Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Nov 8, 2009 4:25:32 GMT
Britain has had to build new pipelines to import gas from Russia and there is a huge gas depot on the Welsh coastline for ships to bring gas into the country. Britain is a net importer of gas now, it was formally a net exporter. This is a sign of gas in terminal decline. Other signs of oil can be attributed to the high price, I know that this is mostly controlled by OPEC, but none the less part of the increase in oil prices is the decline in stocks. Also for your global warming cycles, look at the data for average temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a direct correlation in the results. In Iceland the mini Iceage ended in 1950, and its amazing to see how far the Ice has retreated since then. Year on year the retreat is worrying. The reason that countries like the UK are no longer net exporters is due to the fact that they would rather spend money on oil/gas from other countries than pumping their own because of what environmentalists say. Such as, they don't want animals to get stuck in the oil. But, except on the rare occasion of an oil spill, the oil is kept in an inclosed space. And when there are oil spills the animals are taken care of very well. As for the average temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The charts that record these two didn't come arround till about the 50's. So how can we know there aren't cycles when these charts aren't that old. And to add to that these charts when you compare them don't agree very much. I'd also suggest you read this. Now either I was mistaken about it being during the 50's or they did it both in the 50's and the 70's.
|
|
|
Post by Father Austin Purcell on Nov 13, 2009 13:41:41 GMT
I'm getting quite cynical about the environmental issue. I know something needs doing, but it's too hard to separate fact from fiction now; there's an absurd level of hyperbole in more or less every "green" news story. If you look carefully the whole thing is a racket now. Almost every part of the establishment has leapt on board:
Politicians: Green policies are an excellent vote winner, and provide a superb excuse for hefty taxation. Business: As with politics, appearing green is great publicity and lets you get away with daylight robbery. Celebrities: It's tendy, pure and simple. Green is the new black. Pontificating on a subject you have only a vague grasp of is something which comes naturally to celebrities anyway. Religion: Several faiths - the Church of England in particular - have found a new sense of purpose in what one might call "eco-theology". Media: The media has always thrived on forecasting impending doom; if you turn the television on these days it's very rare for them to run something uplifting as a main story. And often their sensationalism does more harm than good. But at the end of the day it sells papers.
It's the new puritanism, more or less, and it's damaging the credibility of environmentalism. Most people I've spoken to over the past year are starting to get "eco-fatigue" - I'm amazed the ice caps haven't melted completely by now, considering the volume of hot air our public figues have produced on the subject!
The problem isn't our own interests conflicting with the environment. The problem is that so many people now have wildly different vested interests in the environment it's hard to judge what needs to be done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 13:44:13 GMT
As many of you know I've been working in Iceland during the summer this year for their National Environmental Angency, named Umhverfisstofnun. This photo was taken during a sight seeing flight which we used to photograph the state of the footpaths. Here is one of my photos of Skaftafellsjokull, which has retreated almost one kilometer with a 1 degree increase in temperature. You can see the lines where the Icecap used to finish at various stages over the last few years. Yes the Glaciers are retreating, yes it is because of an increase in temperatures and yes there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Attachments:
|
|
Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Dec 20, 2009 1:22:09 GMT
Yes the Glaciers are retreating, yes it is because of an increase in temperatures and yes there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I agree that the glaciers are retreating, but who's to say they won't grow back? And of course I don't agree with the rest, as can be seen with my above posts. Does anyone else find it ironic that God made it it snow in Copenhagen during the climate conference? And it hasn't really snowed there in 14 years! Somethiing else that bugs me is that a lot of them took their own private jets. I mean aren't they going there to talk against even just taking a car? And their using individual jets! Now tell me that's not messed up!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2009 15:17:39 GMT
The greater increase in temperature has lead to greater variation in climates as the hot and cold air circulate more freely, thus making the conditions in the intermediate regions more volitile resulting in more extreme weather. The increased intensity of hurricanes along the Western Pacific, inclreased flooding in the United Kingdom, more typhoons causing greater damage in the Philippines and other east asian countries such as Taiwan. Snow is one extreme event that doesn't occur as often as it used to. Certainly in the UK it is unseasonal for a white christmas, white Novembers and late January and early February are more seasonal as December and January were too cold.
|
|
|
Post by Knuckles on Dec 21, 2009 16:21:31 GMT
I'll quickely share my take on the whole matter. Things are getting hotter, C02 does play a part, there is a fat however, however.....
The Sun is going through one of it's hotter cycles and that has more to do with it than the others, as Francis Urquhart has correctly pointed out there is alot of hype, this is largly authough not exclusively to usher in and get us to accept the upcoming, 'Carbon Tax', a fat excuse to get money from almost anything. It's not wrong to care and change, but there is a limit, and due to the Sun we haven't all the power over it. Can show proofs and scorces if anyone is interested.
If anyone disagrees with me, that's cool, I'm used to it.
|
|
Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Dec 22, 2009 6:23:29 GMT
I'll quickely share my take on the whole matter. Things are getting hotter, C02 does play a part, there is a fat however, however..... The Sun is going through one of it's hotter cycles and that has more to do with it than the others, as Francis Urquhart has correctly pointed out there is alot of hype, this is largly authough not exclusively to usher in and get us to accept the upcoming, 'Carbon Tax', a fat excuse to get money from almost anything. It's not wrong to care and change, but there is a limit, and due to the Sun we haven't all the power over it. Can show proofs and scorces if anyone is interested. If anyone disagrees with me, that's cool, I'm used to it. Oh no! I agree! And I would like to see the "proofs and scorces".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2010 14:19:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Simon A.C. Martin on Jan 9, 2010 14:32:31 GMT
Do you have a reputable source for that, Jakwin? Otherwise its just a table conjured out of the internet. I can categorically state that "Global Warming" is a direct source of derision here in snowed in Sidcup! I've lived here for twenty years, and never been snowed in before. Come to that, I'd never seen snow in Sidcup before 2003...!
|
|
The Master
Passenger Engine
Here comes the drums!
Posts: 595
|
Post by The Master on Jan 9, 2010 15:11:43 GMT
Who and how managed to ascertain the CO2 in the atmosphere 120 thousand years ago? Any method then would be riddled with errors and any method now would just be educated guesswork.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2010 15:19:08 GMT
Do you have a reputable source for that, Jakwin? Otherwise its just a table conjured out of the internet. I can categorically state that "Global Warming" is a direct source of derision here in snowed in Sidcup! I've lived here for twenty years, and never been snowed in before. Come to that, I'd never seen snow in Sidcup before 2003...! Hmmm I'm rather skeptical on whether this is a direct result of Global Warming. Heavy deep freezes roughly come every 30 or so years. Last one 1979 ish, before then 1963, before then 1947. It is a case that you go back through history and nature throws these things at us. All I know is that it's a pain for canelling work!
|
|
Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Jan 10, 2010 6:30:52 GMT
Source, how (do we know for sure), and cooling(/warming) cycles. I think Simon, CRJ, and Tom have good question/points. (Some of which I made before.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2010 11:28:09 GMT
OK then I give you the BBC Bitesize Revision website, they say that scientists believe that energy from the sun has remained consistent for the last 200 years. The two graphs correlate pretty easily. www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/radiation/globalwarmingrev4.shtmlOne dip in temperatures during the early 1980s can be explained by the 1981 eruption of Mt St Helen's in Washington State. The cloud of dust reflected the sun's radiation back into space, however this effect was lost and the rate of warming continued in the latter years. Your link is broken and I cannot connect to the website that you have quoted and you haven't given me a source for your material Thomasfan.
|
|
Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Jan 18, 2010 18:21:21 GMT
I'm really sorry, but I can't find the link I gave you earlier. But here are three links that use my graph. Here, here, and here. Now they say the world is cooling, but you and many others say that the world is warming. Who's right? You all are! How? Because of what I've been saying all along, cooling and warming cycles. And now, Jákwin, I will quote from the link you gave. "To establish a correlation between a factor and an outcome, convincing evidence is needed. This usually means that enough data must be collected, and that different samples should match." I find fault with this statement on three points. 1. If there is convincing evidence then why don't I and others believe in global warming? 2. How can we have enough data if we have only been reserching this for about 60 years? And, on another note, how did we get some of this "data" from hundreds or thousands of years ago? And who's to say how accurate it is? 3. How can different samples match if they don't? I mean you gave us one chart, and I gave you another, but thay don't match. "Once experiments have shown that there is a definite correlation between a factor and an outcome, it is still not enough to prove that the factor causes the outcome. For this to be proven, there must be some scientific explanation of how the relationship can happen." I'm not saying that there isn't a scientific explanation, because there is, but if there are other experiments that prove otherwise then this is still a theory. Another fault with your article, or any of mine for that matter, is that they use vauge wording. Such as, " on average", "may", "some", etc. Now why would I point this out if it not only degrades your link but mine also? Because we, as humans, are not perfect. We do not know everything. Only God, the Creator of us all, knows everything that is happening, that has happened, and that will happen. I just thought it would be nice to point that out, to remind everyone that we're not infallible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2010 12:44:56 GMT
OK, your chart doesn't measure average temperatures, it measures temperature variation, so the difference between the high and low temperatures. The graph has two data sets on the same scale, which in itself is unreliable and they should be on separate graphs. Your three statements. 1) You have chosen not to believe it and so have other people, fair enough. 2) The air in the atmosphere may have changed and not still be around from many years ago, however in Antarctica there is a huge ice cap with gasses trapped inside it. When they drill cores into the ice and have done on several occasions they can measure these gasses and decipher how old the ice by counting the layers, like counting the growth rings on a tree. www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=ajiBydD5EHNs3) The chart that you gave me measures something different. Temperature variation and average temperatures are two different things. This data from the Rainforest Alliance shows that the temperature variations are increasing in line with the increase in extreme events in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. They also make use of multiple data sets, thus removing anomalous results which could have been shown in your graph. rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htmAnother graph www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090502092019.htm
|
|
Thomasfan
Passenger Engine
Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Posts: 571
|
Post by Thomasfan on Jan 25, 2010 17:01:14 GMT
I have a question in regard to these ice bubbles.
1. If they measure by counting the rings, how do they determine when each one was formed? And if they run across a place in the ice where it looks like one layer, but it's really two(or vice versa) that could throw off all of there data. (That's just a supposition I came up with. It has no real basis, but it's something that could happen.)
And isn't the only difference between temperature variation and average temperatures that, average temperatures are derived from temperature variations by taking the average? So wouldn't that make temperature variations more accurate?
But since more scientists believe(or are paid to) that global warming exists, then of course when you avarage there reserch out it still shows that global warming exists. (Just a little fact that I feel should be pointed out.)
|
|
SRapi
Main Line Engine
Pronounced: Ess-Are-Ay-Pie.
Posts: 1,543
|
Post by SRapi on Dec 27, 2015 16:47:35 GMT
For me, there is no debate. Global warming is real, and we have to protect our environment. It's December, and not only has their been no hint of snow in the Northeast, but it's been in the 60s for a few days now. I went to work in a short-sleeve shirt! That's unheard of. And even those who doubt the existence of climate change (as unreasonable as that may be), why would people try to negotiate their way out of investing in sustainable resources and renewable energy? Coal and oil will run out, why would we not invest in power sources that will continue? It blows my mind that people could have an argument against that.
|
|