Jump to content

Global Warming


ender4
 Share

How certain are you that Global Warming is man-made?  

132 members have voted

  1. 1. How certain are you that Global Warming is man-made?

    • Certain
      34
    • Likely
      49
    • Not Likely
      34
    • No way
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

We are the cause no doubt...but to what extent.

That's what I'm not sure about, I voted 1 but I'm more concerned about dwindling oil supplies tbh.

Evidence please, or retract the statement.

There is no real evidence for either global warming or how life on earth started or how the universe really works.

and I doubt we will never know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen that time and time again. There are many fatal flaws to those figures.

1. The time scale selected specifically suits a period of minimal warming. If you go back another 40 years, you do not see anything hat resembles a significant trend of warming, but a dip and rebalance of temperatures over an 80 year period.

2. Surface and air temperatures have dropped significantly over the last 10 years, almost by the same amount as they have risen in the 25 years previously. Much (80-90%) surface temperature increase is attributed to 'urban warming'. This is the general increase in temperatures of areas of energy usage and human inhabitation. Rural areas have seen little or no warming.

3. A ride in ocean temperatures would normally be directly proportional to a rise in sea level. An increase in ocean temperature of that reported would cause the oceans to rise by more than they have in the last 100 years. You know those predictions about the sea level rising by 20-50 feet?, it's not even risen by 1cm so far. I live a few feet above sea level. Look up EX32, Barnstaple. I am not worried at all about flooding, because there is no chance it is going to happen.

4. Ocean temperature rises precede CO2 precede in the atmosphere by around 800 years. Warming the oceans releases CO2. The only thing warming the oceans is the sun.

5. CO2 only makes up 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, and only contributes to 0.035% of all greenhouse gases. This is an insignificant amount to do anything at all to the global climate. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and makes up anywhere between 60-90% of greenhouse gases. Water vapour is generally controlled by the big burning ball of radiation in the sky, the sun.

6. On a summer's day, the difference in temperature between a cloudy day and a clear day can be 15C. On a winter's evening,like now, the difference between a cloudy night and a clear night can be 15C. These are not computer predicted extremes, these are the temperatures that we all experience ever day. I got up this morning to a heavy frost. Had it been cloudy last night, it would have been at least 8C when I left for work this morning.

If CO2 presence in the atmosphere doubled in the next 100 years, I'm absolutely 100% positive it would not affect temperature more than about 0.01C average. This is not even worth considering a problem.

Seriously, every one of those charts has a time scale to suit and support the argument you are presenting. 'Land Surface Air Temperature Over Land' Looks the most significant but does no account for the medieval warm period or the dark ages. The ocean heat content is so insignificant it has been massively enhanced to exaggerate the trend, and still does not represent a realistic time scale.

There is no link between CO2, human interference and climate change. There is no evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


"Death of the Oceans" Horizon episode available on BBC iPlayer is food for thought.

I wasn't aware of the acidification of the Oceans becoming a worrying trend on top of other factors deemed to be a threat to this vast global resource until I watched this.

I don't think David Attenborough, who narrates the programme has any hidden agenda, other than a genuine concern for the planet and the living things that abide on it now and in the future.

Sadly I think some desperately wish to console themselves that there is nothing wrong, that somehow the whole thing is just going to go away and mankind can somehow just go on doing what he likes, without redress or concern. That we're all being hoodwinked into thinking there's a problem, when actually there isn't.

I don't agree because the evidence is mounting. It might be on occasion exaggerated for selfish gain, however there are too many alarm bells starting to ring, just to roll over and go back to sleep. I was a bit undecided but the more I read and watch, the more there appears to be an imbalance somewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if any of the people who believe this man made climate change theory have ever seen documentaries about the history of the planet?

Massive acid/alkali shifts are not uncommon.

Massive CO2 increases and decreases are not uncommon.

Massive temperature shifts are not uncommon.

The planet has seen 8 ice ages in the last 650,000 years, where a large of the northern hemisphere has been completely covered in ice.

There has been volcanic winters, plunging and increasing global temperatures.

This planet is an enormous living thing. We are insignificant in comparison.

If the climate is changing, there's not a chance we could have anything to do with it.

Look at the energy consumption/release of the nuclear testing age of the 50's/60's and the industrialisation of the post-war western world. Why were temperatures dropping for 25-30 years by the same trend they have increased from 1972-1998?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CO2 presence in the atmosphere doubled in the next 100 years, I'm absolutely 100% positive it would not affect temperature more than about 0.01C average. This is not even worth considering a problem.

And what if you're wrong Professor?

If I'm wrong the air gets a bit cleaner, some bigwigs make less money.

If you're wrong - We, and everything else that crawls and grows here could be in real trouble.

How can we be gambling with the planet's future like this?

Over an abstract like money?

It's utterly absurd.

Future generations are going to think we're a right bunch of c*nts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CO2 presence in the atmosphere doubled in the next 100 years, I'm absolutely 100% positive it would not affect temperature more than about 0.01C average. This is not even worth considering a problem.

And what if you're wrong Professor?

If I'm wrong the air gets a bit cleaner, some bigwigs make less money.

If you're wrong - We, and everything else that crawls and grows here could be in real trouble.

How can we be gambling with the planet's future like this?

Over an abstract like money?

It's utterly absurd.

Future generations are going to think we're a right bunch of c*nts.

Because there's nothing to base it on. Would be like sticking your life savings on Blackpool to win the League and Cup double this year.

In the 60's it was the nuclear holocaust. In the 70s it was a coming ice age. In the 80's it was AIDS. In the 90's it was the millennium bug. Now it's climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 60's it was the nuclear holocaust... In the 80's it was AIDS...

There's still a nuclear threat, it's entered a different phase. Low tech and more likely to be delivered by van than submarine.

AIDS has killed 25 million and counting. It's also affecting the family of a friend. It's not gone away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


We are the cause no doubt...but to what extent.

That's what I'm not sure about, I voted 1 but I'm more concerned about dwindling oil supplies tbh.

Evidence please, or retract the statement.

I was just expressing my immediate opinion when I saw the thread, didn't think of diving into the thread at that point, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legov, have you ever heard of the Oregon Report? Climatologists and Scientists who do not believe climate change has anything to do with human interference?

The number of signatures on that beats the IPCC Stern report 11-1.

And a lot of reputable climatologists and scientists have tried to have their names removed from the Stern Report as is is non-representative and inaccurate.

Do you have the link? To be clear I've been brought up in school to believe in climate change but I'm willing to open my mind on this so treat me as someone who's undecided :)

I couldn't find anything online regarding the Oregon Report.

Edit: Ok I found the Wikipedia article (I know, I know :D ) and it's called the Oregon Petition. Sounds a bit shady, very little external accountability from the little I've read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

so does this mean we can go back to BBQ'ing Polar Bears and driving gas guzzling cars ?

 


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year — an increase of 60 percent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â