Safe Speed Forums

Looks very interesting. Once a theory reaches a critical mass then -almost by default - all other theories get much less attention.

Any one got a contact for the producer - he may want to do one on speed cameras ?

Richard

*sighs* All greenhouse gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect which is usually a good thing.


Yes the temperature rising causes fossil fuels to be burnt...

and to "power" every single tree in thew world.

the argument is that higher temperatures result in less co2 remaining dissolved in water.


those trees also like a good diet of co2. They also don't mind too much if the power is switched off for a few days here and there - you might, though, in the middle of winter.

We could get really depressing, if we wanted.
CO2 levels are not that much of a problem. Methane and nitrogen oxides are much better than CO2 at helping global warming. Which probably explains why the planet was a LOT hotter 30 million years ago with CO2 levels pretty much the same as now.
In any case, plants grow SO much better in higher CO2 levels....the climate may change but we won't run out of food.
Now, if we got rid of lorries and buses (ICE powered) that would lower the amount of CO2 emitted...and dumping the CO2 emitting power stations would also lower it more...and we could keep driving !
(we have a wind farm on the hill overlooking work...they turn all the time...well, they would do...they have a diesel engine at the bottom to keep them turning....strange ?)
So, no problem. We build a rake of nuclear power stations, dump the wind farms into the ocean...along with the tide farms...we save a load of CO2 produced by the rather biased scientists nattering all the time....and problem solved.
Face it guys, the PROBLEM is people. There are too many of them (us). We need less. Or, we have to accept a lower standard of living. Much lower. As in 1000 years back lower. It's not good enough to use bikes, we have to accept that no industry at all is the only answer. After all, if it takes 18 years to recover the energy investment in wind turbines, and they have a life of 15 years........
So, we go back in industrial history. We won't need scientists, they got us in the mess anyway and most of them are dummies as well.

I do believe that the most effective greenhouse gas is water vapour is it not?

Exhaled breath comprises mainly CO2 and water vapour.

Cue the government's new 'Pay-as-you-Breathe' tax!

is there actually any positive proof that Global Warming is Man made?

if not why for the last God knows how many Years have I been paying that 5% VAT on my energy bills for Man made Global Warming?

can I now claim it back?

The progamme looks interesting, I wonder if Prof. Paul Stott is on it?...hope so!

The problem I have with the whole global-warming-climate-chaos zealots is that they simply sound like they are regurgitating biblical stories of disaster.

Floods due to rising sea levels - cue Noah's Ark...?!

Fairy stories to scare an ignorant populace.

(a) Direct radiative measurements.
(b) The pattern of changes, with the greatest increases in the polar regions, is a confirmation of model predictions.
(c) Solar proxies have been flat since 1950 or so, temperatures haven't.
(d) Successful preditiction of the cooling effects of the Pinatabu eruption.
(e) Impossibility of accounting for the past 150 years of climate without man-made GHGs.



You see, we invested all of that cash in building out an all-nuclear electric grid so that you could have relatively cheap electricity and heating without emitting GHGs or selling the country to the Russians.. oh, wait, that was the French.

We lost it down the back of the sofa, or gave it to some IT consultants, or something.



Ahhh.. Taxpayers say the cutest things, don't they?

Interesting article in The Sun today (someone left it in the crewroom and I was bored) blaming deforestation in Columbia, for the purposes of growing Coca for the cocaine industry, for global warming!

Still, Pete Docherty, Kate Moss et al won't feel guilty I'm sure, means the weather will be nicer for their frequently photographed holidays. Perhaps the government should put an eco-tax on drugs

funny how it's not mentioned that the models have absolutely failed to predict anything else... hurricanes? cooling seas? Ooops, we got those bits wrong because we don't understand enough about global climate yet (and never will) but you're STILL GOING TO FRY... REPENT NOW SINNER!


Oh well that proves it then. We don't have a clue so it must be us!
I don't suppose you've thought of asking the martians why their polar caps are melting?

Bollocks. The best estimate we have for the age of Planet Earth is 345 billion years. I'm sure there's plenty that has gone on in that time that we have no explanation for, so perhaps you'd like to blame us for it?! Oh, hang on, we've only been here 24 million years....

The arrogance of statements like those above just make me despair at the ignorance and narrow mindedness of the people who make them. Perhaps sacrificing some lambs or your first-born son might have as much effect as anything else you are proposing, seeing as you are just speculating on the cause....

you might want to check those numbers.

Best estimate was 4.56 Billion years last I heard. During which time the climate has changed from having the planet almost entirely frozen solid - around 600 million years ago - to having the sea level 100 meters higher than today, with forests all the way to the poles.

Climate has changed due to changes in the sun, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in tectonic plate configuration, uplift of mountains, changes in the biosphere, and several other processes. This shows, amongst other things, that the climate of the planet is quite sensitive. And if a natural process such as a slight change in solar output can have an effect, then why not man made green house gasses, which we know to be a stronger influence (basic physics)?

Modern humans have been around for around 50-100,000 years, 24 million years ago we were still flinging dung at each other.



Probably best not to accuse a petroleum geologist of ignorance after getting the age of the Earth wrong by a foctor of 100 or so..

And no, I don't like the way that some of the greens use Global warming to push an anti-industrial agenda; I know full well that wind farms are a waste of time, biofuels are worse than useless and the further reaches of the green movement has some very disturbing ideas on population reduction.

But that dosen't stop the science behind AGW being accurate.

It can't be accurate. We haven't had accurate enough instruments to measure global temperature precicely enough for that long. The models and theories are based on what we THINK we know and for all we know we could be a million miles adrift.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Amen Amen Amen.

But - you all fail to note that "Global Warming" is now dead. "Climate Change" is the current phrase. That neatly covers anydamnthing you like. Suspect the change came about when some of the well-funded climate groups realised that the Earth is forecast to go through a cooling phase from circa 2020 to 2030, (IIRC. Source NASA et al), and the term Global Warming would look stupid; their funding would end, their worldwide conferences would cease - I presume they all fly to these thing s(?) - their empires would crumble, their power would disappear and they'd be out of a job.

The climate has been changing ever since this rock ball was formed. This is mainly just a new "Threat" to exert control in the absence of any other global threat.

_________________
"Experience isn't everything - but it's most of it".

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Not sure what you mean by this. The physics are known to an extremely high precision. Models wouldn't be able to backcast accurately if they were not somewhere close to reality. We have 150 years of themometer measurements and around 650,000 years of ice core measurements - how much is enough?



The way to make money out of global warming is to be a skeptic and write a couple of books (you don't even need to be accurate). Research science is not the way to get rich and famous.

I suppose that you do know that the foundation stone of AGW theory failed last year? The famous "Mann hockey stick" turned out to be an artefact of the data processing methodology.

This google has lots: http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22Ma ... rtefact%22

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

My point is this: Yes, we've had temperature measuring equipment for 150 years but its not been able to measure the temperature accurately or to a high enough degree of precision for that long. When you're talking in terms of global temperature changes of +/- 1deg C then the accuracy and precision of the measuring equipment could potentially have a massive effect.

Again with the ice-core measurements: I've seen graphs of global temperatures over the last 500,000 years or something like that. What is shows is a general trend of cooling/warming between ice-ages with massive fluctuation (+/- 5deg either way) over 10 - 50 years in between. IMO we're just in a 'spike'.

I am yet to hear anything that I believe to be true about climate change.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.