Global Warming - Another Lie

[Zeberdee]

Interesting listening to James Whale show on Talk Sport last night. Had a scientist on and Lord Lawson who both claim global warming isnt caused by us and its just natural climate change. His books is out today:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appeal-Reason-Cool-Global-Warming/dp/071563786X

anyone any thoughts?

[SlickShoes]

Interesting listening to James Whale show on Talk Sport last night. Had a scientist on and Lord Lawson who both claim global warming isnt caused by us and its just natural climate change. His books is out today:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appeal-Reason-Cool-Global-Warming/dp/071563786X

anyone any thoughts?


Well this is just my opinion since i am no scientist and haven't read up on the subject but.....

In the earths history there has never been such a large population of humans using resources, burning fuels, etc etc so surely this must have some impact on the climate of the planet.

The earth does naturally heat up and cooldown but with the outside influences that the humans put in that have never been here before the last 300 years it must surely be having a big impact!

[GreenandGlaikit]

Global Warming / Climate Change deniers are one step removed fae the crazed "Loose Change" 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

The correlation between average global temperatures and Human industrialisation activity seems remakable . It could be a co-incidence, however this seems unlikely since never before in its history did the Earths Climate change sae rapidily.

Been through vested interest deniers before - see DDT and, mair recently, CFC propellants in aerosols. In the latter case, they argued affecting the Ozone Layer wis 'impossible' - until a chance experiement actually showed the gaping Artic 'hole' in photographic form.

Ask any auld gairdner if they notice a difference in planting and growing seasons - the Climate is definately changing.

Suppose in Britain the Clyde or Forth freezing :agree: in Winter will need tae happen before some ****-wits wake up tae the reality. :bitchy:

[Sylar]

It does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, but the stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and justifiably so. The picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is necessary (to a degree) to allow a vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided much of the particles which acted as the warming blanket (assuming there wasn't TOO large an eruption which causes a natural cooling effect) whereas this time, pollutants are acting as the blanket as volcanic activity is significantly diminished.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.


3 guesses to what my Masters dissertation i've just completed was on :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

[Zeberdee]

It does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, but the stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and justifiably so. The picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is necessary (to a degree) to allow a vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided much of the particles which acted as the warming blanket (assuming there wasn't TOO large an eruption which causes a natural cooling effect) whereas this time, pollutants are acting as the blanket as volcanic activity is significantly diminished.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.


3 guesses to what my Masters dissertation i've just completed was on :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

so we're ****ed anyway? thats saves me a lot of hassle then. no more trips to the recycling with the glass beer bottles, straight in to the green bin from now on.

[Wembley67]

It does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, but the stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and justifiably so. The picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is necessary (to a degree) to allow a vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided much of the particles which acted as the warming blanket (assuming there wasn't TOO large an eruption which causes a natural cooling effect) whereas this time, pollutants are acting as the blanket as volcanic activity is significantly diminished.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.


3 guesses to what my Masters dissertation i've just completed was on :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Enjoy the dole then :greengrin

[Sylar]

Enjoy the dole then :greengrin

Onto a funded PhD now - thought i'd kill a few more years before opting for that :wink:

[steakbake]

It does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, but the stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and justifiably so. The picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is necessary (to a degree) to allow a vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided much of the particles which acted as the warming blanket (assuming there wasn't TOO large an eruption which causes a natural cooling effect) whereas this time, pollutants are acting as the blanket as volcanic activity is significantly diminished.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.


3 guesses to what my Masters dissertation i've just completed was on :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin


The history of Ireland, 1842-1911 and gender perspectives on violence?

[MyJo]

The history of Ireland, 1842-1911 and gender perspectives on violence?

:faf: :faf: :faf:

[Sylar]

The history of Ireland, 1842-1911 and gender perspectives on violence?

:blah::yawn::wink::greengrin

[Onceinawhile]

iv no idea if its right or not but doesn anyone else think environmentalism is becoming like a religion.

crazed followers who if you disagree cant handle it
the thought of eternal punishment(hell/the earth deteriorating so bad its ridiculous)

recycling is like prayin it does nothing but it makes you feel better

[Tomsk]

It does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, but the stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and justifiably so. The picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is necessary (to a degree) to allow a vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided much of the particles which acted as the warming blanket (assuming there wasn't TOO large an eruption which causes a natural cooling effect) whereas this time, pollutants are acting as the blanket as volcanic activity is significantly diminished.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.


3 guesses to what my Masters dissertation i've just completed was on :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

The Death of Syntax? :wink:

[Jack]

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.


3 guesses to what my Masters dissertation i've just completed was on :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Hope you get your Masters :agree:

Can I ask a Question? OK :greengrin

Lets just suppose Scotland, and indeed the rest of the UK, all of a sudden did not produce any of these 'harmful' gasses or emissions. Would it in fact make any global difference whatsoever?

My point being it seems to me that politicians are using global warming as an excuse to to raise taxes, on industry, on transport and anywhere else they can in this and some other countries.

From what I've seen of our emissions (Scottish Government figures) if we did somehow stop it wouldn't make any global difference at all.

Now I'm not suggesting we all don’t do our bit :blah:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hope you get your Masters :agree:

Can I ask a Question? OK :greengrin

Lets just suppose Scotland, and indeed the rest of the UK, all of a sudden did not produce any of these 'harmful' gasses or emissions. Would it in fact make any global difference whatsoever?

My point being it seems to me that politicians are using global warming as an excuse to to raise taxes, on industry, on transport and anywhere else they can in this and some other countries.

From what I've seen of our emissions (Scottish Government figures) if we did somehow stop it wouldn't make any global difference at all.

Now I'm not suggesting we all don’t do our bit :blah:
This is sort of what annoys me. We're constantly being told to be doing this and that when, realistically, we are actually contributing f. all in comparison to the US, China. This is much more an issue for governments/indutry than the individual, surely.

[Sylar]

This is sort of what annoys me. We're constantly being told to be doing this and that when, realistically, we are actually contributing f. all in comparison to the US, China. This is much more an issue for governments/indutry than the individual, surely.

As Tesco say; "every little helps", but I agree with your point.