Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Global Cooling

5
6
On 4 Mar 2013 at 3:17pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
For people worried about global warming I direct your attention to "1970s Global Cooling Alarmism" at Popular Technology.Net I was taken in by this stuff when I was young,now in my hoary old age I'm supposed to believe the opposite.It's just another confidence trick to screw carbon taxes out of you and make you accept more regulations "for the good of the planet".
6
6
On 4 Mar 2013 at 7:19pm fuming wrote:
jog on you prat we dont wanna hear your worthless rubbish
5
1
On 4 Mar 2013 at 7:44pm bloke wrote:
Not that old chestnut. Sorry Nixon, thoroughly debunked here.

Watch the video »
1
2
On 4 Mar 2013 at 9:29pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
Point taken,both warming and cooling doctrines are still being debated.My point is that in the seventies the warming side was mostly ignored and cooling got all the publicity. At that time the warmers were deniers of cooling and thought to be as stupid as climate change deniers are today.It's all being used to create revenue and push Agenda 21,the consequences of which are scary. Maurice Strong said to a reporter after the Rio Earth Summit "in a few years time you'll wish you had the rights of a tree" Strong wouldn't have to worry,not being one of the plebs. Read Agenda 21 and see the future they are planning for you.
4
1
On 4 Mar 2013 at 10:40pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Whether the planet is warming or not doesn't change the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and any moves to curtail their use can only be a good thing.
4
1
On 4 Mar 2013 at 11:26pm bloke wrote:
"Point taken,both warming and cooling doctrines are still being debated."

If that is the point you took then you must have picked up the wrong end of the stick. There may be debate among the here today, gone tomorrow politicians but there's no real scientific debate.

According to Wikipedia: "Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogue is the etymology of catechism."
There is no issue of "belief" here. It's a cold scientific fact that carbon-dioxide warms the atmosphere.

It's a cold scientific fact that we are pumping vast amounts of CO2 and rapidly increasing the amount in the atmospheric concentration.

It's a cold scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 is currently ar 395.55 parts per million. Just two years ago it was at 390ppm. 50 years ago it was at 320ppm and before the industrial revolution at was about 180ppm.
It's a cold scientific fact that all of 12 years since the 21st century are in the top 15 warmest years in the instrumental record. The least decade is the warmest decade in the instrumental record.
3
1
On 5 Mar 2013 at 8:55am Southover Queen wrote:
Yeah yeah bloke, but Nixon doesn't do cold scientific facts. The fact that extreme weather events which would be expected to occur once in 100 or more years now occur twice in a summer - a fact predicted by climate science - means nothing. It's all a conspiracy to force him to stop consuming the resources of the planet, it seems. It really won't matter what evidence you produce in support because he will find Delingpole or similar to debunk you, notwithstanding the fact that once you exclude a tiny number of pseudoscientists and people paid by oil companies everyone agrees that the climate is changing because of human activity.

What I don't get is why, even if all those climate scientists are just plain wrong, it is a good idea to go on consuming fossil fuels at the rate we're doing. Why not find ways of reducing how fast our resources deplete? Dunno, but I'm sure Nixon will have some bonkers explanation for that as well.
 
3
On 5 Mar 2013 at 9:22am Taff wrote:
Surely if our atmosphere is changing the homosapian will evolve with it. Assuming it is not too rapid a change.
If humans try to regain what was they will only screw that up further. Let nature take care of itself.
3
 
On 5 Mar 2013 at 10:07am Southover Queen wrote:
If you look at the last paragraph of bloke's post you'll see that it's a very rapid change indeed. Far more rapid than any kind of evolution.

We know what's doing it. There are some things we can do which are reasonably simple and some which are very hard and would be uncomfortable for those countries whose use is very high. To have a reasonable chance of - at least - halting the acceleration in emissions we need governments round the world to agree to work together. Or we face a future where large parts of Britain are permanently flooded, where the US gets hit by wilder and wilder storms and people in China move out of their cities because of air-borne pollution.

Or we pull over the nice comforting Delingpole blanket and bleat about left wing conspiracies...
1
 
On 5 Mar 2013 at 11:01am Clifford wrote:
Whatever happens 'the environment' will continue. We won't, but rest assured 'the environment' will. We're not all there is.
2
 
On 5 Mar 2013 at 11:01am Kettle wrote:
Yes nature will deal with us. Personally, I don't have kids so don't really care. I just care about all the other species we will take with us.
I do wonder why people go to all the effort of having children and still argue for continuing the way we are going.
 
2
On 5 Mar 2013 at 11:36am Copy Cat wrote:
@bloke, I bet you copied people's homework, just because you can regurgitate something doesn't mean you understand it, just makes you a bird brain. Who's a cleaver boy then
2
1
On 5 Mar 2013 at 11:41am Southover Queen wrote:
Hahaha! This is like Boris getting all huffy about being offered facts and objective analysis and evidence which contradicts what the callers to a Radio 5 Live phone in have said.

By the way, the word you're looking for is "clever".
 
2
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:12pm Spelling B wrote:
SQ, u fink ur so cleaver, why dunt you use 1 on yor keybord and do us all a faver?
1
1
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:28pm Famous Person wrote:
Hahaha...I'm just wetting myself reading this...sooo funny. I know ya'll love each other really...
 
2
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:28pm sid wrote:
sq thought you had retired even in retirment you have an opinion on everything
2
 
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:37pm Geologist wrote:
I think, off the top of my head, that the Earth has had 5 glacial periods in its history. We are currently in an inter-galcial period i.e. the last one is only half way through. During the normal course of events, the Earth both wobbles on its axis (note the changes in due North) and also deviates in its orbit around the sun. The magnetic poles also reverse themselves occasionally. Wait for that one to happen!!
What we have seen in the past couple of decades, if you put it in perspective, doesn't amount to a hill of beans (to quote Rick).
I am not saying that we should carry on as we are - we should take mouch more care of our environment for sure - but given the inexorable rise in the worlds population and the clamour for water and food, the futures not very bright for us humans.
However, the earth is one massive ecosystem that tends to ebb and flow. There will be winners and losers. But there were in the geologic past as well. Don't forget that the whole of our island was once part of a vast dessert where absolutely nothing survived. Continental drift saw to that and, given that the continents are still diverging and converging its bound to happen again.
We are not masters of the Earth and those who think we are need to think again.
1
 
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:39pm Kettle wrote:
Yes nature will deal with us. Personally, I don't have kids so don't really care. I just care about all the other species we will take with us.
I do wonder why people go to all the effort of having children and still argue for continuing the way we are going.
 
1
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:40pm sid wrote:
what a load of crap
 
1
On 5 Mar 2013 at 12:51pm Student wrote:
Is that professor Sid?
1
2
On 5 Mar 2013 at 3:53pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
The geologist talks sense.What I am suggesting is that paying a carbon tax will not stop anything,in fact the money will go to the people who are polluting the planet.What about the Minister for Climate Change with his 3 "green companies" these people are riding on a gravy train.One thing bloke,isn't water vapour the greenhousiest (what?) gas? There are no conspiracies,Guy Fawkes was innocent.
 
1
On 5 Mar 2013 at 4:12pm not so famous person wrote:
what a load of crap
 
 
On 5 Mar 2013 at 11:24pm Harold wrote:
Was there not a statement released on 24/12/2012 about mistakes in the science of climate change, A great day to sneak that news out ......You will have to find it I`m afraid as I cant remember where I heard it.
1
1
On 6 Mar 2013 at 3:13am Gladys Weaselbreath wrote:
look how cold its been this winter.Global warming,you must be joking its a conspirasy.Vote UKIP.
 
 
On 6 Mar 2013 at 10:08am bloke wrote:
@Nixon

Yes, but water vapour in the atmosphere has a habit of regularly falling to earth in a phenomenon we call rain. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for far longer and CO2 also absorbs radiation over a wider spectrum.

Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a positive feedback effect because it increases the amount of water evaporating. Warm air also can hold more water vapour than the same amount of cool air. There's also a positive feedback effect with methane from melting permafrost but that's another story.

@Geologist & Taff

The difference is that most of the past climatic changes occurred over geological time-scales allowing life to adapt What is happening now is occurring rapidly over two or three human generations. Rapid changes are not unprecedented (there have been at least 5), but they are accompanied by mass extinctions wiping out over 90% of species.

@CopyCat.

We all have to get our information from somewhere. The current and historical C02 data comes from co2now.org. The rest is from various sources that I've read over the last 4 years or so that I've been debating this subject.

@Harold.

No idea what you're talking about. I'm not going to do your research for you. The climate change denial brigade are always trumpeting something and rarely does it stand up to scrutiny.
 
 
On 6 Mar 2013 at 3:31pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
I think what Harold is talking about is that the Climate Change authorities admitted that there had been no significant rise in the last 15 years.I would never deny that the climate changes.It does it all the time. I am not a geo-engineering denier either.Have you noticed the huge persistent vapour trails crisscrossing the sky? They slowly spread out into a milky haze,what do you make of them?
 
 
On 6 Mar 2013 at 4:29pm harold wrote:
Thank you Nixon,sorry should of looked for info myself but as I was not sure of what I heard it was a bit difficult.
I would like to say that just because I question what I am told does not make me an anti. I am a don't know.
For instance,
what happened to the hole in the ozone layer?
Do catalytic converters cause more trouble than they solve,ie they need platinum to be mined and then make lots of co2?
Us non book types are told to shut up,don't question, surely its you readers that should be informing us of the truth even if it is unpalatable.
 
 
On 6 Mar 2013 at 7:56pm bloke wrote:
@Nixon

"I think what Harold is talking about is that the Climate Change authorities admitted that there had been no significant rise in the last 15 years."

Actually given the date he mentioned I think Harold was referring to mean the press release issued by the Met Office at h++p://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc in December. Every December the Met Office issues revises this particular set of predictions and this "admission" was nothing significant. However this did not stop The Daily Mail reporting this "admission" with the headline "Global warming has STALLED since 1998: Met Office admits Earth's temperature is rising slower than first thought". The DM was not alone in its not entirely accurate reporting here. So the Met Office released a subsequent press release to clarify the situation (h++p://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts). It states:

"
There has been media coverage today about our experimental decadal global temperature prediction, which is routinely updated in December each year.

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850.
"

With regard to the oft repeated claim by deniers about "no significant rise in the last 15 years." - please see the video below produced by Skeptical Science. It's also worth checking out the claims made about Phil Jone's interview with the BBC on this subject at h++p://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html. A 93% level of confidence (95% is statistically significant) in a warming trend was reported as no warming.

@Harold

"What happened to the hole in the ozone layer?"

The main culprit behind the ozone hole were CFCs. After the Montreal Protocol came into force in 1989 the amount of CFCs released into the atmosphere was significantly reduced. The hole is still there, still causing problems, slowly being reduced instead of rapidly increasing as it would have had it not been for significant international agreements to tackle the problem.

Watch the video »
 
 
On 11 Mar 2013 at 12:08am Rob Pattison wrote:
We must find ways of producing clean energy. If a quarter of the energy put into the climate debate had gone into finding new forms of energy there would be progress instead of a lot of hot air. Pun intended.
Defkalion in Canada and Andre Rossi may or may not be on the cutting edge, but at least they are trying. So are the Liquid Thorium reactor folk.
Let us get politicians backing these initiatives and we will then have fossil fuels left for more useful purposes.


8 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Station Lewes 110:132
Station Lewes

Ah but if they came on your land the owners would be trespassing. Cats are the worst offenders and seagulls, do they aim at cars? more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine