The forcast for camber at the weekend is low 60s .
It got me wondering
Whats all the fuss about re Global warming
If we add 10f to the South east we could potentially be enjoying temps in the 70s at the weekend ?
Although if the sea levels rise would camber be swept away ? What about southport ? and other jive events at seaside towns
In 2100 if it gets really bad will Bisley be the new Jive event by the sea ?
On a serious note I dont know why people worry about global warming
Possibly because big corporations and governments dont care about ruining the planet as long as they profit in the short term. They use any excuse to dismiss any evidence that would force them to spend money on alternatives to ecologically unsound practices - "not conclusive" "lack of proof" etc...Originally Posted by stewart38
We have to live on this world but Im leaving at the first opportunity
The way the land lies it could be Bedford-by-the-Sea.
To my ignorant eye it looks like that global warming will have the effect of making more land availiable for cultivation, and the problem will be allowing people to migrate.
Possibly because big corporations and governments dont care about ruining the planet as long as they profit in the short term. They use any excuse to dismiss any evidence that would force them to spend money on alternatives to ecologically unsound practices - "not conclusive" "lack of proof" etc...
We have to live on this world but Im leaving at the first opportunity
we are so brained washed into thinking global warming is happening and is bad its very hard to find a balanced view. This article was interesting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound.
Much of the environmental policy now proposed is based on myths. Let's look at the four most common.
Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.
Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.
A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]
Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.
More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.
Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action.
However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that:
Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.
Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million.
Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.
Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.
Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.
Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.
From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend.
The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.
Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.
What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.
Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point taken. I'm firewalled here so cant look up any contrary statements. However, it is still true to say the corporations and governments are more concerned with profit and not data. e.g. The kyoto agreement was about cutting back on harmful emissions - it should be a simple thing to agree to you'd think - but the US would have nothing to do with it. Maybe im cynical then but the decision seemed to be based on profit rather than logic - other countries were prepared to sign up to it, its not as if it had no basis on fact. You could argue that it only has some small basis in fact, but isnt that enough?
Compare this to the Sudan food scare a few months ago, it was very unlikely to harm anyone in anything other than massive quantities but the slim possibility was there. The recall was instant, precise and effective. A slim possibility is ignored when it comes to ecological issues though. Why is that ?
Well easy to blame a Indian supplier, but what about the facts there ??
You would have to eat 50 tons of the stuff for 50yrs to get a 50% greater chance of getting cancer. Papers suggested it would be instant ! (I don’t know exact nos /details but it was way over hyped but it had me checking my frozen hotpots !)
You cant believe all what you read
A recent article in the New York times said North Pole to melt after 50m yrs, it was front page.
Water found at pole in feb. I cant remember full facts but what it was natural and a retracted article on pg 22 about a week later (3 lines)
Well, I did a web search, and that "article" appears to be from the American "National Center for Policy Analysis" - this article. The date on the article is May 23, 1997. The NCPA are funded by Exxon, the oil company.
So, it's not just oil industry propaganda - it's out of date oil industry propaganda. Fantastic.
lol nice
I cant rep Martin
Of course as since 1997 the powers that be have bad any anti global warming debate
FANTASTIC!!
I wouldn't have to go far to do that weekender then, in fact wouldn't even need to pack
Bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!
Global warming is a natural phenomenon. It has been going on for ages and we are coming out of an ice age, which is not the normal state for the Earth. It is the rate at which global warming is occurring which is the debatable point. It is going to happen anyway, we've merely increased the rate by a few points of a percantage. A major volcanic eruption has a far quicker and more dramatic effect on the overall planetary average temperature than we do however, it is the extensive deforestation taking place around the equator which is currently having a real effect on the gas balance in the atmosphere. The overall temperature of the planet is not only dependant on the level of so-called greenhouse gases, it varies according to the distance from and angle to the Sun, which is not constant.
As in all things, the data available is frequently skewed to represent peoples' different points of view.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks