Crosswords0 min ago
Global Warming -8c
15 Answers
Global Warming -8c..........Pah!
'tis cold enuf to kill all bugs that damage your precious plants. Snails, slugs, greenfly & bugs etc can't live through this.
Light the fires, smoke - increase that hole in the ozone layer! Now you PCs....shurrup!
Feed the birds - sparrows have disappeared round here? Only have nasty magpies and am not feeding them!
'tis cold enuf to kill all bugs that damage your precious plants. Snails, slugs, greenfly & bugs etc can't live through this.
Light the fires, smoke - increase that hole in the ozone layer! Now you PCs....shurrup!
Feed the birds - sparrows have disappeared round here? Only have nasty magpies and am not feeding them!
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by terambulan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Ozone hole has started to close because of the Montreal Protocol phasing out the chemicals that caused it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
Mr Ben please tell us who these "renowned scientists" are who are telling us that Global warming is natural.
Certainly the most renowned and oldest Scientific institution in the world - the Royal Society is in no doubt they're wrong.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
Nasa has huge amounts of research going on at Goddard and I don't think you'll find any doubters there either!
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
There is no doubt that the Earth's climate has changed before - but this one is different.
The current warming cannot be explained by natural causes.
And if anyone doesn't think it's warming at all - You'd better have a good explanation for where all the glaciers have gone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
Mr Ben please tell us who these "renowned scientists" are who are telling us that Global warming is natural.
Certainly the most renowned and oldest Scientific institution in the world - the Royal Society is in no doubt they're wrong.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
Nasa has huge amounts of research going on at Goddard and I don't think you'll find any doubters there either!
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
There is no doubt that the Earth's climate has changed before - but this one is different.
The current warming cannot be explained by natural causes.
And if anyone doesn't think it's warming at all - You'd better have a good explanation for where all the glaciers have gone!
I once worked for a short while at the Antarctic Polar Research Dept in Cambridge in the 1990's and they were convinced then that Global Warming was happening. They said that the ice sheet had shrunk and that they were getting creatures swimming around in Southern Oceans that they had not seen before. The snow line had receded several miles even then.
jake-the-peg � Sorry but you are wrong. If you look at the climate record for the last 400 thousand years, the Earth has gone through many warming and cooling phases. This is entirely natural.
You ask many questions and post many sources so to answer all of those questions would take many pages of text. If you really want them, I�ll do my best to point you in the right direction.
The fact is that Global Warming, if it is happening at all, is nothing to do with humans.
There have been many periods in recent (ie. geologically recent) history where the global temperature has been as high as 5 degrees higher than today. Did polar bears die out? Obviously not because they are still with us today.
Earth�s history tells us that for over 90% of the time it was colder than today, and mostly much, much colder.
Rising and cooling of temperature is a natural effect and is not a result of human activity.
Unfortunately, I think you�ve been hoodwinked by the mainstream media. The scientific data is unequivocal � rises in CO2 have nothing to do with so called global warming.
See this link for further information...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
You ask many questions and post many sources so to answer all of those questions would take many pages of text. If you really want them, I�ll do my best to point you in the right direction.
The fact is that Global Warming, if it is happening at all, is nothing to do with humans.
There have been many periods in recent (ie. geologically recent) history where the global temperature has been as high as 5 degrees higher than today. Did polar bears die out? Obviously not because they are still with us today.
Earth�s history tells us that for over 90% of the time it was colder than today, and mostly much, much colder.
Rising and cooling of temperature is a natural effect and is not a result of human activity.
Unfortunately, I think you�ve been hoodwinked by the mainstream media. The scientific data is unequivocal � rises in CO2 have nothing to do with so called global warming.
See this link for further information...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Those who deny that climate change is due to human activity are extremely stupid and ignorant people. I am sick and tired of their stupid banter and barefaced lies.
Birdie is among the ignorant and repeats the lies they and other fools have swallowed.
The vast majority of scientists agree. Those who don't cherry pick data to support their ignorance.
The scientific data is unequivocal. Carbon dioxide causes the atmosphere to retain heat. Humans have released a vast amount of carbon dioxide. More than half of it since 1975. The rate of release increases daily.
The Utube link is not a link to more information just the opinions of a dumbass. Jake's link to nasa is far more credible.
Birdie is among the ignorant and repeats the lies they and other fools have swallowed.
The vast majority of scientists agree. Those who don't cherry pick data to support their ignorance.
The scientific data is unequivocal. Carbon dioxide causes the atmosphere to retain heat. Humans have released a vast amount of carbon dioxide. More than half of it since 1975. The rate of release increases daily.
The Utube link is not a link to more information just the opinions of a dumbass. Jake's link to nasa is far more credible.
Birdie nobody disagrees that the Earth's climate has changed in the past.
Not the Royal Society, not NASA Not the international Panel on Climate change - Nobody.
This current warming was also started naturally.
However it should have stopped and it hasn't!
The only way you can explain this fact is by taking account of human changes.
I can find people on You tube who are convinced that Aliens visit the Earth, Man never visited the moon and all sorts of rot.
Why don't you find me a major scientific body that disagrees with man-made global warming.
Heck even George Bush agrees with it now and started people looking at ways to reduce CO2 emissions!
Not the Royal Society, not NASA Not the international Panel on Climate change - Nobody.
This current warming was also started naturally.
However it should have stopped and it hasn't!
The only way you can explain this fact is by taking account of human changes.
I can find people on You tube who are convinced that Aliens visit the Earth, Man never visited the moon and all sorts of rot.
Why don't you find me a major scientific body that disagrees with man-made global warming.
Heck even George Bush agrees with it now and started people looking at ways to reduce CO2 emissions!
Beso � You call me ignorant because in your word I am repeating, �...the lies they and other fools have swallowed.�
However, it is you that is woefully ignorant on this matter.
You state, �Humans have released a vast amount of carbon dioxide. More than half of it since 1975. The rate of release increases daily.� I agree. However, there�s a problem. There has been no recorded Global Warming since 1998. How can that be? We�re releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before, so why it the world not getting any warmer?
By the way, none of the computer models which supposedly predict future climate said that it Global Warming would halt in 1998. There is a reason the computer models didn�t predict the halt � they are useless. But don�t believe me. The IPCC Technical Report (�The Physical Science Basis�) produced by Working Group I and released in November 2007, says so. Climate Change 2007 makes it perfectly clear that computer models employing the greenhouse gas theory are not suitable for future prediction. The word �prediction� is never applied to a computer model. Instead, the output from a model is called a �projection�, which is defined as follows in the Glossary...
"Projection (Generic)
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty"
So by the IPCC�s own admission, the computer models are worthless.
However, it is you that is woefully ignorant on this matter.
You state, �Humans have released a vast amount of carbon dioxide. More than half of it since 1975. The rate of release increases daily.� I agree. However, there�s a problem. There has been no recorded Global Warming since 1998. How can that be? We�re releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before, so why it the world not getting any warmer?
By the way, none of the computer models which supposedly predict future climate said that it Global Warming would halt in 1998. There is a reason the computer models didn�t predict the halt � they are useless. But don�t believe me. The IPCC Technical Report (�The Physical Science Basis�) produced by Working Group I and released in November 2007, says so. Climate Change 2007 makes it perfectly clear that computer models employing the greenhouse gas theory are not suitable for future prediction. The word �prediction� is never applied to a computer model. Instead, the output from a model is called a �projection�, which is defined as follows in the Glossary...
"Projection (Generic)
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty"
So by the IPCC�s own admission, the computer models are worthless.
You say, �The vast majority of scientists agree.�. So what? Science isn�t about consensus. Something does become the truth because lots of people believe it. Not all scientist believe it either. Have a look at this and make sure you look at the signatories.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story .html?id=164002
Not exactly a list of �dumbasses� are they? Or maybe you think they are, seeing as that is how you describe Bob Carter. Let�s just see if you�re right...
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
So a complete dumbass then.
You are such a typical Global Warming alarmist Beso. Anyone, be they a scientist or otherwise, who doesn�t agree with you, you call stupid. You don�t address what they are saying. You don�t attempt to refute what they say by using science.
You just call them names.
It's really quite pathetic.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story .html?id=164002
Not exactly a list of �dumbasses� are they? Or maybe you think they are, seeing as that is how you describe Bob Carter. Let�s just see if you�re right...
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
So a complete dumbass then.
You are such a typical Global Warming alarmist Beso. Anyone, be they a scientist or otherwise, who doesn�t agree with you, you call stupid. You don�t address what they are saying. You don�t attempt to refute what they say by using science.
You just call them names.
It's really quite pathetic.
jake-the-peg � �I can find people on You tube who are convinced that Aliens visit the Earth, Man never visited the moon and all sorts of rot.�
I know what you mean. But most of the people who spout this rubbish are not professionals. They don�t have qualifications coming out of their ears and they haven�t studied the physical sciences for many years.
The link I provided was to a guy called Bob Carter and despite what Beso said above, he is hardly a �dumbass�. He a very highly educated individual who has been working in this field for over 30 years and who happens to believe that Global Warming is not man-made. This does not make him a crackpot or a weirdo. This makes him a sceptical scientist. If you bother to watch the link and watch the other follow up lectures, you�ll see that what he is saying is not �out there� or bizarre. It�s entirely possible that Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] is not happening.
You�re right about there not being a major scientific body that will publically say that AGW is not happening. This does not mean that no scientists disagree with AGW. Many do. I provided Beso with a link to over 100 scientists who believe just that.
You also have to think about who funds scientific projects too. In the past, if a study came out that cast doubt on AGW being real, the Global Warming believers always claimed that their funding came from �big oil companies� and therefore the results were invalid. Maybe, maybe not.
I know what you mean. But most of the people who spout this rubbish are not professionals. They don�t have qualifications coming out of their ears and they haven�t studied the physical sciences for many years.
The link I provided was to a guy called Bob Carter and despite what Beso said above, he is hardly a �dumbass�. He a very highly educated individual who has been working in this field for over 30 years and who happens to believe that Global Warming is not man-made. This does not make him a crackpot or a weirdo. This makes him a sceptical scientist. If you bother to watch the link and watch the other follow up lectures, you�ll see that what he is saying is not �out there� or bizarre. It�s entirely possible that Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] is not happening.
You�re right about there not being a major scientific body that will publically say that AGW is not happening. This does not mean that no scientists disagree with AGW. Many do. I provided Beso with a link to over 100 scientists who believe just that.
You also have to think about who funds scientific projects too. In the past, if a study came out that cast doubt on AGW being real, the Global Warming believers always claimed that their funding came from �big oil companies� and therefore the results were invalid. Maybe, maybe not.
Continued....
However, we now have an almost identically opposite scenario. The amount of money being thrown around in support of AGW is immense. If a Government body gives a scientific team hundreds of thousands of pounds to conduct a study into some element of AGW, do you really believe that they�ll conclude that AGW isn�t happening? Of course they won�t. Who would? It would be scientific suicide. If the scientists working for the IPCC concluded that AGW wasn�t happening, do you seriously think that the IPCC would publish this result? By doing so, they would have negated their own existence.
What I am saying is that all research is biased towards one conclusion or another. I think that AGW is not happening because all the evidence I have looked at leads me to this conclusion � including I must add � the IPCC own report.
However, we now have an almost identically opposite scenario. The amount of money being thrown around in support of AGW is immense. If a Government body gives a scientific team hundreds of thousands of pounds to conduct a study into some element of AGW, do you really believe that they�ll conclude that AGW isn�t happening? Of course they won�t. Who would? It would be scientific suicide. If the scientists working for the IPCC concluded that AGW wasn�t happening, do you seriously think that the IPCC would publish this result? By doing so, they would have negated their own existence.
What I am saying is that all research is biased towards one conclusion or another. I think that AGW is not happening because all the evidence I have looked at leads me to this conclusion � including I must add � the IPCC own report.
1 to 15 of 15
