What global warming?
- Thread starter Cornish Steve
- Start date
E
Eclectic communications
I will keep this plain and simple, anything that Fox news say's ( Or as we call it in America Faux news, or Fox noise.) is to be taken with a grain of salt. The news company itself is run by the Republican Party. Someone above said can most all the scientists be wrong? Big business and Corporations run the world and the politicians. Just think outside the box.
Yes, we are changing the climate The studies report that in the last two hundred years the change is accelerating at a rate as never before. This study is not based on a few hundred years, it is done by ice core studies.
Yes, we are changing the climate The studies report that in the last two hundred years the change is accelerating at a rate as never before. This study is not based on a few hundred years, it is done by ice core studies.
Upvote
0
As has been pointed out - if it "costs" the "government" - what this really entails is public money, ie yours and mine via the via the various schemes and ruses they use to part you from your hard earned - to, in many cases,wee up walls.
Upvote
0
Global Warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth. This is a type of greenhouse effect.
The most significant greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, not something produced directly by humankind in significant amounts. However, even slight increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) can cause a substantial increase in temperature.
Why is this? There are two reasons: First, although the concentrations of these gases are not nearly as large as that of oxygen and nitrogen (the main constituents of the atmosphere), neither oxygen or nitrogen are greenhouse gases. This is because neither has more than two atoms per molecule (i.e. their molecular forms are O2 and N2, respectively), and so they lack the internal vibrational modes that molecules with more than two atoms have. Both water and CO2, for example, have these "internal vibrational modes", and these vibrational modes can absorb and reradiate infrared radiation, which causes the greenhouse effect.
Human beings have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about thirty percent, which is an extremely significant increase, even on inter-glacial timescales. It is believed that human beings are responsible for this because the increase is almost perfectly correlated with increases in fossil fuel combustion, and also due other evidence, such as changes in the ratios of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 that are consistent with "anthropogenic" (human caused) emissions. The simple fact is, that under "business as usual" conditions, we'll soon reach carbon dioxide concentrations that haven't been seen on Earth in the last 50 million years.
Global Warming Impacts
Many of the following "harbingers" and "fingerprints" are now well under way:
The most significant greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, not something produced directly by humankind in significant amounts. However, even slight increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) can cause a substantial increase in temperature.
Why is this? There are two reasons: First, although the concentrations of these gases are not nearly as large as that of oxygen and nitrogen (the main constituents of the atmosphere), neither oxygen or nitrogen are greenhouse gases. This is because neither has more than two atoms per molecule (i.e. their molecular forms are O2 and N2, respectively), and so they lack the internal vibrational modes that molecules with more than two atoms have. Both water and CO2, for example, have these "internal vibrational modes", and these vibrational modes can absorb and reradiate infrared radiation, which causes the greenhouse effect.
Human beings have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about thirty percent, which is an extremely significant increase, even on inter-glacial timescales. It is believed that human beings are responsible for this because the increase is almost perfectly correlated with increases in fossil fuel combustion, and also due other evidence, such as changes in the ratios of different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 that are consistent with "anthropogenic" (human caused) emissions. The simple fact is, that under "business as usual" conditions, we'll soon reach carbon dioxide concentrations that haven't been seen on Earth in the last 50 million years.
Global Warming Impacts
Many of the following "harbingers" and "fingerprints" are now well under way:
- Rising Seas--- inundation of fresh water marshlands (the everglades), low-lying cities, and islands with seawater.
- Changes in rainfall patterns --- droughts and fires in some areas, flooding in other areas. See the section above on the recent droughts, for example!
- Increased likelihood of extreme events--- such as flooding, hurricanes, etc.
- Melting of the ice caps --- loss of habitat near the poles. Polar bears are now thought to be greatly endangered by the shortening of their feeding season due to dwindling ice packs.
- Melting glaciers - significant melting of old glaciers is already observed.
- Widespread vanishing of animal populations --- following widespread habitat loss.
- Spread of disease --- migration of diseases such as malaria to new, now warmer, regions.
- Bleaching of Coral Reefs due to warming seas and acidification due to carbonic acid formation --- One third of coral reefs now appear to have been severely damaged by warming seas.
- Loss of Plankton due to warming seas --- The enormous (900 mile long) Aleution island ecosystems of orcas (killer whales), sea lions, sea otters, sea urchins, kelp beds, and fish populations, appears to have collapsed due to loss of plankton, leading to loss of sea lions, leading orcas to eat too many sea otters, leading to urchin explosions, leading to loss of kelp beds and their associated fish population
Upvote
0
Global warming now a days this is an serious problem which we are facing but because of this our future is in danger.the main reason behind global warming is pollution and basically use of chlorofluorocarbons, these gases causes depletion of ozone layer and because of this temperature of earth increases day by day.To secure our next generation we have to sustain energy and should go green.
Upvote
0
I am afraid I don't have a huge amount of time for 'Greens' who seem to think that the only way to stop the tide and seas is by penalising humanity.
We are in an Interstitial Ice Age, which means that there is ice at both poles.
Only a mere 10,000 years ago there were glaciers as far south as Watford Gap Services, the fact that there aren't glaciers now suggests that the Earth has been getting warmer since then.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a warming phase is a natural process with many different factors causing various aspects of climate development.
What really irritates me is how people with other agendas (especially greens) manipulate statistics to prove arguments.
The Earth has been warming for the last two hundred years people exclaim, before imposing higher fuel penalties and duties that cripple the average working man.
And yet take the period from 1350 - 1850 and there is an extended period of cooling!! Go figure, figures often left out of most equations.
fact is that the Earth has been warming since and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
What would be wrong is to penalise business and individuals for a natural event that is happening s slowly that it is unlikely that it will affect any of us in our life times.
And to the person who highlighted the BBC as a source of bona fide information, the BBC ran a documentary two years ago 60% of which has been proven erroneous.
In 2010 Prof. Jones dismissed the evidence that any warming can be the result of influence from the Sun, a fact that has recently been blown out of the water along with many AGW myths thanks to more open minds within the Scientific Community.
He also said in 2001 that from 2008 we wouldn't see snow again in this country and great swathes of the South East would be marsh land or under water, a fact I know about, having been presented with the re-defined landscape projections for Kent during an emergency meeting in 2000, none of which have transpired and the water levels have in fact risen consistent with annual and 60 year averages!
So, the only answer is to ignore the fatalistic warnings, the TV commercials that terrify children and the poor science that has been proven wrong time and again and fight against these ridiculous financial impositions and business restrictions.
My rule of thumb is if it is green, then take anti-biotics and get on with living.
We are in an Interstitial Ice Age, which means that there is ice at both poles.
Only a mere 10,000 years ago there were glaciers as far south as Watford Gap Services, the fact that there aren't glaciers now suggests that the Earth has been getting warmer since then.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a warming phase is a natural process with many different factors causing various aspects of climate development.
What really irritates me is how people with other agendas (especially greens) manipulate statistics to prove arguments.
The Earth has been warming for the last two hundred years people exclaim, before imposing higher fuel penalties and duties that cripple the average working man.
And yet take the period from 1350 - 1850 and there is an extended period of cooling!! Go figure, figures often left out of most equations.
fact is that the Earth has been warming since and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
What would be wrong is to penalise business and individuals for a natural event that is happening s slowly that it is unlikely that it will affect any of us in our life times.
And to the person who highlighted the BBC as a source of bona fide information, the BBC ran a documentary two years ago 60% of which has been proven erroneous.
In 2010 Prof. Jones dismissed the evidence that any warming can be the result of influence from the Sun, a fact that has recently been blown out of the water along with many AGW myths thanks to more open minds within the Scientific Community.
He also said in 2001 that from 2008 we wouldn't see snow again in this country and great swathes of the South East would be marsh land or under water, a fact I know about, having been presented with the re-defined landscape projections for Kent during an emergency meeting in 2000, none of which have transpired and the water levels have in fact risen consistent with annual and 60 year averages!
So, the only answer is to ignore the fatalistic warnings, the TV commercials that terrify children and the poor science that has been proven wrong time and again and fight against these ridiculous financial impositions and business restrictions.
My rule of thumb is if it is green, then take anti-biotics and get on with living.
Upvote
0
I don't really take a stand about the concept of global warming.
Publications are contradicting on it anyway.
But I think we need to think about our planet (the earth), its the only home
we have. We should be mindful of how actions collectively.
Mother nature has a way of taking care of itself, but sometimes our ACTIONS
can be harmful.
Personally, I will say, imagine 'the environment" is your skin (body) wont you take care of it?
- Olu.
Publications are contradicting on it anyway.
But I think we need to think about our planet (the earth), its the only home
we have. We should be mindful of how actions collectively.
Mother nature has a way of taking care of itself, but sometimes our ACTIONS
can be harmful.
Personally, I will say, imagine 'the environment" is your skin (body) wont you take care of it?
- Olu.
Upvote
0
It frustrates me that both parties in this debate regularly fail to look at it in the right way.
My view is that if all the politicisation is removed from this argument then you are left with the facts that the earth is warming, becoming more polluted and (rain)forests are being destroyed.
Now whether or not humans are directly responsible for the rise in temperature is not really the point. But nobody can argue that we are the cause of the pollution and for the destruction of the (rain)forests which if we were to address with the level of urgency that we should, then we know that we can improve the quality of life for generations to come.
You don't have to have a science degree to know that trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen therefore improving the quality of air that we all have to breathe, and pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere not only damages the air quality but also the river systems and water supplies. Not to mention all of the knock on effects to the ecosystems that depend on clean air and water, which we in turn depend on for growing healthy crops to produce our food.
Perhaps if we focus on doing what we need to do in order to keep breathing clean air and drinking clean water, then the consequence might be that we stem the rise in temperature and reduce the greenhouse gases. If it doesn't then at least we are looking after our planet better which seems to be the all to often forgotten part of this debate.
My view is that if all the politicisation is removed from this argument then you are left with the facts that the earth is warming, becoming more polluted and (rain)forests are being destroyed.
Now whether or not humans are directly responsible for the rise in temperature is not really the point. But nobody can argue that we are the cause of the pollution and for the destruction of the (rain)forests which if we were to address with the level of urgency that we should, then we know that we can improve the quality of life for generations to come.
You don't have to have a science degree to know that trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen therefore improving the quality of air that we all have to breathe, and pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere not only damages the air quality but also the river systems and water supplies. Not to mention all of the knock on effects to the ecosystems that depend on clean air and water, which we in turn depend on for growing healthy crops to produce our food.
Perhaps if we focus on doing what we need to do in order to keep breathing clean air and drinking clean water, then the consequence might be that we stem the rise in temperature and reduce the greenhouse gases. If it doesn't then at least we are looking after our planet better which seems to be the all to often forgotten part of this debate.
Upvote
0
H
hmmm
considering the size of the earth.
then consider the amount of land .
then consider the amount of desert.
then consider the amount of ice.
then consider the amount of rocks (mountain ranges , and such )
then consider the cities.
then consider farm land.
after all that how much land is left for trees?
seems to me not much.
seems to me, considering the size of the earth land and sea mass then we have from the ground up to the limits of breathable oxygen in the sky ,we dont need many trees.
im not say cut them down as i dont think we should. but im just wondering how much oxygen they help make and how many trees it takes to make it?
then consider the amount of land .
then consider the amount of desert.
then consider the amount of ice.
then consider the amount of rocks (mountain ranges , and such )
then consider the cities.
then consider farm land.
after all that how much land is left for trees?
seems to me not much.
seems to me, considering the size of the earth land and sea mass then we have from the ground up to the limits of breathable oxygen in the sky ,we dont need many trees.
im not say cut them down as i dont think we should. but im just wondering how much oxygen they help make and how many trees it takes to make it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Its not something i would like to play devils advocate with i think, it has long been known that trees et al are the filters for the air we breathe, destroying them is akin to smoking - means nothing until you get cancer then its too late. Personally i feel we should certainly put an end to deforestation immediately, its not like they are replanting as they go, just removing them is foolhardy in the extreme and it could be that which bites us all in the arse one day.
Upvote
0
Global warming is unexpected rise in the average temp. of earth's atmosphere and oceans.actually This is unexpected changes in temperature.Temperature increased so high,which affects our climatic condition.The main reason behind this is Air pollution and basically chlorofluorocarbon carbon and this causes Ozone layer depletion.
Upvote
0
Without being too scientific, I think there's too much money in making the planet unhabitable. Nobody feels responsible, because everyone just takes a little cut in their local environment, but collectively we've lost the sense of balance in making money while keeping in mind human (and the planet's) life & health currently and in future.
Not to be too conspiratory, but while some inventors are trying to find alternatives for engines dependent on oil, the black gold companies got enough capital to make sure that they don't lose the market. And the government seems to like getting paid on pollution.
It's 21st century, properly funded research can do miracles but while we'd like to have better alternatives, money talks and I don't have enough of that to oppose the giants.. Hell, I've got my own little problems to take care of.
Not to be too conspiratory, but while some inventors are trying to find alternatives for engines dependent on oil, the black gold companies got enough capital to make sure that they don't lose the market. And the government seems to like getting paid on pollution.
It's 21st century, properly funded research can do miracles but while we'd like to have better alternatives, money talks and I don't have enough of that to oppose the giants.. Hell, I've got my own little problems to take care of.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
There is oxygen from ocean plants in the atmosphere, hmmm, which some say makes up for 50 - 85% of all oxygen.
Im not so fussed about the idea of humans causing global warming anymore as it is so difficult for even scientists to tell. It seems that there is as little evidence for GW as there is for a god having created the earth.
I am more interested in governments looking at ways to reduce emissions in populated areas making society a more cleaner and healthier place. Not them looking at earth temparatures and contemplating whether or not little ants like us are warming the earth.
Upvote
0
No its a serious problem for some, others do not agree that it is affected by the population.
Upvote
0
I heard yesterday that the weather we are facing now is a result of the carbon footprint 10 years ago?
Upvote
0
I dont believe anyone could point a finger at something that may or may not have happened 10 years back
I could say that the price of petrol today is the result of a broken drillbit 10 years ago.
Its all smoke and mirrors.
Upvote
0
N
NSven
Have you every noticed how, in the "global warming" debate, when there's one hot summer more people say they believe and then when there's a long winter like the one we're still having, more people say it's a load of rubbish? There are 2 big problems. First, people are extrapolating from their personal experience to take a judgement on an effect that has to compare data across tens or even hundreds of years. Second, really we should call this "climate change" and not "global warming". The world's climate is so complex that even if the whole world were getting warmer, there might be some regions which actually felt colder because of changing Gulfstream or other currents.
Upvote
0
It is much simpler to get on with life, the climate changes, it has always changed, it is in a constant state of cyclic change.
Upvote
0
Its unfortunate when science becomes politicised and lobbyists direct the flow of funding. These factors occlude the transparent nature of science.
Science is only the first issue. The second is statistics. Who the statisticians are and what they are told to find also influence the results. Then there are the news people that add their own spin on things. Similar to the planet, there are so many links in the chain contributing to the problem.
Science is only the first issue. The second is statistics. Who the statisticians are and what they are told to find also influence the results. Then there are the news people that add their own spin on things. Similar to the planet, there are so many links in the chain contributing to the problem.
Upvote
0
With the way things are going the world will warm up further. Spring, Summer and Autumn will become even warmer. Winters I'm not so sure, open for debate.
I guess we'll get what we deserve.
I guess we'll get what we deserve.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #1,236
A would challenge the idea that GW research is actually science.
When I did my physics PhD research, I remember coming across a paper by a past president of the Royal Astronomy Society (or something like that), written in about 1952. He made the point that true science is an adventure: You go out there, not knowing what will happen, and see where the data leads you. He was bewailing the fate of modern science where researchers think of something they want to prove (often something to make them famous) and then look for data to support their conclusion. To use a Cornish phrase, this is ass about face. Science should never begin with a conclusion and then try to justify it. Instead, science should begin with data, raw data, and then look for models and hypotheses to explain it. The former approach is political and anti-science; the latter approach leads to great and unexpected discoveries.
Unfortunately, almost all work being performed in the field of climate change, being funded by governments with a vested interest, falls into the former category, namely the anti-science approach.
Upvote
0
Here's a graph showing the rise of co2 in the past 50-60 years fro 305ppm to 395ppm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...their-highest-point-in-at-least-800000-years/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...their-highest-point-in-at-least-800000-years/
Upvote
0
Are you a spinner?
No idea, are you a wind up
I posted the graph because it shows the increase in co2 and its indisputable.
Does co2 cause global warming, I go with the scientific consensus (I have read very little of the science, so I'm not qualified to argue the case)
I don't buy for a moment its a big scientific conspiracy.
That article stats that temperatures have not risen since 1995, is that correct?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read