Yes.
The "greenhouse effect" was very noticeable around 1000 - 1300 AD, when temperatures rose considerably higher than they are now. That was also due to solar activity, not humans' camp fires.
The current warming of Mars is due to solar activity as well (there being no humans on Mars).
What a sad bastard
Re: What a sad bastard
That is correct.
The main "greenhouse gas" is water vapour. The oceans are the culprits there. Temperatures should begin to fall within ten years - I shudder to think what will be blamed for it.
The main "greenhouse gas" is water vapour. The oceans are the culprits there. Temperatures should begin to fall within ten years - I shudder to think what will be blamed for it.
Re: What a sad bastard
Neither sad nor a bastard. He tried to make a difference. His mistake was not to hand it over to a PR company, instead involving 'worthies' like bishops. His day had no publicity at all.
The public only 'cares' when it gets a nice day out. Celebrities only care when they get to perform or display their caring credentials. He failed to recognise this.
The facts are incontrovertible, irrespective of bad science smoke-screens.
Even misguided attempts to involve more people in mitigating climate change should be applauded. I don't understand why anyone would have a pop at this bloke.
The public only 'cares' when it gets a nice day out. Celebrities only care when they get to perform or display their caring credentials. He failed to recognise this.
The facts are incontrovertible, irrespective of bad science smoke-screens.
Even misguided attempts to involve more people in mitigating climate change should be applauded. I don't understand why anyone would have a pop at this bloke.
Re: What a sad bastard
Steve R wrote:
Temperatures should begin to fall within ten
> years - I shudder to think what will be blamed for it.
>
>
Whatever the latest trendy bandwagon they can raise taxes on, i bet.
And 4x4's, of course.
Temperatures should begin to fall within ten
> years - I shudder to think what will be blamed for it.
>
>
Whatever the latest trendy bandwagon they can raise taxes on, i bet.
And 4x4's, of course.
We have need of you again, great king.
Re: What a sad bastard
chatterji wrote:
>>
The fact of climate change may be incontrovertible - given that the climate warms up and cools down periodically in any case due to a combination of factors that we - quite frankly - can do fuck-all about.
It's the "man-made" bit (and all the accompanying 'fashionable' bandwagon-jumping) that a lot of people have a problem with.
- Eric
>>
The fact of climate change may be incontrovertible - given that the climate warms up and cools down periodically in any case due to a combination of factors that we - quite frankly - can do fuck-all about.
It's the "man-made" bit (and all the accompanying 'fashionable' bandwagon-jumping) that a lot of people have a problem with.
- Eric
-
diplodocus
- Posts: 1319
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What a sad bastard
''It's the "man-made" bit (and all the accompanying 'fashionable' bandwagon-jumping) that a lot of people have a problem with.''
but strangely enough very few climateologists and scientists are sceptics
yes it's true that natural warnming does occur in cycles, approx 2 degree rises which then falls back to normal.
The problem is that the rate of rise we are seeing now (we are entering a natural waring cycle) is 7 times greater than we have ever seen before. And guess what, in the past the level of CO2 have been pretty static at around 270ppm, currently they are around 380.
If the rate of warming increases unchecked then we could be looking at a 6 degree rise, which could potentially be a disaster
but strangely enough very few climateologists and scientists are sceptics
yes it's true that natural warnming does occur in cycles, approx 2 degree rises which then falls back to normal.
The problem is that the rate of rise we are seeing now (we are entering a natural waring cycle) is 7 times greater than we have ever seen before. And guess what, in the past the level of CO2 have been pretty static at around 270ppm, currently they are around 380.
If the rate of warming increases unchecked then we could be looking at a 6 degree rise, which could potentially be a disaster
we are Leeds.... , and we can still beat the mighty Chester
Re: What a sad bastard
diplodocus wrote:
> The problem is that the rate of rise we are seeing now (we are
> entering a natural waring cycle) is 7 times greater than we
> have ever seen before.
This is utter nonsense.
The climate model enthusiasts are taking their readings from weather stations that are almost all situated in cities.
If you check the weather forecast, you will see that London's temperature is always higher than that of surrounding areas.
Incidentally, to make their silly climate models agree with their predictions, these "scientists" have to accept an absurd "compromise" - which is the fact that their models show that the average annual rainfall in the central Sahara desert is the same as that of Scotland.
> The problem is that the rate of rise we are seeing now (we are
> entering a natural waring cycle) is 7 times greater than we
> have ever seen before.
This is utter nonsense.
The climate model enthusiasts are taking their readings from weather stations that are almost all situated in cities.
If you check the weather forecast, you will see that London's temperature is always higher than that of surrounding areas.
Incidentally, to make their silly climate models agree with their predictions, these "scientists" have to accept an absurd "compromise" - which is the fact that their models show that the average annual rainfall in the central Sahara desert is the same as that of Scotland.
-
diplodocus
- Posts: 1319
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What a sad bastard
no it isn't 'utter nonsense', the facts i've presented are well documented and accepted by the scientific community. Much more so than your 'mars theory' taken from comments by Abdussamatov, which were all they were- comments, not even a peer reviewed paper which has stood up to scrutiny
to suggest that all climate model data is taken only from cities is laughable
readings are taken form masses of areas, from the stratosphere, the troposphere, the seas, the sun, ice core samples etc etc these form the basis of climate prediction models
I wonder what your background is to call climatologists 'silly' and to dismiss them as ''scientists''
to suggest that all climate model data is taken only from cities is laughable
readings are taken form masses of areas, from the stratosphere, the troposphere, the seas, the sun, ice core samples etc etc these form the basis of climate prediction models
I wonder what your background is to call climatologists 'silly' and to dismiss them as ''scientists''
we are Leeds.... , and we can still beat the mighty Chester