Reply With QuoteHaha could do but as a spurs fan I would have to say no to gas chambers hahaOriginally Posted by Dan88
Jesus Christ. I thought I was right leaning. Get rid? Are you talking gas chambers?
Haha could do but as a spurs fan I would have to say no to gas chambers haha
Bollocks! You’re no scientist if you think man-made (up) global wombling is as simple as and solely attributable to CO2 levels.
1) No it’s not – end of story. Water vapour in the lower troposphere has a greater impact.
2) So what? CO2 levels, centuries and millennia ago, were orders of magnitude higher than today’s levels, and yet the planet swung from ice age to balmy enough to make wine in the North of England.
3) Indeed, but the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a house.
At this juncture, I’d suggest you stick to doing just the day job – but frankly, after that nonsense above, I wouldn’t trust you if you told me E=mc²
Go and look at solar forcing – many climate realists predicted a period of colder temperatures, years ago, whilst the Met Office, et all, were spinning their lies about ever increasing temps and no more white Christmases.
Isn’t it funny, how for the last 7 years (since the recession took hold) the media has been utterly devoid of climate change crap being discussed, because everyone’s main worry was finances, not weather patterns?
No money available, so no point bleating on about how we need to spend our way out of temperature rise.
Oh, and I take it that it’s completely escaped your attention how AGW has been rebranded (yes, f’king rebranded) as Climate Chaos – that in itself should be a huge alarm bell.
Now, seeing as you’re a physicist (the appeal to authority may impress others, but not me), so you should be good at numbers (like Jonny Ball…oops, he’s another denier, apparently) – give us all a laugh your take on how we stop 1ºF increase with the numbers the IPCC papers provide.
I’m very keen to see if your maths differs from that of Lord Monckton’s – and the rest of us who can do simple multiplication and division.
Last edited by PJ S; 13th December 2015 at 00:06.
It isn't. But the basic driving mechanism is.
Now reign in the insults if you want to carry on this discussion.
Inept?
That's surely the first strike in a personal insult war so don't play "angel" here.
Claim you are a scientist yet fail to comprehend the most basic of scientific discussions on the matter.
I personally think that probably you have watched series 1-8 of big bang theory and now think you are some sort of Sheldon Cooper
Fair point. I apologise for that.
And with that, I'm done here.
You are as far from funny as you possibly could be.
Love forums :-)
Think I'm the only one who has posted any factual evidence and as per real life it had been ignored..
Antartica Sea Ice is getting BIGGER ! NASA satellite images prove it. Strange how it doesn't make the headlines but I suppose that's not any use to the World View.
The Earth is flat and the sun revoles around it ;-)
Global warming melts my head :-)
Peace and love to ya all...
Trust me there are far more unfunny quites out there
Oh yes it is - just not the most important one. Second in order of importance to water vapour, as you say. Only 0.04% of atmospheric gas, but relatively potent. Also one which we know we have the power to reduce the emission/production of. So why not reduce it if we can?
CO2 is currently at its highest for 800,000 years. That's a long time. There have been several glacial cycles of warming and cooling in that time. So you're right that there has always been variation - but it's at it's highest concentration for nearly a million years. By that measure we are in very extreme times. If you think that's OK - good for you.
1) Because, as the linked video I posted previously demonstrates, the necessary reduction required to offset the temperature rise makes it a complete folly.
2) And even so, we’re not seeing the predictions of global climate modelling coming true. In fact it’s been the reverse – colder temperatures, which aligns with predictions made years ago in regards to solar forcing and sunspot activity.
There are far more important things to be focusing on fixing on this planet, but CO2 isn’t one of them – it’s a complete red herring.
You’re probably familiar with the saying, “tell a lie often enough and it’ll be accepted as the truth” – without it, we’d not have car tax based on CO2 emissions, nor the politics of envy as demonstrated by the high 1st year’s VED charged on new vehicles with higher emissions levels.
After all, if you can afford it, you’re going to damn well pay for it – I’m still figuring out how paying more reduces mean global temperatures, but I’m coming up with nothing!
Re 3. A house is heated from the inside. Surely the Sun is the major source if heat for the planet. If you insulate the planet it will not warm up. Or are we missing something . A thermos keeps stuff warm and cold.
1) Are you as defeatist in your personal life? You appear to fall in line with the argument "that might not have much of an effect, but would be common sense to try and do anyway - but it's a bit inconvenient for me personally so I can't be arsed"
2) I'm not interested in the predictions or the models. The measurements are a bit more interesting - and don't they show that the ten warmest years recorded have all occurred since 1998? With this year likely to be the hottest (and 2014 hottest before that).
The "need" for taxes is straightforward. It's the only way to motivate people in today's economy to do something they don't want to (see 1 above). You can't be arsed - but taxing you may persuade you otherwise.
The ten warmest years since when?
Also, try and remember that the earth is estimated to be 4.5billion years old and humans haven't really been around for much of that.
Since we've been trying to record temperature instrumentally with thermometers - usually cited as since the 1880s. Those are the most reliable historical records it's possible to use. There are some earlier records but they don't involve decent equipment/instruments.
I get the second bit - I've been a professional archaeologist my entire working life and have a few degrees in the subject
No, it isn't. Here are a few more NASA items for you:
We know the climate is getting warmer. There's no debate among legitimate scientists about this one.
That demonstrably isn't true. MIT scientists (for example) don't agree:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2098.html
1) Tax rises.
2) Very little change in CO2 levels.
The first sentence of the abstract of that paper you link to just says: "temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously."
That doesn't say "cooling" does it. So your paper's authors also agree that the warming is continuing.
But the rest of that long first paragraph adds up to 'we're not sure so we're going to do more testing'.
I think we should be more concerned with deforestation than CO2 levels. At least we have the power to stop that almost immediately. We lose so much of the Amazon on a daily basis.
Well this is a long thread filed with conjecture and laptop experts.
I don't understand it enough to start cutting and pasting from wiki and Google so I'm not going to do any of that however my understanding is this.
The planet goes through periods of warming and cooling, the experts have been looking at this for years, it's why going back in the 1800 it was common place for people to ice skate in places now that barely freeze over. It appears that the world is now in one of its warming periods however going by previous records and data it's changing and the cooling period will take over.
There's evidence to prove this pattern, not sure where, can't remember where I saw it but it made sense to me. I sit firmly on the fence that Mother Nature will look after its self.....anything we can do along the way may or may not make a difference but it's not going to stop me sleeping at night.
As far from funny as Spurs are from last winning the PL/1st division title?..............
Yawn typical boring gooner reply.
My only issue is - what percentage of change is actually done to human interaction, rather than other factors - if the scientists can show me hard evidence of this then I'll change my view. Until then it's all about controlling the population and tax revenues!
It's just a matter of time...
Posting Permissions
