Due to Britain being heated by the gulf stream, maybe this is the way Britain could permanently look in 20 or more years time?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11853658
Edited by Shar (Forum Moderator) Moved from 'Discuss Anything'.
Printable View
Due to Britain being heated by the gulf stream, maybe this is the way Britain could permanently look in 20 or more years time?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11853658
If it's heated by the gulf stream how would that happen? And no I don't see this happening at all - it will get colder in winter & hotter in summer.
Doubt it, as Robbie has said, it will be hotter in the summer and colder in the winter
Britain is generally always warmer than the rest of europe due to the gulf stream. If the ice caps melt then the gulf stream would die due to the freshwater mixing with the saltwater in the Atlantic. If the gulf stream were to stop Britain would be in an Ice Age.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
The globe has actually cooled over the last 10-15 years which renders the idea of global 'warming' laughable, even the political machine the MetOffice has backed down recently on it. The crooks like Al Gore have been sussed and real science, the science of scepticism is returning. The video below has some quick fire facts and lists sources, there's nothing to worry about;- and even if the predictions from the likes of the UN were true, there's a video where Monckton debunks this as to cancel out even a farenheit of warming we'd have to shut down the entire global economy for 30+ years to stop one farenheit of warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuj_tlRRQdQ
Check out Lord Monckton and Professor Richard Lindzen compared to the likes of Al Gore and Maurice Strong.
Climate change does not equal global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
No it doesnt anymore as they changed the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change' so it can mean anything now. If it's a heatwave its climate change. If its a hurricane its climate change. If its freezing cold its climate change. In Roman Britannia we used to grow grapes as far up north as the border with Scotland, and now we can't. The climate has been, and has always been down to mother nature and will change long after we've gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Technologic
If C02 causes warming then the globe should be warming, however it is not - its actually cooling at the moment.
I am not in UK , sniff
Short, intermittent periods of cooling during long periods of warming mean nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
So what makes the period of warming down to mankind? Why is it any different to any other period of warming, long before we had cars, factories and so forth. The fact is that it isn't any difference. And again I refer back to the Monckton with one question he often asks which is; what is the ideal temperature for the earth? - that one question that shows just how ridiculous this whole bandwagon is, because the Earth doesn't have a set/ideal temperature, never has done and never will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Technologic
If anything with the rapid growth of China (again, C02) over the past decade, the temperature according to your logic should be rapidly increasing - but its not, its doing the complete opposite of what pro-global warming logic states what should happen.
The industrialised world has been around for around 200-250 years, in that time the average temperature has gone up significantly. Yes, this may be a coincidence but a temperature increase on that scale should occur over a much larger period, it is highly likely that human activity has influenced this temperature rise heavily.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Anyway, do you not care about the planet? Or would you rather fish stocks die out as a result of reduce oxygen content in the oceans? Rainforests disappear due to interrupted wet seasons? Climate change DOES NOT mean global warming and never has. You just use it as an excuse to blame the EU or something along those lines for imposing targets of CO2 reduction on the UK....
The warming period over the past few hundred years started before the industrial revolution which cancels out any connection with human activity, you also say it should increase on a larger period - why? there is no set period for how fast temperatures rise and we've actually cooled since Roman times as I stated before; during the Roman Empire vineyards existed as far up north as near the border with Scotland, the temperature then decreased around the time that the Roman Empire collapsed and we entered a cooler period (during which we had no cars, no factories etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Technologic
As for caring for the planet, I care deeply about the planet, nature and my surroundings. I believe we should have more parks, more trees - I myself do the garden (flowers, not just mowing the grass and keeping it tidy). The difference is that I use real logic to look through the evidence and so forth. It is funny you should mention fish and the EU in the same sentence though, because you're obviously unaware of the EUs' CFP policy which has been described as the worst ongoing enviromental disaster where tonnes upon tonnes of fish are thrown back into the dead (dead) because of the ridiculous quota system that has been imposed.
Ontop of the CFP disaster (which you don't care about and simply blank because it punches a hole in your 'caring', but worry and fret about global warming; now called climate change which does not make any scientific sense) you also have the biofuels disaster which has turned over field after field to producing biofuels which are expensive and take up farm land - which has lead to a direct doubling of world food prices which the poorest cannot simply afford, one of the reasons that now and before the earthquake in Haiti they were surviving on mud pies because they simply cannot afford a doubling in the price of food.
So don't accuse me of not caring, its the likes of yourself who dont give a damn about those in the poorest parts of the world who are dying because you are so obsessed with this hysteria that has been set up similar to the one in the 1970s/1980s where they were worrying about global cooling and which eventually gave away to global warming and why? because the globe started warming again!.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image158.gif
Obviously graphs look different to one another depending on what method you use, but Lindzen and Monckton among others have put together various graphs which use real data unlike the Al Gore hockey stick graph you have most likely seen repeated on the likes of the BBC which was put together using false data. In terms of imposing things on the UK and the people across the world, you'll see that the reason why they are so eager to push the global warming agenda (which you now call climate change, and yes you did all call it global warming until people started laughing at the idea that the globe was warming when it was infact cooling) is money and power. Fear is the greatest tool to any government ie; swine flu scare where medical companies made millions/billions despite the fact normal flu kills far more people//Iraqi WMD scare which justified the invasion of Iraq in which the military industrial complex has made billions//the terrorist 'threat' when infact the threat is almost none which governments can use to usher in laws they wouldnt usually get away with (this was actually admitted by a congressman on Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kzz1G4Wzjg&NR=1&feature=fvwp
All of these people (the scientists in East Angelia, New Zealand, Gore himself) caught cooking the books along with the politicians but you still believe them because like the woman above its a matter of faith for you; you still go along with the idea that by cutting jobs/subsiding expensive and unrelible energy production/taxing people for the sake of it - that somehow, by paying more money we are all going to save ourselves. There's a big difference between caring about the enviroment and believing a hysterical political agenda.
The video above shows that, even if you do believe in global warming/climate change - whatever you wish to call it. The best option availble is to burn as much fossil fuels as possible to develop China, Africa and India as soon as possible in order to prevent the population (demographics) spinning out of control which would make the problem(?) worse.
What a stupid thread?
Everyone knows we are all going to get so hot we will die. It will never snow again, all the ice caps will melt and we should jump off a cliff before we die of starvation.
--
Would love their to be more snow in the UK though - spain for heat, england for snow - perfect!
maybe 100+ years as oppose to 20...
Lord Monckton is a lier through and through. He claims himself to be a member of British parliament, which he isn't, and he claims to be a Scientist, which he isn't and he quotes reports that actually disprove what he is saying. He has NO kind of scientific background and has a degree in journalism. Sure you can say you don't have to have a degree in Science to be a Scientist but you need to actually understand Science to be able to preach it, even climate sceptic scientists disagree with Lord Monckton because what he is preaching is utter bollocks through and through.
Not entirely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuto
All of inland europe that isn't affected by the stream is hotter in summer. The gulf stream keeps the UK and Ireland at a temperate type climate throughout the year.
Lord Monckton doesn't claim either of those things; he does have a scientific background via the government, working in university and was a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. The parliament issue, Monckton remains a Lord despite the best efforts to slur him by suggesting he does not have a peerage title when infact he does retain that title after his father was removed from the House of Lords. The US Congress attempted what you are trying right now, to slur the man - rather than disproving what he says which I think speaks volumes. Al Gore refuses point blank to debate the man, and the so-called scientist 'experts' collapse in on themselves when confronted with Monckton in television interviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther
In terms of the baseless claims made about the reputation of Monckton, he is the most well known climate sceptic out there and is very highly regarded with tours booked for him and backing from scientific bodies; http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/. The man is also a very highly regarded intellectual who has a very good grasp of mathematics (with his puzzle he invented and became known for in the 90s) and has published works with scientific links.
I'd like to know why you seem to think for Monckton to have a view on the subject he needs to be an expert on the subject (again, how do you class an expert/a scientist) when only a few months ago you were pushing for the likes of Nick Clegg to form a government despite the fact he is not a scientist and judging by his support for wind farms, possesses not an ounce of common sense in economics or science.
So much for global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Climate change... Not global warming
global warming = related to climate change
Related yes. The same, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by eoin247
Global warming revolved around the theory that the world was heating up (self-explanatory) and that man was to blame (I used past tense and it has pretty much been buried in the ground).
Climate changes follows a more reasonable theory that the world's climate would be or is erratic. That is to say, you get extremes in both hot and cold weather conditions, which made more sense than global warming and follows common sense and logic, though it still hints towards man being to blame but it depends which sub-theory you follow - climate change due to man or climate change due to nature.
I thought I'd quit this forum, but browsing for the first time in a while today, I have been tempted to post by some misinformed (in some cases idiotic) people.
The following quotes are from this report:
THE LOOMING THREAT OF GLOBAL COOLING
Geological Evidence for Prolonged Cooling Ahead and its Impacts
Prof. Don J. Easterbrook
"Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age and in the 10,000 years that followed, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they happened before CO2 began to rise sharply around 1945."
"Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years and another 60 smaller, sudden climate changes have occurred in the past 5000 years. The intensity and suddenness of these climatic fluctuations is astonishing. Several times, temperatures rose and fell from 9–15° F in a century or less."
"The dramatic melting of continental glaciers in North America, Europe, and Asia that began 15,000 years ago was interrupted by sudden cooling 12,800 years ago, dropping the world back into the Ice Age. Continental and alpine glaciers all over the world ceased their retreat and re-advanced. This cold period, the Younger Dryas, lasted for 1300 years and ended abruptly with sudden, intense warming 11,500 years ago. The climate in Greenland warmed about 9° F in about 30 years and 15° F over 40 years. During the Younger Dryas cold period, glaciers not only expanded significantly, but also fluctuated repeatedly, in some places as many as nine times.
Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods."
"Atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply right after WWII in 1945 but was accompanied by global cooling for 30 years, rather than by warming, and the earlier warm period from 1915 to 1945 took place before CO2 began to rise significantly."
PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation (pacific ocean surface temperature fluctuations).
"[This can be established]
- The PDO has a regular cyclic pattern with alternating warm and cool modes every 25-30 years
- The PDO has accurately matched each global climate change over the past century and may be used as a predictive tool.
- Since the switch of the PDO from warm to cool in 1999, global temperatures have not exceeded the 1998 high.
- Each time the PDO has changed from one mode to another, it has stayed in that mode for 25-30 years; thus, since the switch of the PDO from warm to cool in 1999 has been entrenched, it will undoubtedly stay in its cool mode for another several decades.
- With the PDO in cool mode for another several decades, we can expect another several decades of cooling."
If you don't read/skip this post, you're a moron who doesn't deserve a place in this thread.
We did global warming today in science
Humans make the less co2 about 6.5 gigatones, plants and animals make 150 gigatones and oceans make the most co2
(this probs made no sence.)
CO2 is irrelevant anyway. Plus the oceans don't 'make' it, they store it and release it after temperatures rise (true story).Quote:
Originally Posted by .x.miss.angel.x