So, 'Never mind the Bollocks' and get Shagging like there is no tomorrow
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,355,959
- Online Now:
- 3,392
- Msgs Sent:
- 154,951,983
- Photo Ads:
- 723,983
- User Pics:
- 562,922
- Video Chat:
- 797
Nobody has yet managed to explain why the 5% (4% production, 1% land-change) of the CO2 in the atmosphere that WE put there has such a dramatic effect on climate that the other 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere (that is not the result of human activities) does not.
In THEIR world (climate-change-scientists) they can only explain the effect by hypothesising an "unknown forcing mechanism" to cause the "warming".
In a world of sense, scientists would not just say "the warming must be due to mankind but since we don't know why we'll have to invent a reason that is not known to explain it"
The REAL reason why scientists and politicians will NEVER let-go of AGW is because of the money involved.
The amount of money is staggering: Some tens of trillions of dollars. Everyone wants a slice of THAT cake.
And that does not even take account of the political control of the population that is involved.
Have a read of THIS to get an idea of exactly WHY polos are really keen on "climate change"
Or maybe a read of THIS for a thoughful look at the warmist world.
Or maybe even THE LAWSON approach to global "warming"
In THEIR world (climate-change-scientists) they can only explain the effect by hypothesising an "unknown forcing mechanism" to cause the "warming".
In a world of sense, scientists would not just say "the warming must be due to mankind but since we don't know why we'll have to invent a reason that is not known to explain it"
The REAL reason why scientists and politicians will NEVER let-go of AGW is because of the money involved.
The amount of money is staggering: Some tens of trillions of dollars. Everyone wants a slice of THAT cake.
And that does not even take account of the political control of the population that is involved.
Have a read of THIS to get an idea of exactly WHY polos are really keen on "climate change"
Or maybe a read of THIS for a thoughful look at the warmist world.
Or maybe even THE LAWSON approach to global "warming"
But let's consider what would happen if the opposite was occurring, that is global cooling?
What could man do to stop cooling? The ice would creep over the top and bottom of the earth. Could all that carbon then stop the ice? Probably not.
What could man do to stop cooling? The ice would creep over the top and bottom of the earth. Could all that carbon then stop the ice? Probably not.
Global cooling suits as well as global warming: They're both climate change.
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published HERE in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a PETITION !
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published HERE in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a PETITION !
JTS wrote:
Global cooling suits as well as global warming: They're both climate change.
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published HERE in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a PETITION !
Global cooling suits as well as global warming: They're both climate change.
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published HERE in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a PETITION !
I can remember clearly being terrified as a very young boy by the fact that we were heading into the next ice age.... Keep them scared and under control
Clear skies for a week and nightime temperatures down to minus 10 - is anyone surprised? No, of course not, clear skies in Winter have always been associated with ice and frost. Question is - in all seriousness - where is the global warming effect (blanket effect) of the the CO2 in the air? Perhaps we should just wait for the clouds to come back for a real blanket effect? I always understood that water vapour was more of a "warmer" than CO2 which is actually an invisible and vital atmospheric gas.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Too Hot wrote:
Clear skies for a week and nightime temperatures down to minus 10 - is anyone surprised? No, of course not, clear skies in Winter have always been associated with ice and frost. Question is - in all seriousness - where is the global warming effect (blanket effect) of the the CO2 in the air? Perhaps we should just wait for the clouds to come back for a real blanket effect? I always understood that water vapour was more of a "warmer" than CO2 which is actually an invisible and vital atmospheric gas.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Clear skies for a week and nightime temperatures down to minus 10 - is anyone surprised? No, of course not, clear skies in Winter have always been associated with ice and frost. Question is - in all seriousness - where is the global warming effect (blanket effect) of the the CO2 in the air? Perhaps we should just wait for the clouds to come back for a real blanket effect? I always understood that water vapour was more of a "warmer" than CO2 which is actually an invisible and vital atmospheric gas.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Ah water vapour, the largest greenhouse gas, drain the seas
JTS wrote:
Nobody has yet managed to explain why the 5% (4% production, 1% land-change) of the CO2 in the atmosphere that WE put there has such a dramatic effect on climate that the other 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere (that is not the result of human activities) does not.
....
Nobody has yet managed to explain why the 5% (4% production, 1% land-change) of the CO2 in the atmosphere that WE put there has such a dramatic effect on climate that the other 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere (that is not the result of human activities) does not.
....
Oh it does have an effect; without that 95% we would be in for a bad time. If there was only 90% of what it is now things would be colder.
Travis
Too Hot wrote:
Clear skies for a week and nightime temperatures down to minus 10 - is anyone surprised? No, of course not, clear skies in Winter have always been associated with ice and frost. Question is - in all seriousness - where is the global warming effect (blanket effect) of the the CO2 in the air? Perhaps we should just wait for the clouds to come back for a real blanket effect? I always understood that water vapour was more of a "warmer" than CO2 which is actually an invisible and vital atmospheric gas.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Just wait until the ice melts and the warm water conveyor gets turned off. then we will have cold winters around Britain.
Clear skies for a week and nightime temperatures down to minus 10 - is anyone surprised? No, of course not, clear skies in Winter have always been associated with ice and frost. Question is - in all seriousness - where is the global warming effect (blanket effect) of the the CO2 in the air? Perhaps we should just wait for the clouds to come back for a real blanket effect? I always understood that water vapour was more of a "warmer" than CO2 which is actually an invisible and vital atmospheric gas.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Travis
[/quote]Just wait until the ice melts and the warm water conveyor gets turned off. then we will have cold winters around Britain.Travis[/quote]
And that will happen as a result on mans activity will it? This statement is also a theory and based solely on assumption because no-one really knows what will happen and what does happen to that cold water. The problem with the theory is that both the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift Current are surface currents and cold water will actually sink to the bottom of the ocean to get caught up in conveyor currents taking the underlying cold water south. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the cold water will stay on the surface and therefore affect surface currents. Notwithstanding this, the atlantic conveyor which was believed by scientists to be the alleged engine of the gulf stream switched off in 1998 and was inactive for ten years, restarting again in 2008. The predicted shutdown of the gulf stream never happened and business (climate) continued as usual:
www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
The fact is that the atlantic conveyor system and the gulf stream NEED cold water because it is dense and heavier than the surrounding water and creates the momentum for the mass movement of sea currents.
Personally, I think that too much credence is placed on Scientific theories when simple answers to all our questions are all around us and the facts are based on the simplest scientific experiments that we did at school and NOT on complex and fudged computer models.
1) CO2 is a dense, heavier than air and will naturally "sink" to the earths surface to be consumed by nature's requirements. The effect of CO2 is to give a relative "dense" atmosphere sheilding us from the worst effects of the sun. A thin atmosphere would result in more global warming because of the unrestrained radiated heat from the sun.
2) Water vapour (clouds) have a blanket effect on our climate, CO2 doesn't. Nothing has changed in this respect - clear nights mean that the warmth of the earth radiates out to space, cloud cover gives relatively "warmer" nights because of the blanket effect of the cloud. CO2 does not work in this way and we can see this simply and with our own eyes in every day life.
The Copenhagen fudge was the beginning of the end for the warming alarmists and the dissenting voices are getting louder and more viciferous. Belief in man made climate change has dropped since Climategate and since Copenhagen and no right minded resident of the northern hemisphere this winter will escape what their eyes are telling them and what they can see out of their window.
And that will happen as a result on mans activity will it? This statement is also a theory and based solely on assumption because no-one really knows what will happen and what does happen to that cold water. The problem with the theory is that both the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift Current are surface currents and cold water will actually sink to the bottom of the ocean to get caught up in conveyor currents taking the underlying cold water south. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the cold water will stay on the surface and therefore affect surface currents. Notwithstanding this, the atlantic conveyor which was believed by scientists to be the alleged engine of the gulf stream switched off in 1998 and was inactive for ten years, restarting again in 2008. The predicted shutdown of the gulf stream never happened and business (climate) continued as usual:
www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
The fact is that the atlantic conveyor system and the gulf stream NEED cold water because it is dense and heavier than the surrounding water and creates the momentum for the mass movement of sea currents.
Personally, I think that too much credence is placed on Scientific theories when simple answers to all our questions are all around us and the facts are based on the simplest scientific experiments that we did at school and NOT on complex and fudged computer models.
1) CO2 is a dense, heavier than air and will naturally "sink" to the earths surface to be consumed by nature's requirements. The effect of CO2 is to give a relative "dense" atmosphere sheilding us from the worst effects of the sun. A thin atmosphere would result in more global warming because of the unrestrained radiated heat from the sun.
2) Water vapour (clouds) have a blanket effect on our climate, CO2 doesn't. Nothing has changed in this respect - clear nights mean that the warmth of the earth radiates out to space, cloud cover gives relatively "warmer" nights because of the blanket effect of the cloud. CO2 does not work in this way and we can see this simply and with our own eyes in every day life.
The Copenhagen fudge was the beginning of the end for the warming alarmists and the dissenting voices are getting louder and more viciferous. Belief in man made climate change has dropped since Climategate and since Copenhagen and no right minded resident of the northern hemisphere this winter will escape what their eyes are telling them and what they can see out of their window.
JTS wrote:
I think you're wrong with that.
The "warmists" are already trotting-out the "the cold blip is because the usual westerly winds have been disrupted by climate change" propaganda.
I think you're wrong with that.
The "warmists" are already trotting-out the "the cold blip is because the usual westerly winds have been disrupted by climate change" propaganda.
Except that the weather is not just affecting Europe - all of the northern hemisphere is experiencing the worst winter conditions for decades. Europe, north america, Russia and Asia - oh and don't mention the Arctic - coldest winter for years, ice forming at record rates.
You have to admire them, it is almost a religious belief whereby weather events that fit the theory are used to promote the theory and contradictory weather events are called "blips."
Get taxed more folks so we can get about changing the earths weather - climb aboard the gravy train.
Rogue_traderI need to get out more- Joined:
- 10 Jun 2007
- Posts:
- 242
- Location:
- sitting here,
minding my own
business
Too Hot wrote:
And that will happen as a result on mans activity will it? This statement is also a theory and based solely on assumption because no-one really knows what will happen and what does happen to that cold water. The problem with the theory is that both the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift Current are surface currents and cold water will actually sink to the bottom of the ocean to get caught up in conveyor currents taking the underlying cold water south. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the cold water will stay on the surface and therefore affect surface currents. Notwithstanding this, the Atlantic conveyor which was believed by scientists to be the alleged engine of the Gulf Stream switched off in 1998 and was inactive for ten years, restarting again in 2008. The predicted shutdown of the Gulf Stream never happened and business (climate) continued as usual:
www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
the fact is that the Atlantic conveyor system and the Gulf Stream NEED cold water because it is dense and heavier than the surrounding water and creates the momentum for the mass movement of sea currents.
Personally, I think that too much credence is placed on scientific theories when simple answers to all our questions are all around us and the facts are based on the simplest scientific experiments that we did at school and NOT on complex and fudged computer models.
1) CO2 is a dense, heavier than air and will naturally "sink" to the earth’s surface to be consumed by nature's requirements. The effect of CO2 is to give a relative "dense" atmosphere shielding us from the worst effects of the sun. A thin atmosphere would result in more global warming because of the unrestrained radiated heat from the sun.
2) Water vapour (clouds) have a blanket effect on our climate, CO2 doesn't. Nothing has changed in this respect - clear nights mean that the warmth of the earth radiates out to space, cloud cover gives relatively "warmer" nights because of the blanket effect of the cloud. CO2 does not work in this way and we can see this simply and with our own eyes in every day life.
The Copenhagen fudge was the beginning of the end for the warming alarmists and the dissenting voices are getting louder and more vociferous. Belief in man made climate change has dropped since Climategate and since Copenhagen and no right minded resident of the northern hemisphere this winter will escape what their eyes are telling them and what they can see out of their window.
Quote:
Just wait until the ice melts and the warm water conveyor gets turned off. Then we will have cold winters around Britain. Travis
Just wait until the ice melts and the warm water conveyor gets turned off. Then we will have cold winters around Britain. Travis
And that will happen as a result on mans activity will it? This statement is also a theory and based solely on assumption because no-one really knows what will happen and what does happen to that cold water. The problem with the theory is that both the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift Current are surface currents and cold water will actually sink to the bottom of the ocean to get caught up in conveyor currents taking the underlying cold water south. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the cold water will stay on the surface and therefore affect surface currents. Notwithstanding this, the Atlantic conveyor which was believed by scientists to be the alleged engine of the Gulf Stream switched off in 1998 and was inactive for ten years, restarting again in 2008. The predicted shutdown of the Gulf Stream never happened and business (climate) continued as usual:
www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
the fact is that the Atlantic conveyor system and the Gulf Stream NEED cold water because it is dense and heavier than the surrounding water and creates the momentum for the mass movement of sea currents.
Personally, I think that too much credence is placed on scientific theories when simple answers to all our questions are all around us and the facts are based on the simplest scientific experiments that we did at school and NOT on complex and fudged computer models.
1) CO2 is a dense, heavier than air and will naturally "sink" to the earth’s surface to be consumed by nature's requirements. The effect of CO2 is to give a relative "dense" atmosphere shielding us from the worst effects of the sun. A thin atmosphere would result in more global warming because of the unrestrained radiated heat from the sun.
2) Water vapour (clouds) have a blanket effect on our climate, CO2 doesn't. Nothing has changed in this respect - clear nights mean that the warmth of the earth radiates out to space, cloud cover gives relatively "warmer" nights because of the blanket effect of the cloud. CO2 does not work in this way and we can see this simply and with our own eyes in every day life.
The Copenhagen fudge was the beginning of the end for the warming alarmists and the dissenting voices are getting louder and more vociferous. Belief in man made climate change has dropped since Climategate and since Copenhagen and no right minded resident of the northern hemisphere this winter will escape what their eyes are telling them and what they can see out of their window.
I try and not get involved with climate change debate because it is a very emotive subject and proving the effects of man's activity on the earth is not really an exact science.
One of the reasons we don't want to stand up and be counted with regards man-made climate change is as a species we are quite selfish and don't want to give up our material goods therefore we will look to blame everything else rather than ourselves.
OK, back to the quoted post I have pasted above I would like to comment as follows;
1) The Atlantic Conveyor is a saline system, you can dissolve more salt in warm water than cold, more salt dissolved = heavier liquid. The heavy warm liquid sinks displacing the cold liquid eventually an imbalance occurs and the conveyor stops, not a momentary stop like the recent 10 year stoppage but for 1000's of years. Our localised temperate climate will become similar to Canada's.
2) I am not aware of any scientist claiming CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate change. The additional CO2 we produce is being absorbed by the sea, salt water is a massive CO2 capture system, now since the CO2 it absorbs has an energy content then there is a heat transference to the sea, warming the sea up this produces more water vapour, the water vapour covers more land mass thereby increasing the local temperature where it covers. This has an effect of also increasing the earth’s albedo (reflectiveness) this deflects the suns rays and cools the earth. So we have localised heating and cooling effects (greater wind, more hurricanes etc and yes we are seeing a greater amount of hurricanes per season than ever before)
3) CO2 is also absorbed by the forests, especially in the Amazon basin, but unfortunately we are cutting these down, therefore we are reducing the carbon/oxygen exchange system in nature. This will have several affects, even if we were not increasing the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere our predilection for this timber will increase the amount of CO2 and that will result with more CO2 being absorbed by sea water see item 1.
4) Cutting down of forests will result in more desert areas….increasing our albedo, reflecting the energy from the sun.
5) Increasing the CO2 in the salt water will increase the seas temperature, this isn’t a statement that can be argued with it’s a given. Pump a warming gas like CO2 into water then the calorific value of sea water will increase. This slight temperature increase will cause more mass ice to melt at the poles. The mass ice being pure will decrease the salinity of the seas and decrease the effect of the atlantic conveyor and other sea current movements that rely on the saline effect.
6) Causing the polar caps to melt will reduce the albedo effect of the poles (sea water being darker than ice) And so we have another effect of increasing the seas temperature. Now since the sea has more dissolved carbon in it because of the cutting down of the trees it has a greater capacity for absorbing heating…and suddenly we have a run away greenhouse effect.
A run-away greenhouse effect will blanket the Earth in water vapour. The earths temperature will increase due to the cloud cover, the cloud cover will become poisonous and acidic as more and more molecules are dissolved within it.
For an example of this happening read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, Chapter Heaven and Hell
So overall we have a few effects countering each other in the short term but in the long term the result will be a total blanketing of the earth in cloud cover.
Rogue_trader wrote:
1) The Atlantic Conveyor is a saline system, you can dissolve more salt in warm water than cold, more salt dissolved = heavier liquid. The heavy warm liquid sinks displacing the cold liquid eventually an imbalance occurs and the conveyor stops, not a momentary stop like the recent 10 year stoppage but for 1000's of years. Our localised temperate climate will become similar to Canada's.
2) I am not aware of any scientist claiming CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate change. The additional CO2 we produce is being absorbed by the sea, salt water is a massive CO2 capture system, now since the CO2 it absorbs has an energy content then there is a heat transference to the sea, warming the sea up this produces more water vapour, the water vapour covers more land mass thereby increasing the local temperature where it covers. This has an effect of also increasing the earth’s albedo (reflectiveness) this deflects the suns rays and cools the earth. So we have localised heating and cooling effects (greater wind, more hurricanes etc and yes we are seeing a greater amount of hurricanes per season than ever before)
3) CO2 is also absorbed by the forests, especially in the Amazon basin, but unfortunately we are cutting these down, therefore we are reducing the carbon/oxygen exchange system in nature. This will have several affects, even if we were not increasing the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere our predilection for this timber will increase the amount of CO2 and that will result with more CO2 being absorbed by sea water see item 1.
4) Cutting down of forests will result in more desert areas….increasing our albedo, reflecting the energy from the sun.
5) Increasing the CO2 in the salt water will increase the seas temperature, this isn’t a statement that can be argued with it’s a given. Pump a warming gas like CO2 into water then the calorific value of sea water will increase. This slight temperature increase will cause more mass ice to melt at the poles. The mass ice being pure will decrease the salinity of the seas and decrease the effect of the atlantic conveyor and other sea current movements that rely on the saline effect.
6) Causing the polar caps to melt will reduce the albedo effect of the poles (sea water being darker than ice) And so we have another effect of increasing the seas temperature. Now since the sea has more dissolved carbon in it because of the cutting down of the trees it has a greater capacity for absorbing heating…and suddenly we have a run away greenhouse effect.
A run-away greenhouse effect will blanket the Earth in water vapour. The earths temperature will increase due to the cloud cover, the cloud cover will become poisonous and acidic as more and more molecules are dissolved within it.
For an example of this happening read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, Chapter Heaven and Hell
So overall we have a few effects countering each other in the short term but in the long term the result will be a total blanketing of the earth in cloud cover.
1) The Atlantic Conveyor is a saline system, you can dissolve more salt in warm water than cold, more salt dissolved = heavier liquid. The heavy warm liquid sinks displacing the cold liquid eventually an imbalance occurs and the conveyor stops, not a momentary stop like the recent 10 year stoppage but for 1000's of years. Our localised temperate climate will become similar to Canada's.
2) I am not aware of any scientist claiming CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate change. The additional CO2 we produce is being absorbed by the sea, salt water is a massive CO2 capture system, now since the CO2 it absorbs has an energy content then there is a heat transference to the sea, warming the sea up this produces more water vapour, the water vapour covers more land mass thereby increasing the local temperature where it covers. This has an effect of also increasing the earth’s albedo (reflectiveness) this deflects the suns rays and cools the earth. So we have localised heating and cooling effects (greater wind, more hurricanes etc and yes we are seeing a greater amount of hurricanes per season than ever before)
3) CO2 is also absorbed by the forests, especially in the Amazon basin, but unfortunately we are cutting these down, therefore we are reducing the carbon/oxygen exchange system in nature. This will have several affects, even if we were not increasing the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere our predilection for this timber will increase the amount of CO2 and that will result with more CO2 being absorbed by sea water see item 1.
4) Cutting down of forests will result in more desert areas….increasing our albedo, reflecting the energy from the sun.
5) Increasing the CO2 in the salt water will increase the seas temperature, this isn’t a statement that can be argued with it’s a given. Pump a warming gas like CO2 into water then the calorific value of sea water will increase. This slight temperature increase will cause more mass ice to melt at the poles. The mass ice being pure will decrease the salinity of the seas and decrease the effect of the atlantic conveyor and other sea current movements that rely on the saline effect.
6) Causing the polar caps to melt will reduce the albedo effect of the poles (sea water being darker than ice) And so we have another effect of increasing the seas temperature. Now since the sea has more dissolved carbon in it because of the cutting down of the trees it has a greater capacity for absorbing heating…and suddenly we have a run away greenhouse effect.
A run-away greenhouse effect will blanket the Earth in water vapour. The earths temperature will increase due to the cloud cover, the cloud cover will become poisonous and acidic as more and more molecules are dissolved within it.
For an example of this happening read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, Chapter Heaven and Hell
So overall we have a few effects countering each other in the short term but in the long term the result will be a total blanketing of the earth in cloud cover.
Some interesting points there Rogue Trader, though I imagine that they are generally theories as opposed to fact - unless you can link to the factual sites and I would humbly stand corrected. Just wanted to comment on the points made with some observations (yes - my own theories
)
1) Anything warm will always rise above something cool because any warm fluid is by the nature of being "warm" less dense than its surroundings. Just look inside a kettle or a saucepan of water. The atlantic conveyor did stop between 1998 and 2008 but warmists state that this was still a period or warming. It is working again now, but this is the coldest winter for 30 years.
2)I understood that all warmist scientists are stating that CO2 is causing global warming? I don't know much about CO2 causing the ocean to warm up? How does that happen? It obviously will become more acidic the more it absorbs - but why would it absorb more than it can anyway? Natural CO2 is almost infinitely more widespread than man made CO2 and I understand that "man made" CO2 is only a tiny fraction of all CO2?
3) I agree that destruction of forested area's can't be good news but remember that all of the middle east was at one time heavily forested (that is why there is so much oil). That ecological change was natural and amazon deforestation is man made - but I do agree that destroying natural hanbitats like this is just plain wrong for any reason. Is there a paper or a study that theorises that the sea takes up the slack in carbon capture? I did read somewhere that worldwide forestation was actually increasing despite localised destruction in south america and Indonesia.
4) Why would cutting down forests result in more desert area? The whole of the UK was a forest once but it is not a desert now.
5) Won't putting CO2 into sea water just make it more acidic?
6) The sun has very little effect at the poles because of the angle that suns rays hit the polar regions. Radiated energy from the sun is tiny and of course non existent in Winter. You probably noted that the now very discredited Met Office has quietly changed its stance from an ice free Arctic by 2020 to an ice free arctic possibly by 2080.
Just have to agree to disagree I guess?
Rogue_traderI need to get out more- Joined:
- 10 Jun 2007
- Posts:
- 242
- Location:
- sitting here,
minding my own
business
[quote="Too Hot"]Some interesting points there Rogue Trader, though I imagine that they are generally theories as opposed to fact - unless you can link to the factual sites and I would humbly stand corrected. Just wanted to comment on the points made with some observations (yes - my own theories )
Incorrect, look up thermocline in liquid systems. Different salt concentrations in water can be looked upon as being different types of liquids because their density changes. the density overcoming the difference in cold/warm water of the same salt concentration. I concede the conveyor stopped for a short period. But we have got to stop thinking in short term periods but the longer term.
No, the scientists state that greenhouse gases are causing climate change. A very big difference. The seas absorb CO2, this is used by micro-organisms for their skeletons see polyps/corals/the chalk cliffs of Dover for real world examples of carbon storage by nature. It can only absorb an amount until it becomes saturated and then it can absorb no more. you would be quite correct in the assumption it would become more acidic. It has already done this in some parts of the world and destroyed flora and fauna.
The world exists as a symbiotic state. It stays in a natural balance until something knocks it out of kilter then we get massive changes in short periods of time. short periods of time as far as the world is concerned is several million years.
The sea has been absorbing greenhouse gases since the dawn of time, its ability to do so has been slowing down over the past few years. This slowing down mirrors the increase in fossil fuel consumption in the world, maybe just coincidence.
The very important thing with forests is that whilst they stem CO2 build up in the atmosphere they have a doubling effect with the release of O2, so whilst we cut them down they aren't there to soak CO2 they also aren't there to produce O2!!
The whole of the UK is managed land, similar to Brazil for livestock breeding/rearing, if you don't manage it you will get a Desert, see the middle east as a prime example.
Yes it will become more acidic
It has a dramatic effect at the poles, hence the enlarging and shrinking of polar ice. Have a look at the sheet ice area in winter to summer this is based on energy from the sun.
Whilst offices and institutions have been discredited by the way they have presented data due to scaremongering etc the facts stand as they are, Climate change is occurring, it is affected by our presence on this planet and we are in the fortunate position that we are intelligent enough to do something about it.
)
Too Hot wrote:
1) Anything warm will always rise above something cool because any warm fluid is by the nature of being "warm" less dense than its surroundings. Just look inside a kettle or a saucepan of water. The atlantic conveyor did stop between 1998 and 2008 but warmists state that this was still a period or warming. It is working again now, but this is the coldest winter for 30 years.
1) Anything warm will always rise above something cool because any warm fluid is by the nature of being "warm" less dense than its surroundings. Just look inside a kettle or a saucepan of water. The atlantic conveyor did stop between 1998 and 2008 but warmists state that this was still a period or warming. It is working again now, but this is the coldest winter for 30 years.
Incorrect, look up thermocline in liquid systems. Different salt concentrations in water can be looked upon as being different types of liquids because their density changes. the density overcoming the difference in cold/warm water of the same salt concentration. I concede the conveyor stopped for a short period. But we have got to stop thinking in short term periods but the longer term.
Too Hot wrote:
2)I understood that all warmist scientists are stating that CO2 is causing global warming? I don't know much about CO2 causing the ocean to warm up? How does that happen? It obviously will become more acidic the more it absorbs - but why would it absorb more than it can anyway? Natural CO2 is almost infinitely more widespread than man made CO2 and I understand that "man made" CO2 is only a tiny fraction of all CO2?
2)I understood that all warmist scientists are stating that CO2 is causing global warming? I don't know much about CO2 causing the ocean to warm up? How does that happen? It obviously will become more acidic the more it absorbs - but why would it absorb more than it can anyway? Natural CO2 is almost infinitely more widespread than man made CO2 and I understand that "man made" CO2 is only a tiny fraction of all CO2?
No, the scientists state that greenhouse gases are causing climate change. A very big difference. The seas absorb CO2, this is used by micro-organisms for their skeletons see polyps/corals/the chalk cliffs of Dover for real world examples of carbon storage by nature. It can only absorb an amount until it becomes saturated and then it can absorb no more. you would be quite correct in the assumption it would become more acidic. It has already done this in some parts of the world and destroyed flora and fauna.
Too Hot wrote:
3) I agree that destruction of forested area's can't be good news but remember that all of the middle east was at one time heavily forested (that is why there is so much oil). That ecological change was natural and amazon deforestation is man made - but I do agree that destroying natural hanbitats like this is just plain wrong for any reason. Is there a paper or a study that theorises that the sea takes up the slack in carbon capture? I did read somewhere that worldwide forestation was actually increasing despite localised destruction in south america and Indonesia.
3) I agree that destruction of forested area's can't be good news but remember that all of the middle east was at one time heavily forested (that is why there is so much oil). That ecological change was natural and amazon deforestation is man made - but I do agree that destroying natural hanbitats like this is just plain wrong for any reason. Is there a paper or a study that theorises that the sea takes up the slack in carbon capture? I did read somewhere that worldwide forestation was actually increasing despite localised destruction in south america and Indonesia.
The world exists as a symbiotic state. It stays in a natural balance until something knocks it out of kilter then we get massive changes in short periods of time. short periods of time as far as the world is concerned is several million years.
The sea has been absorbing greenhouse gases since the dawn of time, its ability to do so has been slowing down over the past few years. This slowing down mirrors the increase in fossil fuel consumption in the world, maybe just coincidence.
The very important thing with forests is that whilst they stem CO2 build up in the atmosphere they have a doubling effect with the release of O2, so whilst we cut them down they aren't there to soak CO2 they also aren't there to produce O2!!
Too Hot wrote:
4) Why would cutting down forests result in more desert area? The whole of the UK was a forest once but it is not a desert now.
4) Why would cutting down forests result in more desert area? The whole of the UK was a forest once but it is not a desert now.
The whole of the UK is managed land, similar to Brazil for livestock breeding/rearing, if you don't manage it you will get a Desert, see the middle east as a prime example.
Too Hot wrote:
5) Won't putting CO2 into sea water just make it more acidic?
5) Won't putting CO2 into sea water just make it more acidic?
Yes it will become more acidic
Too Hot wrote:
6) The sun has very little effect at the poles because of the angle that suns rays hit the polar regions. Radiated energy from the sun is tiny and of course non existent in Winter. You probably noted that the now very discredited Met Office has quietly changed its stance from an ice free Arctic by 2020 to an ice free arctic possibly by 2080.
6) The sun has very little effect at the poles because of the angle that suns rays hit the polar regions. Radiated energy from the sun is tiny and of course non existent in Winter. You probably noted that the now very discredited Met Office has quietly changed its stance from an ice free Arctic by 2020 to an ice free arctic possibly by 2080.
It has a dramatic effect at the poles, hence the enlarging and shrinking of polar ice. Have a look at the sheet ice area in winter to summer this is based on energy from the sun.
Whilst offices and institutions have been discredited by the way they have presented data due to scaremongering etc the facts stand as they are, Climate change is occurring, it is affected by our presence on this planet and we are in the fortunate position that we are intelligent enough to do something about it.
Yes climate change is occurring but nothing will convince me it is our activity here that is the cause.
Climate change has been happening for millions of years, way before man had any impact on it, who's motor car was it that caused the last warming when the Romans grew grapes in Londinium?
Higher C02 levels are a result of warmer weather and not the cause
Climate change has been happening for millions of years, way before man had any impact on it, who's motor car was it that caused the last warming when the Romans grew grapes in Londinium?
Higher C02 levels are a result of warmer weather and not the cause
Rogue_trader wrote:
Whilst offices and institutions have been discredited by the way they have presented data due to scaremongering etc the facts stand as they are, Climate change is occurring, it is affected by our presence on this planet and we are in the fortunate position that we are intelligent enough to do something about it.
Whilst offices and institutions have been discredited by the way they have presented data due to scaremongering etc the facts stand as they are, Climate change is occurring, it is affected by our presence on this planet and we are in the fortunate position that we are intelligent enough to do something about it.
Really.
The largest component in the atmosphere that has an effect on retained heat is water vapour.
The effect of co2 is minimal. And 95% of co2 in the atmosphere is NOT to do with mankind.
The gradual (very gradual....) temperature climb (less than 0.4 degrees C in 30 years) is not a problem anyway...and some 36000 people are going to meet their maker earlier than they otherwise would, due to the low temperatures, in this country this winter.
Since there is no evidence that the 5% of co2 that is there because of US does anything, then removing it will also do nothing.
More to the point....the sun is at sunspot minimum...and even more to the point...it is at an all time (180 year) low with respect to its magnetic field.
The dominant theory for cloud formation (other than filling a few billion kettles and boiling them) is that radiation causes cloud formation....which then reflects heat away from the planet...a lower magnetic field means more radiation and more clouds...and a cooler planet.
Personally, I fail to see how the sun is affected by my van.....and the dominant force in planetary heating/cooling is the sun.
i've tried reading all the above but no offence, i just get too bored to carry on. it's not that you guys are boring, just the so called science behind all the so called facts and figures. all we have to see is that our winters are getting warmer in general, hence more rain. the summers are getting cooler in general, hence more rain.
rising sea levels due to melting ice is a load of crap. frozen water expands and thus causes water displacement. so the climate is getting hotter? so that will cause water to evapourate. as ice melts it will only fill the void it was sat in to start with.
as for entering a new iceage in the 70's.....erm doesn't take a scientist to know that we never came out of the last one. at the mo we are just in a warm spell of that iceage. i really don't see how a few degrees of avarage? temperature can reall affect the climate that much.
the 8" of snow outside is the most doncaster has seen for 15years. but that doesn't mean we haven't had cold winters.
i'm not convinced at all.
whips
rising sea levels due to melting ice is a load of crap. frozen water expands and thus causes water displacement. so the climate is getting hotter? so that will cause water to evapourate. as ice melts it will only fill the void it was sat in to start with.
as for entering a new iceage in the 70's.....erm doesn't take a scientist to know that we never came out of the last one. at the mo we are just in a warm spell of that iceage. i really don't see how a few degrees of avarage? temperature can reall affect the climate that much.
the 8" of snow outside is the most doncaster has seen for 15years. but that doesn't mean we haven't had cold winters.
i'm not convinced at all.
whips
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
Or you could read this?...........................
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html
Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
Or you could read this?...........................
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html
Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?
Well now, suppose we say the jury's still out on AGW.
That leaves you with a question.
We know that we needlessly pollute, by burning more fossil fuels than we need to, so why not stop doing it? We know that we waste finite resources by not insulating our homes properly, so why not stop doing it?
That way you don't have to get into the mad pissing contest that is AGW and its opponents; you just have to say yourself being wasteful is daft.
That leaves you with a question.
We know that we needlessly pollute, by burning more fossil fuels than we need to, so why not stop doing it? We know that we waste finite resources by not insulating our homes properly, so why not stop doing it?
That way you don't have to get into the mad pissing contest that is AGW and its opponents; you just have to say yourself being wasteful is daft.
Too Hot wrote:
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
Or you could read this?...........................
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html
Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
Or you could read this?...........................
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html
Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?
