[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

duckman, if you have nothing constructive to say.....

Hainey is that you saying that 😉

Ah Duckman what a great advert for Chrstianity you are.
LOL at rprt reply

Hainey is that you saying that

I know, time to up my medication. 😉

Well done. I'm sure everyone reaading this thread will be in awe of your verbal and psychological trickery. Have a chocolate bar.

At least they will understand what I am talking about.

Junkyard;what a great advert for contraception [i]you[/i] are.

I understand rprt. Are the brainy kids talking above your level of comprehension and you are left with only insults......ahhhh Bless.

when and why did this turn nasty?

play nicely now.

X

Nah,you know better than that.It was in-service yesterday,I was bored,so I put one of the classic stereotypes of scientists into your debate.Hey; it was that or pocket protectors.

[url= http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i68737 ]IPCC Admits Man Made Global Warming a Hoax![/url]

😉

Despite out lovely warm summer, global temperatures are falling and we are forecast a very long period of cooler temperatures (years)[url= http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather ]AccuWeather[/url]

Great! Can't wait for the ski season!

The zombie global warming thread rises again!

Now, do I trust Joe Bastardi with his cooling or NOAA and their warming?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.htmlwith

It's all so difficult 🙄

Your link above does not work BTW midgebait

ok some simple points spongebob
1. If you cannot tell the difference between weather and climate it is probably best to leave it to someone who does understand the difference between Meterology and Climatology . Your source is a weather forecaster isn’t he?

2. From the blog

For the first time this year, the global temps have retreated below last year's level

warmer, colder, it still avoids the biggest issue. the world changes, ice ages come and go. the world will one day no longer be habitable for humans.

we may be able to influence this date by a small fraction but it will still come about.

to think we can save the world is egotistical. the world does not need saving. (but mankind may)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html

Try again and my last post on this thread for another six-months 🙂

WHY ? will we have a really cold winter and have to explain again about the difference between weather and climate 😆

we may be able to influence this date by a small fraction

Sources for that? Other than your arse?

Oh my lord, I just found this from Bastardi:

The coming drop of global temperatures over the next year, to levels not seen since the 1990s, should put to an end to the AGW argument for good

Wtf? How could any intelligent person think that?

Seems like half of America is just vying for airtime or blog hits, so they jump on anything that'll make them stand out. Christ on a stick.

Sources for that? Other than your arse?

Wasn't implying I believed we could or couldn't. I was trying to suggest it would be nothing but a blip in the history of the world.

yes as was the extinction period for the dinosaurs but it was pretty tough on them iirc *
Phil yes the world will die , the sun will run out etc but really what has that got to do with this debate?

* no I am not saying global warming wil have as large an effect as this.

The sun running out & the world dying have nothing to do with this debate. Which is why I didn't bring them up.

I brought up fact the world has previously been un-inhabitable for man and that nature works in cycles. I think this is often not mentioned in the AGW debate but probable should be.

If nature dictates the world will be un-inhabitable for man do we really think we can stop it?

Right so you think we have had no effect on the planet and it is all natural change,
What is you view on the Ozone hole and CFC’s – natural or us?
Clearly climate scientist are aware of previous climate patterns and EVERYONE accepts we have had climate change in the past – Ice ages etc. You should read the thread as we have covered all of this a number of times but why do you see nature rather than mans activity in the digging up of oil burning it and releasing C02 and other chemicals. Do you really think this will have no effect on the system*? Clearly the natural cycles are still there but it is highly likely that the activities of man have had an effect on these.
You have heard of cause and effect

* C02 is a greenhouse gas more of it equals a greater forcing effect as more stored heat and therefore the planet warms up - do you have an alternative explanation rather than saying that we have had climate change in the past and claiming that the pollution created by the internal combustion engine is somehow a "natural " change?

does it really matter its all going one way anyhow?

Right so you think we have had no effect on the planet

again, this is not what i said.

I'm not sure how you are reading what I posted and have changed that into "I think we have no effect on the planet".

I'm saying the planet will exist for longer than man, as it will become un-inhabitable whether by our own doing or natures.

Therefore we are not trying to "save the planet" it is actually a case of prolonging the inevitable.

I'm happy to do everything possible to prolong the inevitable..

I was trying to suggest it would be nothing but a blip in the history of the world.

This is a line trotted out by people who either want to show how clever they are or want to not have to improve their carbon footprint. We all know that there've been ice ages and stuff, but that doesn't make it ok.

We are changing the climate, and people will suffer. Those folk flooded out in the Philippines or Bangladesh won't care if this has already happened 30m years ago, will they?

Even the return of Fred and Smee Mark? 😉

If nature dictates the world will be un-inhabitable for man do we really think we can stop it

PS we may escape the planet and inhabit another world first - who knows?It is impossible to predict what will happen to mankind in the next 3-4 billion years with any degre eof certaintity

It is impossible to predict what will happen to mankind in the next 3-4 billion years with any degre eof certaintity

We will die out?!

can i see the maths to support that?
It is just an opinion I can just say no we will build space ships that fold time and/or travel through worm holes and populate the entire universe.
I have as much eveidence for my suggestion as you do for yours ie none as it is a supposition on both our parts.

OMG the thread rises once again, along with Junkyards ability to mis-read / twist what anyone says! Bravo!!

As said on the other thread I don't think anyone denies that it is not acceptable or sustainable the rate that we are using up the natural resources on our planet. I also don't think you will find anyone who doesn't think that cutting emissions has to be a good thing, and that it is everyone's personal responsibility to do so. I think we are all agreed on that.

I think the biggest differences are between those who think that we can alter the natural cycles of the earth and those who don't and what that means in the short term we should be concentrating our efforts on.

Personally I think that the growing energy and food shortages is a far more important issue to deal with.

I also don't think you will find anyone who doesn't think that cutting emissions has to be a good thing

A lot of people do think this is bad. They think that reducing emissions necessitates a reduction in economic output and development.

None of the AGW advocates are saying that we should try and alter the earth's natural cycles, that'd be stupid. What they are saying is that we are altering climate far far quicker than it has ever altered before on a natural cycle (eruptions and meteorites etc notwithstanding) which means that the environment and people will not be able to cope.

Hainey if we are not altering the natural cycles what difference does it make it we reduce our emmissions ?

I do agree that other issues are equally as pressing and easier to resolve - starvation, malaria, population growth for example.

Hainey if we are not altering the natural cycles what difference does it make it we reduce our emmissions ?

Good question!!

We're not altering the natural cycles, we are adding to them.

Junkyard - ...what will happen to mankind in the next 3-4 billion years

You give us that long?

You give us that long?

Optimistically - 400 - 500 years tops.

Nah, I think we're here for the long haul. We'll figure something out.

We'll figure something out.

The planet would be in a better shape if we didn't.

It will be a busy little planet in 400 years time, world population has quadrupled in last 100 years, by my estimates thats over 400billion people!!

I know, i know, a little inconceivable!

Junkyard historical evedence would suggest that no animal/species has ever survived that long. What give you the impression that we can? We are already running a full capacity interms of population. How can we possibly survive 4 billion years. We're no where near smart enough to ever come up with inter galactic travel. Also time travel will never happen. Fact.

Hainey, just think what the Lakes will be like on a bank holiday Monday!

The planet would be in a better shape if we didn't.

I'm sure all the mice, elephants, sparrows and snakes etc will appreciate that.

Re population - why would you think that past growth will continue into the future?

Re population - why would you think that past growth will continue into the future?

Why would you think it wouldn't?

It was an extreme example but if say population only doubled in the next 400 years, thats still double the people as of today to feed. And if they all want steak for dinner every night, thats a lot of cows!!

It's well known that people start of having big families because lots of kids die. Then medical technology increases so more kids start to survive, but people still have big families out of habit. Then they start having only two or three, and population stabilises.

The people who actually study population dynamics think it'll top out about 9bn, IIRC.

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

In 2006, the United Nations stated that the rate of population growth is diminishing due to the demographic transition. If this trend continues, the rate of growth may diminish to zero, concurrent with a world population plateau of 9.2 billion, in 2050. However, this is only one of many estimates published by the UN. In 2009, UN projections for 2050 range from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion.

10.5 billion is still a lot of people!

What is it today? 6.5 billion people?

I also saw an article which had a UN high prediction of 14.5 billion by 2100

That is a lot more mouths to feed.

Hainey you are getting dangerously close to using models here to predict the future ...easy there easy 😆

It is a lot, yes. But not many times today's figure.

With a bit of planning and consideration it's probably sustainable. After all, 1.2bn of those folk are being ruled by a government that seems pretty heavily into low carbon development.

If the population doubles then i think there is a little more we need to do than "a bit of planning"

With the current population they are currently predicting a food crisis in the next 60 years. Thats without adding any more.

We need to concentrate more on our over-dependence on meat, our poor farming practices and how we can be more sustainable and stop the desertification of our farmland. And don't get me started on fishing stocks!!

A bit of planning was tongue in cheek! I mean it's sustainable if we change the way we live. Including such things as having to drive/fly for business, eating meat, eating off-season veg, building leaky buildings, water management, soil management, power generation and so on. Probably a load of things I've not thought of.

But agreed, agriculture is one of the major ones, if not the major one.

according to the Japanese it's whales that are responsible for depleting fish stocks.

don't worry though they have a plan.

But agreed, agriculture is one of the major ones, if not the major one.

Agreed.

I'm not doing a very good job of reducing meat consumption though 🙁