Global Warming not down to the Sun ! Its all us kiddies ;)

[osymandus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

The study was done in repsonse to the Great global warming swindel documentary on Channel 4 , it benig one of teh major points of their argument that solar/cosmic rays we're warming the planet up .

Turns out to be most unlikley ;)

 

[Jam_Man]

The point of the C4 documentary wasnt to provide an answer to what was causing global warming, but to dismiss the claims that its down to mankind polluting the environment.

I still find it absurd that even though the planet has been warming since the last ice age naturally that the latest fad is this theory that we have had that dramatic an effect in 100 years or the planet wouldnt have changed even if mankind didnt exist.

The planet is in constant warming/cooling over millions of years, it will do so no matter what we do and to expect it to remain exactly the same for eternity is on par with believeing the world is flat...

Whilst we should certainly be more environmental friendly and less polluting the fact that we think we can take actions that will cool the planet is laughable.

Its all just media hype and politics and everyones just jumping on the bandwagon of a scientific theory which is far from certain. For petes sake even adverts are now basing their marketing on global warming. Buy our washing machine and the world wont explode.

Rant over....

 

[osymandus]

The point of the C4 documentary wasnt to provide an answer to what was causing global warming, but to dismiss the claims that its down to mankind polluting the environment.

I still find it absurd that even though the planet has been warming since the last ice age naturally that the latest fad is that we have had that dramatic an effect in 100 years or the planet wouldnt have changed even if mankind didnt exist.

The planet is in constant warming/cooling over millions of years, it will do so no matter what we do and to expect it to remain exactly the same for eternity is on par with believeing the world is flat...

Whilst we should certainly be more environmental friendly and less polluting the fact that we think we can take actions that will cool the planet is laughable.

Its all just media hype and politics and everyones just jumping on the bandwagon of a scientific theory which is far from certain. For petes sake even adverts are now basing their marketing on global warming. Buy our washing machine and the world wont explode.

Rant over....

The records began roughly (metrologaicly) about 600 (basicly evolving) years ago , the industrial revolution is propably only 200 years . Given the wide spread of the industrial world and its affect no one on the pro side is saying we should prevent change , what they are saying is to decelerate the excelerated "damage" that the pollution causes . The warming is cuased by the pollution , made by the most dominante force on the planet .

It makes nosense to link this to a squeezing of economic produces , as if we ignore a situation like this and attempt to cover it overe there will be no economy or a society come to that .

Given what has happend technological wise in the last 100 years that's a poor reposte (everything frmo COmbustion engine , atomic sciences , micro and nano technologies), and to believe we can't mend or undo what has been done (or more likely adapte ) is a strangly defeatest attitude before we've even tired.

Also accouridng to gelologists we're stillin an Ice Age. It hasnt ended.

 

[C C Csiders]

Judging by the performers at the Live Earth 'gig' on Saturday, there is a school of thought that says that if you say "mother-f***ers" a lot this will reverse the global warming trend.

 

[Jam_Man]

Judging by the performers at the Live Earth 'gig' on Saturday, there is a school of thought that says that if you say "mother-f***ers" a lot this will reverse the global warming trend.

Lol. Thats more believable than the theories that emissions are causing accelerated global warming or that we can affect global weather by turning a light bulb off...

Dont believe the hype and look forward to a natural warmer climate...


PS Just reading that renowned UK environmentalist David Bellamy has now been converted to the skeptics side of the global warming debate.
So who are you going to believe, loveable David Bellamy, or Al Gore ?

Theres a reason why the word mentalist is in environmentalist....

 

[osymandus]

Judging by the performers at the Live Earth 'gig' on Saturday, there is a school of thought that says that if you say "mother-f***ers" a lot this will reverse the global warming trend.

Yes this called the auntifreeze affect . Your maiden aunt horrifed but such language gives a withering stare that helps reduce global temprature.

You can affect global temprature by turning appliances down and off . Then you persuade others to do it as well . The output of heat from instance from citys is an already proven fact.

 

[Jam_Man]

The output of heat from instance from citys is an already proven fact.

Cities do generate heat, thats certainly a fact. Cities causing heat that causes global warming is a theory....


"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken the position that what is called the urban heat island effect is trivial, and does not account for much or any of measured warming over the last 100 years. To this end, one of the pro-AGW sites said that "Parker in 2006 has disproved the urban heat island effect." "

 

[SARF]

Global warming .. sorry climate change so they can blame the recent rain on 4x4's will be used solely to tax you or control what you do.. It very handy that a lot of the population whole heartedly buy into the whole thing.. Its the new religion.. Now to book my holidat flights.. Thank god the climate tax on that will be used to cuddle Polar bears

 

[Jam_Man]

Its the new religion..

Spot on....

 

[osymandus]

Cities do generate heat, thats certainly a fact. Cities causing heat that causes global warming is a theory....

Now your saying theres a good heat and a bad heat ? If massive heat rises from teh ground , and cloud cover prevents its escape into space it warms the planet that simple .

Sigh , technically all scientific models are theories untill they become accepted working theories . They remain as such untill new evidence or review superceed the older models . I.e Newtonean classical physical universe model was replaced by Enstieanean which in turn is being replaced by a Quantum based model of reality based on its occupents perception of it (New Scientist week of 25th June i believe had the lastest on that one)).

 

[J]

so the silly beep who neg repped me for making the comment "Global warming is fictional and i have geological reason..." please eat your words.

 

[osymandus]

Spot on....

No its not , it has observaable and measured affects that can be demonstrated and or refuted . This is not inffeable or sacred.

 

[osymandus]

Cities do generate heat, thats certainly a fact. Cities causing heat that causes global warming is a theory....


"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken the position that what is called the urban heat island effect is trivial, and does not account for much or any of measured warming over the last 100 years. To this end, one of the pro-AGW sites said that "Parker in 2006 has disproved the urban heat island effect." "

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Its still being reviewed . However given the enomratey and every changing aspect of what we face to simply disregard it on the basis of one or two counter claims is maddness !!!



An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centres grow in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a corresponding increase in average temperature, which is more often welcome in winter months than in summertime. The EPA says: "On hot summer days, urban air can be 2-10°F [2-6°C] hotter than the surrounding countryside. Not to be confused with global warming, scientists call this phenomenon the 'urban heat island effect'."[1]
A lay person may mistakenly assume this would affect calculations done on global warming research. However, scientists compiling the historical temperature record are aware of the UHI effect, but they vary as to how significant they think it is. Some scientists (see Peterson, below) have published peer reviewed papers indicating that the effect of the UHI has been overestimated, and that it does not affect the record at all. Other scientists have used various methods to compensate for it.
There is no controversy about cities generally tending to be warmer than their surroundings. What is controversial about these heat islands is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects trends in (global) temperature record. The current state of the science is that the effect on measurements of the global temperature trend is negligible, the IPCC says: Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.[2]
As a result of the urban heat island effect, monthly rainfall is about 28% greater between 20-40 miles downwind of cities, compared with upwind.[3]

 

[SARF]

if rain fall is higher downwind of a big city how come East Anglia is the driest part of the country despite being downwind of the biggest urban sprwal in Europe?

 

[osymandus]

if rain fall is higher downwind of a big city how come East Anglia is the driest part of the country despite being downwind of the biggest urban sprwal in Europe?

Always down wind ? you mean the wind is alwasy static coming down the M1 or from the mindlands ?

 

[Jam_Man]

Does that not say the UHI is a local effect and has little effect on the global situation though ?

 

[SARF]

Always down wind ? you mean the wind is alwasy static coming down the M1 or from the mindlands ?

No that the prevailing wind is from the South west due to the Gulf stream.. thus as a rule North east of london is 'Downwind' the extra rainfall alluded to in the article seems somewhat absent as N/E of London is East Anglia and the driest place in the country .. Although it could be that without London Norfolk could be the new Sahara

 

[osymandus]

Does that not say the UHI is a local effect and has little effect on the global situation though ?

No it says it is still open to review . And thats my point , its all working models open to review and evidence . Its weight of working and repeatable evidence is that Global warming is a danger to the planet and life , most likley caused by us. Refuting it out of hand will only make it worse.

There are far far easier ways to extract money on a country wide scale then this .

 

[osymandus]

No that the prevailing wind is from the South west due to the Gulf stream.. thus as a rule North east of london is 'Downwind' the extra rainfall alluded to in the article seems somewhat absent as N/E of London is East Anglia and the driest place in the country .. Although it could be that without London Norfolk could be the new Sahara

Its driest in comparisson to the rest of England , in actual rainfall levels say for the rest of Europe its not .

Not sure how it would radically change so rapidly given the countrys natural rain fall anyway .

 

[SARF]

.

There are far far easier ways to extract money on a country wide scale then this .

Not really.. Find a subject that involves fluffy Seal cubs, get people to worry about their Grand children living in water world, add in some jealousy by slating people with flash cars.. Make sure the whole thing is unproveable either way.. Get the national television channel on your side and Bobs you're Aunties brother..