the regulatory environment is rational, and their greenness is properly audited, everyone benefits.

I agree that there is a lot of posturing and exploiting of a 'greener-than-thou' attitude which is damaging to everyone. Especially when the 'greenness' is purely fictitious such as in the case of bio-fuels. But these anomalies are being identified and market forces will respond. I am genuinely optimistic that technology will get us out of the hole we have dug (although too late for many people) but only if it is made profitable to be green.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top