Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

Climate change

last reply
172 replies
8.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Bluefish2009
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
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
tmann
Sex God
Quote by JTS
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
tmann
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
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.
Travis
TooHot2
Sex God
Just wait until the ice melts and the warm water conveyor gets turned off. then we will have cold winters around
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:

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.
Unknown User
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.
TooHot2
Sex God
Quote by JTS
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.
Unknown User
Quote by Too Hot
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:

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 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.
TooHot2
Sex God
Quote by Rogue_trader
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 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?
Unknown User
Quote by 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 :-))

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.
Quote by Too Hot
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.
Quote by Too Hot
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!!
Quote by Too Hot
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.
Quote by Too Hot
5) Won't putting CO2 into sea water just make it more acidic?

Yes it will become more acidic
Quote by Too Hot
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.
Bluefish2009
Sex God
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
Unknown User
Quote by Rogue_trader
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.
TooHot2
Sex God
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................

Or you could read this?...........................

Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?
Unknown User
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.
Quote by Too Hot
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................

Or you could read this?...........................

Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?
TooHot2
Sex God
Quote by awayman
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.
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................

Or you could read this?...........................

Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?

Agreed 100%.
But the problem is that governments around the world are making decisions and raising taxes based on suspect evidence. Would I be right to expect a refund on my £415 a year car tax because the justification was solely on its carbon emmissions if this does turn out to be a con?
Unknown User
That kind of presumes that we have the right to strike down or revoke laws made on the basis of dodgy evidence or illogical assumptions. On that basis we'd have to work our way through most of the sexual offences and obscenity laws before we even got close to sorting out road traffic law and taxation.
Quote by Too Hot
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.
Man made ocean acidification by CO2 anyone?....................

Or you could read this?...........................

Then you would be really confused !!
This is the problem with the whole GW debate - just what to believe?

Agreed 100%.
But the problem is that governments around the world are making decisions and raising taxes based on suspect evidence. Would I be right to expect a refund on my ?415 a year car tax because the justification was solely on its carbon emmissions if this does turn out to be a con?
Unknown User
Quote by Too Hot
Agreed 100%.
But the problem is that governments around the world are making decisions and raising taxes based on suspect evidence. Would I be right to expect a refund on my ?415 a year car tax because the justification was solely on its carbon emmissions if this does turn out to be a con?

Get a life. The govs are well-aware that AGW is a con.
But the money and control that the scam gives them is too much to pass-by. That and the massive extension of socialism world-wide.
I note that Boris is now proposing road-user-charging for London, and an extension of the congestion charge zones......
gulsonroad30664
Orgasminator
Quote by JTS

Agreed 100%.
But the problem is that governments around the world are making decisions and raising taxes based on suspect evidence. Would I be right to expect a refund on my ?415 a year car tax because the justification was solely on its carbon emmissions if this does turn out to be a con?

Get a life. The govs are well-aware that AGW is a con.
But the money and control that the scam gives them is too much to pass-by. That and the massive extension of socialism world-wide.
I note that Boris is now proposing road-user-charging for London, and an extension of the congestion charge zones......nothing social about govnment control and bankers profits jts.
TooHot2
Sex God
Just to further this debate a little, I have just found an article in the Guardian newspaper by Michael Fish, luminary of the BBC and Met Office. He is trying to make a case for the BBC not ending its contract with the Met Office. (Seemingly, even the BBC are now trying to distance themselves from the Met Office and their consistently incorrect mid term forecasts - the accusation that warm bias is too entrenched in their models to deliver any kind of accuracy).
Anyway Michael comes out with a memorable snippet that "Climate science is in its infancy." Oh !! Really !! And we all thought it was settled ??
Unknown User
Quote by Too Hot
Just to further this debate a little, I have just found an article in the Guardian newspaper by Michael Fish, luminary of the BBC and Met Office. He is trying to make a case for the BBC not ending its contract with the Met Office. (Seemingly, even the BBC are now trying to distance themselves from the Met Office and their consistently incorrect mid term forecasts - the accusation that warm bias is too entrenched in their models to deliver any kind of accuracy).
Anyway Michael comes out with a memorable snippet that "Climate science is in its infancy." Oh !! Really !! And we all thought it was settled ??

Michael Fish?
Is that the idiot who could not see the worst hurricane in 200 years heading our way?
The guy I would not trust to run my bath, let alone preach about anything of any value!

Now you tell me if this guy knows what he is on about.
Bluefish2009
Sex God
Successive disclosures are suggesting to me that global warming science has been rigged to advance political and economic agendas, this is undermining the, "man made" greenhouse gas theory.
Not sure if we have seen this one before or not, looks like the IPCC will use any report that suites there standpoint, even if it has no basis in fact
Unknown User
I see the ipcc chairperson is coming around to the SH viewpoint:
KingsLynnGuy
Forum Virgin
Ive only just seen this forum so excuse me if i'm repeating anything.
I think a good place to start is
if you are really interested this site gives equal say to both sides of the argument.
I have been following this for a long time and my view is that it's all complete and utter crap! a total scam!
lots of well meaning folks have been deluded by a bunch of crooks at the hadley centre the met office and IPPCs.
why? money, control i dunno but i don't believe a word of it.
Mike
Bluefish2009
Sex God
When will this global warming kick in, its bloody freezing here today!
TooHot2
Sex God
Thought that this thread might be up for a fresh airing as a result of this:

Or

Can't be much longer now before this all collapses into a deep pile of stinking bullshit and we can all look forward to getting our green taxes returned wink
Bluefish2009
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Thought that this thread might be up for a fresh airing as a result of this:

Or

Can't be much longer now before this all collapses into a deep pile of stinking bullshit and we can all look forward to getting our green taxes returned wink

Crooks, the bloody lot of them
I am only amazed by how many people were sucked in by their Government funded lies
Lizaleanrob
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Thought that this thread might be up for a fresh airing as a result of this:

Or

Can't be much longer now before this all collapses into a deep pile of stinking bullshit and we can all look forward to getting our green taxes returned wink

all the hypocrisy of climate change is to little to late for places like the Maldives
enjoy its some thing that I'm told will not be there in ten to fifteen years
TooHot2
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Thought that this thread might be up for a fresh airing as a result of this:

Or

Can't be much longer now before this all collapses into a deep pile of stinking bullshit and we can all look forward to getting our green taxes returned wink

all the hypocrisy of climate change is to little to late for places like the Maldives
enjoy its some thing that I'm told will not be there in ten to fifteen years

I am told that there were quite a few people living in what is now the English Channel a few thousand years ago. All their bloody camp fires caused so much global Warming their land is now 80 feet under water.
Then again, maybe it is just that the planet does change and todays subterranean reef is tomorrows holiday destination and todays holiday destination elsewhere on the planet is tomorrows subteranean coral reef. Is it possible that the world does change - quite naturally? And has done for millions of years before and will continue to do so for millions of years more?.... Dunno, just a thought.
Bluefish2009
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Thought that this thread might be up for a fresh airing as a result of this:

Or

Can't be much longer now before this all collapses into a deep pile of stinking bullshit and we can all look forward to getting our green taxes returned wink

all the hypocrisy of climate change is to little to late for places like the Maldives
enjoy its some thing that I'm told will not be there in ten to fifteen years

I am told that there were quite a few people living in what is now the English Channel a few thousand years ago. All their bloody camp fires caused so much global Warming their land is now 80 feet under water.
Then again, maybe it is just that the planet does change and todays subterranean reef is tomorrows holiday destination and todays holiday destination elsewhere on the planet is tomorrows subteranean coral reef. Is it possible that the world does change - quite naturally? And has done for millions of years before and will continue to do so for millions of years more?.... Dunno, just a thought.
:thumbup:
You mirror my thoughts on this matter 100%
Lizaleanrob
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Thought that this thread might be up for a fresh airing as a result of this:

Or

Can't be much longer now before this all collapses into a deep pile of stinking bullshit and we can all look forward to getting our green taxes returned wink

all the hypocrisy of climate change is to little to late for places like the Maldives
enjoy its some thing that I'm told will not be there in ten to fifteen years

I am told that there were quite a few people living in what is now the English Channel a few thousand years ago. All their bloody camp fires caused so much global Warming their land is now 80 feet under water.
Then again, maybe it is just that the planet does change and todays subterranean reef is tomorrows holiday destination and todays holiday destination elsewhere on the planet is tomorrows subteranean coral reef. Is it possible that the world does change - quite naturally? And has done for millions of years before and will continue to do so for millions of years more?.... Dunno, just a thought.
:thumbup:
You mirror my thoughts on this matter 100%
most reef survive due to the the naturaly slow rise and fall of of sea levels
and i agree when we left the last ice age we started the journey head first towards the next one
there was also a time when oxford looked like the Maldives but this current melting of the ice caps is happening faster than any other time in the planets history
and much faster than the reefs can grow :sad:
but i think you`ll find it a little more than few thousand years ago the channel flooded
Unknown User
I would like the climate change brigade to explain this....

I will be long dead when a real expert comes along with REAL proof, that actually ya know climate change was a load of old cobblers.
We are all being taken for fools..........