Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
IronGhost

Too Late: Global Warming Out of Control

124 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

el midgetron
I should have known that you draw a line with the crazy stuff you believe on one side and the crazy stuff you dont on the other.

You are more than welcome to quote me ever displaying a belief in "reptilians". Otherwise, I suggest you crawl back under your bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Moon Monkey
and these governments must be very silly then to waste all these resources on meeting greenhouse targets don't you think. clearly you must know better than them :rolleyes:

I can only guess at the reasons behind some nonsensical government policies and I cannot speak for how deeply others have looked into the data behind the report (and other ommitted data ) only for myself and I am satisfied that there are many questionmarks. It would take hard facts not sarcasm to make me believe anyone at all knows with any kind of accuracy what mans part in global warming is. You got any ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat
I'm sorry, but the claims made by the article, and it's data are in error. Accroding to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year on record. They do allow for the fact that 2005 was a "dead heat" with 1998 for high temps -- except the 1998 temps did not incorporate temperature data from the Arctic. When the total planetary temperature model is given, average temps did not cease to rise in 1998.

Also, according to the Climatic Research Unit, an examination of temperature data since 1998 undermines the assertion that global warming "stopped" in that year. For example, neither mentioned the fact that five different years since 1998 (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005) have seen warmer temperatures than any year preceding 1998, according to Climatic Research Unit figures.

Go look for yerselves: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

But the article was a nice try.

Darnit ... so the article was a hoax ?

Weeell.... here are some of those graphs...

From the UK meteorological office ...

world surface temperatures

another version (slightly harder to make out).

Now, in regard to the NASA page you linked to... even some of THOSE graphs show a flatline after the year 2000 (ish). (especialy surface temperatures in lower and southern lattitudes).

As for several periods between 1998-2007 having the 'warmest periods since any time before 1998'... well.. yes, they would do , wouldn't they ? These are SPOT temperatures (chronologicly). As the period 1998-2007 was a warming peak, then it is reasonable that periods within that span would have record-high temperatures. The point is that - overall - temperatures have NOT increased during this period but have flatlined. E.g. it's warmer than it has been for a long time, but it's reached a plateu. (indeed, decreased in lower and southern lattitudes).

Well, lets see how it plays in 2008.

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RX-7
I can only guess at the reasons behind some nonsensical government policies and I cannot speak for how deeply others have looked into the data behind the report (and other ommitted data ) only for myself and I am satisfied that there are many questionmarks. It would take hard facts not sarcasm to make me believe anyone at all knows with any kind of accuracy what mans part in global warming is. You got any ?

nope, but I know that credibility is an important attribute that the IPCC cannot afford to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
Darnit ... so the article was a hoax ?

Weeell.... here are some of those graphs...

From the UK meteorological office ...

world surface temperatures

another version (slightly harder to make out).

Now, in regard to the NASA page you linked to... even some of THOSE graphs show a flatline after the year 2000 (ish). (especialy surface temperatures in lower and southern lattitudes).

As for several periods between 1998-2007 having the 'warmest periods since any time before 1998'... well.. yes, they would do , wouldn't they ? These are SPOT temperatures (chronologicly). As the period 1998-2007 was a warming peak, then it is reasonable that periods within that span would have record-high temperatures. The point is that - overall - temperatures have NOT increased during this period but have flatlined. E.g. it's warmer than it has been for a long time, but it's reached a plateu. (indeed, decreased in lower and southern lattitudes).

Well, lets see how it plays in 2008.

Meow Purr.

Enjoyed the charts very much, Ship.

Let's say that temps have flatlined in the past six years. Well, go back and look at the chart. Start with 1950 -- you'll see it's very common for the chart to not only flatline, or even recede for a few years -- but as you can see from the chart, the long-term trend is UP! Compare 1950 to today. What do you see?

Here's the thing: The bloke who wrote that nifty article tool a single datum -- a look at one six-year period -- and then blissfully concluded the whole GW theory must be wrong, based on his favorite six years.

That would be the six years that makes his article look good.

All the previous decades are just tossed out, all the ice-bore samples from the Antarctic not considered, thermal changes in ocean temps not thought about .... ECT.

He isn't even right about the six years. 2005 was warmer than 1998.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

I only hope that the GW deniers live within 20 miles or so the the current oceans.

Oh wait, a lot of them do.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

Ninjas post highlights RX's point about governments taking GW seriously. Whilst screaming from the rooftops, taxing the bloke-on-the-street and handing free rein to 3 billion people in the far east to pump what they want out the UK government has made absolutely no contingency for moving the political and financial centres from the extremely at risk Thames flood plain to more raised ground in the north, on the contrary they have announced many further building plans for this area to the detriment of hill ground northern cities that have had infrastructure money reallocated to London and the south-east.

Whilst talking about rising sea levels I just wondered why the same temperature rise that causes arctic ice to melt would not cause higher levels of evaporation and therefore precipitation rather than the global dust bowls we are told are on their way ? Maybe regions that have struggled for rain would then in time start to forestate (is that a word?) and sink CO2 causing the temperature to again drop ? It just doesn't seem logical that it can go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
Ninjas post highlights RX's point about governments taking GW seriously. Whilst screaming from the rooftops, taxing the bloke-on-the-street and handing free rein to 3 billion people in the far east to pump what they want out the UK government has made absolutely no contingency for moving the political and financial centres from the extremely at risk Thames flood plain to more raised ground in the north, on the contrary they have announced many further building plans for this area to the detriment of hill ground northern cities that have had infrastructure money reallocated to London and the south-east. s.

The current PM does not expect to still be in power in 2050 - so why should he care?

You can see how stupid politicians are but the length of time it took them to jump on the GW bandwagon - they could have been raising pointless 'green' taxes in the 1980s if they'd had half a brain cell between 'em ;)

(This also rather disproves the naive and indeed somewhat disingenuous suggestion that for the past 50 years climate scientists have been in the pay of politicians who want them to produce research proving GW in order that said politicians can use GW as an excuse for raising taxes ;) I note such suggestions are only ever made by those who have little daily contact with scientists. I guess ignorance makes it easier to appear stupid :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

The politicians want to practice what they preach, the government tell us to use energy saving light bulbs, turn the central heating down, do this dont do that, yet look at London and all the government officers all lit up like christmas trees, lights burning 24/7. even when no-ones in the office, and another thing, where i work, you see all the container ships from china taking all our recycled goods bacjk home, my local council is making a futune out of recycling, under the cover of global warming, when you seperate your platics from your tins and so on and leave it out side for the council to pick up to be recycled they go off to a private firm, weight the load, then get paid for it, while soft sh**es (the public) are giving it away free for the council to make money. i took my own recycled material down to this private firm the one the council use and got £2.80, ok its not much money, but the question needs to be asked if the council is making money out of it why arent they giving us a percentage of what they make, we're all being conned,

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Z498

No one knows in the end what's going to happen. Some people say global warming has actually stopped while some people say that it's getting worse. When we look at the facts 2006 and 2007 were pretty much the same and in terms of hurricanes 2007 had a lower amount.

But hopefully this guy is wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat
Ninjas post highlights RX's point about governments taking GW seriously. Whilst screaming from the rooftops, taxing the bloke-on-the-street and handing free rein to 3 billion people in the far east to pump what they want out the UK government has made absolutely no contingency for moving the political and financial centres from the extremely at risk Thames flood plain to more raised ground in the north, on the contrary they have announced many further building plans for this area to the detriment of hill ground northern cities that have had infrastructure money reallocated to London and the south-east.

Whilst talking about rising sea levels I just wondered why the same temperature rise that causes arctic ice to melt would not cause higher levels of evaporation and therefore precipitation rather than the global dust bowls we are told are on their way ? Maybe regions that have struggled for rain would then in time start to forestate (is that a word?) and sink CO2 causing the temperature to again drop ? It just doesn't seem logical that it can go both ways.

Well, apparantly sea levels have risen about 3mm between the 1950's and the present day, so I think abandoning the coasts may be a trifle hasty. Oh - err - except in the Artic, where the sea level has been FALLING. ( source: BBC . Cat doesn't know WHAT to make of that one.

The current PM does not expect to still be in power in 2050 - so why should he care?

You can see how stupid politicians are but the length of time it took them to jump on the GW bandwagon - they could have been raising pointless 'green' taxes in the 1980s if they'd had half a brain cell between 'em ;)

Not really Essan - temperatures where dropping between 1940-1980, and the headlines where full of fears of 'global cooling' and a new ice age. (anyone remember THAT one ?)

(This also rather disproves the naive and indeed somewhat disingenuous suggestion that for the past 50 years climate scientists have been in the pay of politicians who want them to produce research proving GW in order that said politicians can use GW as an excuse for raising taxes ;) I note such suggestions are only ever made by those who have little daily contact with scientists. I guess ignorance makes it easier to appear stupid :D )

Good Lord Essan... HM Government would never 'bribe' scientists in the manner you suggest... any more than they 'bribe' Commision of Enquiry judges or planning permission panels. They simply ensure that they pick scientists to sit on the important panels (IPCC lead authors, for example) who already have the 'correct' beliefs.

Incidently, you must remember that all western governments seek to keep their citizens in a state of anxiety. There must always be a "bogeyman" on the horizon. Surely you don't think it a coincidence that the 'global warming' bandwagon - IPCC and all - only started rolling after the collapse of the Soviet Union ?

I know this to be true - Elvis told me. (he works at our local fish 'n chip shop. Clever guy.... but he always undercooks the chips..)

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SQLserver
I only hope that the GW deniers live within 20 miles or so the the current oceans.

Oh wait, a lot of them do.

Actually, its those annoying central states. The middle and south-east of America is where most of the radical insane conservative religious 'global warming is liberal propaganda sent by satan' people live.

Look at any chart of the George Bush elections. Notice all the central/southern states are red.

Seriously though. This is exactly like the Evolution argument. Global Warming is a VERY simple theory that makes logical sense and is backed up by scientific evidence and observation. Plus, its common sense.

Burnig Oil/Coal/other releases CO2 into the air, which thickens our atmosphere, which traps more sunlight, which makes it hotter.

What's not to get?

The problem is that religious anti-global warming people get into their heads that Global Warming is just a trap made by Satan, which is to get them to spend all of their money, and make the vote for liberals who would 'destroy our Christian nation'.

The funny thing is, wouldn't jesus want you to give money to help the Earth? Aren't Christians supposed to not be greedy of material wealth?

I love the fact that Fundamentalist Christians believe they are following the Bible word for word when they seem to miss some of the most important concepts.

I'm also getting annoyed at the continuing Republican/Conservative excuse:

"Its bad for Business!"

These people act like we are still in the 1920's and America is driven by fat, rich, cigar-smoking business men.

Large Corporation Business is the thing that's taking America down. Corporations tend to be extremely and utterly greedy, taking advantage of Democracy, and government policies like Patents. Most don't care about the environment, the people, or anyone besides themselves.

With the exception of a few.(Dell, Apple, etc.)

sorry for the rant ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Caesar
Well, I disagree with Ceaser (and MANY others) mudpit. Global warming... so far as I can tell... seems to be a reality.

There is CONSIDERABLE debate as to wether it is man-made or not. However, it seems that it IS happening.

Expose your kids to it by all means, because they are going to have to live with it. But then... they are going to have to live with all sorts of bad things.

And all sorts of good things. (Gawd... I wish I could be young again... )

Tell 'em about it mudpit... kids tend to make their own minds up anyway :unsure2:

Meow Purr.

My opinion is that the earth has been getting warmer since it was created and it has little if anything to do with humans causing it. Man-made Global warming hysteria is brought to you by the same people who accuse the Bush administration of fear-mongering the War on Terror. its sad when the media likes to run all these nonsense programes on tv like we are killing the polar bears, yet the polar bears like the Ursa Maritimus are thriving or the U.S. is going alone with Kyoto and global warming they wont tell you that there are also like 155 other countries that also havn't signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

Tidying up after Xmas I have identified another area where the government could get serious on emmissions....packaging. I haven't got room in my recycling bin for all this crap. We paid for all this to come from China and we will soon be paying them to take it back, we pay to meet targets that they don't have to and as usual no difference is made on a global scale. Problem ? What problem ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003

I say we blame the Scientists and their fact based conclusions.

After all, if the Scientists would just keep their mouths shut..........

Just like Fossils and carbon dating........

If the Scientists would just shut up we could still get people to believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old.

Those pesky Scientists........ :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunburst
where is this guy's research for this? He just came out saying "omg!!! we're doomed!!!!" but he doesn't offer evidence that makes him believe this. Until he brings something out, we shouldn't worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

Bob likes to pick a side and then be spoon fed his 'facts' by those whose opinions agree with his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

The truth is:

6 billion people will be dead in one hundred years...whether or not global warming exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adalwolf

A very plausible scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
A very plausible scenario.

What is plausible...that global warming will kill us all...or that we are all going to die anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudpit
What is plausible...that global warming will kill us all...or that we are all going to die anyway?

hell yeah

we need to drive this planet like we stole it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
What is plausible...that global warming will kill us all...or that we are all going to die anyway?

hell yeah

we need to drive this planet like we stole it!

Its called community and caring about something bigger than yourself.

Maybe your Kids perhaps, your Grandkids.

even if you dont believe in man made global warming..... Surely you can still understand the impact of pollution and the benefits of implementing and working towards more innovative and sustainable technologies right?

Edited by Bob26003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mademoiselle
Its called community and caring about something bigger than yourself.

Maybe your Kids perhaps, your Grandkids.

even if you dont believe in man made global warming..... Surely you can still understand the impact of pollution and the benefits of implementing and working towards more innovative and sustainable technologies right?

Thank you , Bob , it's reassuring to read your posts ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat
Its called community and caring about something bigger than yourself.

Maybe your Kids perhaps, your Grandkids.

even if you dont believe in man made global warming..... Surely you can still understand the impact of pollution and the benefits of implementing and working towards more innovative and sustainable technologies right?

:tu: Can't argue with that one. I'm all for trying to minimise energy use, waste, and pollution. And Aubergines.

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.