Cant wait for climate change to kick in...
HellsCyclist
Posts: 122
Just checked the local forecast (UK). Strong winds and rain brought forth by a low pressure system from the Atlantic. Once this system has passed another one comes along.
So what exactly can we do to make the climate change quicker? I want more sunny days, this really isnt too much to ask.
So what exactly can we do to make the climate change quicker? I want more sunny days, this really isnt too much to ask.
0
Posts
seanoconn
The flooding of East Anglia
Growing our own grapes
Living nearer the sea
Warmer temps
Increased tourism and revenue
I was looking forward to all that .....
Thinking that wet, cold, miserable winters are somehow evidence that global warming isn't happening isn't even as sensible as glancing at your Garmin on a downhil straight and claiming forever after that you can "average" 18.5 mph.
It stopped being called Global Warming when the actual evidence started showing that the earth was getting hotter SLOWER than it should have been in it geological cycle.
Then it became Climate Change to keep all the guys in hairy jumpers and all the politico's with a vested interest in work. There is a lot of money in this Global Environmentalism lark and most of it is built on the premise of man sorting out the world that man has evidently buggered up.
Still its sobering to know that the worlds climactic conditions are effected by the actions of mankind :roll: Ice ages anyone??
Couldn't agree more.
Of course the planets climate is changing, it has been doing so for over 4 billion years. As stated, ice ages came and went without man's interference. In fact the planet became a huge snowball with ice almost completely covering its surface, at least once. Even the magnetic field flips periodically without any help from man.
Man certainly is having a detrimental effect on the environment and the planets resources have to be managed better, but screaming 'man made climate change' after every storm or heatwave is ridiculous and just adds to skepticism that it is being used as an excuse to raise tax.
That's because your missus has sneaked the thermostat up a bit.
Global warming is still very much in use as a term. Type "Global warming" into Google Scholar and limit the search to papers published in 2013. There are loads.
Short-term slowdowns, standstills and even reverses aren't unexpected. It's the long-term trend which is important, and choosing 1998 (a very strong el nino year) as a starting point and then declaring that global warming has ended or is no longer a problem is complete guff.
The term climate change has been used for decades.
So, instead of making money out of the many, many genuine environmental problems, they decided to invent one?
Actually you're right, all those climate scientists, geologists, etc. probably never realised that the climate has natural variations. You should write them a letter.
On a less sarcastic note, climate scientists do know that the climate has always changed in the past. That's why they had the cunning plan of STUDYING the climate and looking for the types of evidence that would indicate human-induced warning.
After just about every single extreme event, scientists usually make it quite clear that individual events SHOULDN'T be blamed on climate change.
Perhaps true. But scientists don't set tax levies do they?
No they don't. But the existence of a problem is not based on the wisdom (or lack of) of the policies put forward as a response. For example, should we be funding nuclear fusion research instead of wind turbines? No idea, I'm not a physicist or an engineer, but even if a load of money is wasted on useless technology, that doesn't change what is going on in our planet's atmosphere at the moment.
Seems to be the natural conclusion to the Government's proposals.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Gas guzzler and lots of air travel for me.
The frequency and severity of these storms is pretty consistent with a warmer Atlantic. Warmer equals wetter for maritime climates.
If anyone doubts that a few ppm can have a big effect on anything, talk to Liestrong who only ever had a few ppb of active ingredient compared to body weight.
Err... I think you mean Gulf stream.
My twopence worth...
I am not convinced by climate change but we should take the precautionary principle just in case because if they are right, the effects may be irreversible 40, 50 years in the future.
Whilst the media and scientific world are talking about climate change, attention has been taken off the problem of pollution. Pollution is a far bigger threat to mankind. The effects of pollutants on bacteria and detritifors and from seas turning less alkaline effecting the main source of Oxygen and plankton (the building blocks of the pyramids of life in the sea). The very fabric of life is threatened by pollution and resource depletion.
It is as if we all reduce the carbon dioxide being produced by us, the world will be fine. Yeah bollox, I don't buy it.
http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=10 ... ij&z=a.png
Population has been discussed on many threads in BR. The consensus and in fact the reality is not over-poulation, it is the imbalance of the consumption of resources. 1/5th of the worlds population consume 4/5ths of it's resources.
Man with 7 kids in Manilla living in a shanti town has a carbon/environmental footprint which is negligible.
Single bloke living in Bachelor pad in London, owns car, fly's to exotic holidays in the West Indies, has gas central heating, PC's. ipads/tablets, buys clothes regularly etc etc has a huge environmental impact.
Unless the affluent over consumptive sector of the population are not prepared to make sacrifices, we're fooked.
While we are at it, feed animals food that stops flatulence.
The first line is about carbon emissions. As I said before, I am not convinced by the arguments.
The second line is a litmus test of our consumption. North America and in fact, Western Europeans are eating more and more meat. To breed more cattle, you need more land.
To feed bovine animals you need vast areas of agricultural land. Chop some rainforest down, grow Soya for 2 years until the ground is fallow and then chop some more rainforest down. So much hydrogenated oil is Soya to make the hot dog and Hmaburger rolls, pastries, fast foodstuffs etc etc.
The Americans financed the building of a port south of Sao Paulo which is intended to meet future demand and is running at a quarter of it's capacity - frightening.
there’s a difference between “fully hydrogenated” and “partially hydrogenated” oils, partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat, fully hydrogenated oil does not, as the hydrogenation process continues the molecular transformation of the fatty acids from trans fat into saturated fatty acids. Fully hydrogenated soybean oil is still not a healthy choice.
And good old Monsanto have now genetically modified soy beans so that they don't need to be hydrogenated so we can now sleep easy in our beds now that our best interests are being served :roll:
With due respect to the pedantics sir, it does not detract from the fact that vast swathes of land is required to grow the stuff.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.