| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | | i think you've all got it wrong. the increase in temperature is due to the decrease in the number of .... pirates! |
Well spotted Luke .. This now all makes sense. Last year there was a huge spike in pirate / hijacking incidents off Somalia, and hey-presto : As predicted the earth cooled significantly last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| any cycle has dips - but the general trend is upwards, this much is accepted fact. I'll need to find that video clip which shows this process and post it, but I'm sure you remember it Mandy... One step backwards this year doesn't mean there won't be 3 steps forward next year. Peaks and troughs are like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | any cycle has dips - but the general trend is upwards, this much is accepted fact. I'll need to find that video clip which shows this process and post it, but I'm sure you remember it Mandy... One step backwards this year doesn't mean there won't be 3 steps forward next year. Peaks and troughs are like that. |
Problem is always the period of measurement.
A single year drop which wipes out a decade of gains I think is significant. We are talking about average temperature for the whole globe, and variations tend to be small. This was a BIG move in 1 year. Something is happening, and in the end, it might be volatility itself which causes the harm, rather than any long term shift in temperature mean.
Also, it could have been that the last 10 years' higher temperature were just fluctuations from a long term (lower) mean seen in 1978 - 1988, and last year's drop is just part of that mean reversion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Here's the clip from 'Out Of Balance' - the period they're measuring goes back 400 000 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Thanks faceless.
I am more likely to believe that higher temperatures lead to more plant growth, leading to more CO2 produced by the plants.
Thus CO2 is not driving the equation, but a byproduct of heating.
Even if man increased CO2, that might not lead to significant heating, and even if it did, it might help slightly mitigate an environment getting colder (for whatever reason). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| But these scientists are saying that the CO2 which humans produce is leading to significant heating. And if it were to occur on a downslide of the natural process then that's an obvious indicator for future problems. Fighting nature is never a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | Fighting nature is never a good idea. |
I agree .. and man-kind would generally fail due to the size of nature ("can't stop the tide").
But just like in the 1970s where smog cooled the planet, we don't know for sure if the CO2 emitted by man is good (heating a cooling planet) or bad (heating a heating planet) or negligible effect (since nature is so large and/or due to feedback mechanisms).
But what I am 100% certain of is that governments are using it as an excuse to raise taxes which go into warfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
We know for certain that various pollutants in the 70s caused acid-rain for example - what more proof do you need that man causes this kind of damage?
You're the last person I thought would have their head in the sand over this Mandy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radiomanpj
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well.... So the temperature is finally getting back to what it was when the Vikings settled North America and Greenland? 
Wait... Vikings...Pirates? Maybe the chart is right!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Maybe the ice is just shifting around the world :
Snow in July? A Mixed Blessing in the Rockies - LINK
Huge amounts of snow still blanket the Northern Rockies high country, delaying the opening of a scenic road that is a key route for the tourists who power the area’s economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | We know for certain that various pollutants in the 70s caused acid-rain for example - what more proof do you need that man causes this kind of damage?
You're the last person I thought would have their head in the sand over this Mandy. |
I am certainly anti-pollutants, but not for the taxation con including the soon to be increased tax on 2001 cars [approx £200 road tax per year]. Then there is the approx. £1000 tax on new cars which tend to be more fuel efficient.
In addition, every time anyone (especially key workers) fill up the tank, they are being robbed many times over : First by the government fuel duty, then the speculators' premium, and finally fuel duty ON the speculators' premium.
We are being robbed ..
p.s. Oil just hit $146.33 a barrel today when it costs a fraction to extract .. so who is pocketing these huge long term profits ? Is that normal in a supposedly competitive and efficient open market ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Anything that gets cars off the road is good in my book, but I agree that people who need their car for important work should be subsidised properly. I've no sympathy for anyone who has to pay extra just to drive their cars to some supermarket.
It's obviously the oil producers who are making vast profits, but that's just a natural part of capitalism and why I hate that system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | It's obviously the oil producers who are making vast profits, but that's just a natural part of capitalism and why I hate that system. |
There are many shades of capitalism. Capitalism need regulation (e.g. monopolies commission) to protect the citizens. Clearly I believe the speculators should be brought to account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Here's a pic I just saw on a conspiracy site - they're up in arms because they see it as being similar to race segregation in the 50s! Personally I think it's great - if people are going to be unsociable by polluting the local area then why not make them walk a bit?
However, the fact that the vehicle parked in the space looks like it would pollute a load is something though - if that's what's considered low-emission then what's the point! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpursFan1902
Pitch Queen
Joined: 24 May 2007
Location: Sunshine State
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I am not sure where the photo was taken, but wouldn't the sign face the space? Wouldn't the photographer be standing in the space? Just a thought... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
