Global warming in the Sunday Times mag

"CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen by 37% since the industrial revolution 200 years ago - that is vastly steeper than any other rise seen in history."

Measured how?

"That is almost exclusively down to the burning of fossil fuels and deforrestation."

Proof please!

"More worrying it has increased 20% in the last 50 years."

I always worry when I see %tages quoted. Bit like mis-leading sale prices. Could you please state actuals, where sampled & how analysed.

Also, you are drawing a direct cause/result, when the jury is still out!
 
try www.google.co.uk

You will find all those figures well referenced - wiki is a good place to start too as it tends to have well referenced articles on many issues.

Once you've checked those if you've still got any questions I'll be happy to help you sort it out
 
Wow!! You've quoted a magazine article, must be right then. I suppose a few years ago the same magazine was quoting doom and gloom about the ozone layer and global cooling. By the way what happened to that? IF there is man made global warming maybe we should just using CFC's again. Open the hole in the ozone layer and let some of the heat out.... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Why don't you spend some time browsing the internet and post some real figures that contradict mine. Not opinions on what may happen but figures.

Disprove that only 3.2% of co2 in the atmosphere is man made which is less than 0.28% of all green house gases.

We could cut our emissions by half and it would still be less than a pi$$ in the ocean as a percentage of the total greenhouse gases.

My skepticism is based on my distrust of our and other governments who I think have other agendas as far as climate change is concerned.

Please prove me wrong.

See you next week.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just in case the link between CO2 levels and increasing temperature - and the consequences - isn't clear for all the obstinate bloody-minded cynics out there:

CO2GlobTemp.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Wierd Science again....
The picture tells us that Temperature goes up and down in a regular cycle, it also tells that CO2 PPM has a similar cycle. Correlation does not equal causation.
Science is cynical, Faith just believes.

[/ QUOTE ]You complete and utter spanner.

The graph is INTENDED to illustrate the cycle. That's why it goes back so far and the recent increases look so STEEP. But didn't you notice the little spike in the last 150 years or so, which the temperature has yet to match...? Seem a little unusual? There ARE cycles, but the natural variance, particularly over such a SMALL PERIOD OF TIME, is NOTHING like the recent changes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's your opinion and for every journal in favour of man made climate change there is one against.

[/ QUOTE ]Bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

not necessarily

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes necessarily.

Did you read the article you posted a link to ?

It is about two scientists saying we need to be careful of damaging a real concern by hype.


"I've no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don't want to undermine that case by crying wolf."

Would anyone disagree with that ? Not me.

Where does it say that they believe the recent spike in CO2 is not anthropogenic ?
 
yes I read it and to my mind it gives credence to the statement that there are as many doubters as believers about human activity causing GW, and the fact that there is too much sensationalism muddying the waters which lends support to the anti believers ..... that is the nub of their problem- how to keep the pressure up in support of their 'human folly' theory instead of the solar activity theory I subscribe too.

[ QUOTE ]
Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.



They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.



The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.




They think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.



They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.


[/ QUOTE ]
 
I don't disagree with a single word from that quote. I said something similar myself a short while ago.

But how do you conclude that


[ QUOTE ]
.. it gives credence to the statement that there are as many doubters as believers about human activity causing GW

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the sort of unsubstantiated exaggeration they are cautioning against.
 
I maintain that those who questioned the bold statement that humans were causing GW, against the popularist notion that they were causing it, are increasingly becoming more vocal.

maybe sun readers arnt saying it yet, but they should be encouraged to make a judgement by looking at all the data, not sifted and whitewashed facts and figures.

only yesterday I read the melting of the arctic icecap will increase rainfall in western europe ........... another theory which will negate the tales of famine and arid conditions driving the europeans northwards /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

human GW is a load of pontification supported by politicians for their own ends

go save the planet if you want - (just dont ask me to cut my nose off to spite my face) - and not in my name or in my back yard tnx /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

not until we know more about cause and effects anyway
 
I don't think anyone is doubting global warming, it's whether man has anything to do with it is the issue. Because a scientist agrees that our climate is getting warmer the doom and glooms instantly assume they are agreeing it's man induced. No where in the BBC report in the link above do the two say anything about man made global warming but you assume they beilieve it to be so.

I'm still waiting for the figure of 0.28% to be disproved......
 
The UK is supposedly responsible for only 2% of man made co2 in the atmosphere. That makes us liable for 0.02% of the greenhouse gas. I believe in scientific terms anything less than that they would only class it as a trace?
 
[ QUOTE ]
No where in the BBC report in the link above do the two say anything about man made global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed they do not say anything on the matter. But it was not me that assumed anything, it was Landaftaff ! He assumed they disagreed with 'conventional wisdom' on the cause. There is no evidence either way.

[ QUOTE ]
but you assume they beilieve it to be so

[/ QUOTE ]

No I do not.

Again, you are extrapolating beyond the available data.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Again, you are extrapolating beyond the available data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that's the kettle calling the pot black.

You are on the man made global warming band wagon without proof it exists.

I've posted some figures, if I'm wrong I'd like someone to explain why and point to figures that contradict mine. So far no one has bothered. maybe I'm right? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Yes Kev but the idea is that we cannot preach to the others without being the holiest possible ourselves. Just think how difficult it would be for Mr Millipede to scuttle of and preach to China and India et al if we hadn't brought our own country to it's industrial knees first? The joke is that the high polluting newcomers are increasing their polluting whilst busily making all those absolute essential we cannot do without. But of course by letting them do the making cleans up our act so we can claim our holy success.

That was sarcasm BTW, just in case someone thinks otherwise. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I just think that if the government really believed that we could do something about global warming, instead of thinking of ways to tax us out of existence they'd do some real savings, like turning of motorway street lights at night, making offices turn off lights at night and a thousand other things we do to waste energy. Non of this would require taking our money to achieve.

An instant win would be car sharing, if you are in the outside lane between 7-10 in the morning you need two in the car.

nearly forgot...and motorbikes shouldn't have to pay road tax and should get free petrol /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I maintain that those who questioned the bold statement that humans were causing GW, against the popularist notion that they were causing it, are increasingly becoming more vocal.

[/ QUOTE ]

super.

[ QUOTE ]
maybe sun readers arnt saying it yet, but they should be encouraged to make a judgement by looking at all the data, not sifted and whitewashed facts and figures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Data please.

[ QUOTE ]
only yesterday I read the melting of the arctic icecap will increase rainfall in western europe ........... another theory which will negate the tales of famine and arid conditions driving the europeans northwards /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

well, I think you will find that increased rainfall in some areas and decreased in others has been a prediction of climate change for a very very long time.

[ QUOTE ]
human GW is a load of pontification supported by politicians for their own ends

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite, as I have said, and as the article you quoted said, the hi-jacking of science for personal agendas is a major problem.

[ QUOTE ]
go save the planet if you want - (just dont ask me to cut my nose off to spite my face) - and not in my name or in my back yard tnx /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite amusing. I am no climatologist and I have no opinion on the issue. I am just responding to the data that you yourself are posting.


[ QUOTE ]
not until we know more about cause and effects anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

But on the balance of probabilities, I think it wise to take the threat seriously.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I've posted some figures, if I'm wrong I'd like someone to explain why and point to figures that contradict mine. So far no one has bothered. maybe I'm right? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
You posted some ridiculous statistics - which are so clearly wrong that they are laughable - but without quoting their source no one can point that out to you.

I'm afraid that people who post figures like that are either fools or charlatans. Those who believe them without bothering to look behind them are fools - those who post them knowing them to be false are charlatans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
Aerogen 4 capacitors
2
Replies
22
Views
629
Boater Sam
Boater Sam
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 52
Replies
0
Views
492
tillergirl
T
I
Alternator upgrade on Volvo TMD41A
Replies
7
Views
224
boatmike
boatmike
Refueler
Navionics Boating gives me river nav coverage .....
Replies
8
Views
298
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top