http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1333225/Global-warming-slowing-sa
I am sure you pricks that were spouting off ,will even deny this .
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Global warming slowing down, what ? are you sure ? Arrghgarry was right ?
(47 posts) (16 voices)
-
From the BBC today: 2010 set to be hottest year since records began, global warming speeding up
BBC, Daily Mail - it's hard to know who to believe, isn't it? :-)
Posted 7 years ago # -
So scientists might have expected this year's temperatures to be substantially lower than 1998 - but they are not. Within the bounds of statistical error, the two years are likely to be the same.
The last decade was the hottest on record, and Dr Pope warns it will turn out to have been even hotter by about 0.03C when corrections are made to data taken from buoys at sea.
Statistical error ? corrections have been made ?
even with them fixing it ,it is still the same as 1998 ,not really getting hotter ,this year was freezing and it is ending freezing ,lies, damn lies and lying fucking bitches to quote Winston Churchill
She is a lying fucking bitch
Even with
Posted 7 years ago # -
Until now, the hottest year on record has been 1998, when temperatures were pushed up by a strong El Nino - a warming event in the Pacific.
El nino is not man made ,The BBC has become a propaganda machine one part says man made then it says el nino pushed up the temperatures..if you`re England just look out the window
Posted 7 years ago # -
In the Daily Mail, Dr Pope said: 'We may be underestimating the warming.'
So, even the Daily Mail has figured it out by reporting a respected (as the vast majority are) scientist. (1) the planet is warming, (2) uncertain about just how bad it is. Yep, everyone agrees.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Bon ,it is not one year statistics it is ten year read the fucking piece ,even id you take the mid point of the stats it has risen 0.8 degrees in TEN FUCKING YEARS .I was right you pricks were wrong .
another point in the article states that the chinks are putting sulphur into the air which helps to cool it down ,so mans actions are actually cooling the earth not warming it .Posted 7 years ago # -
Garry why don't you do us all a favour and stop treating this place like a night at your local pub , spouting off shit and ranting about things you don't have a clue. If all your knowledge is garnered from the pages of the Daily Mail and The Sun then you're going to make yourself look like an even bigger cock (if that's possible)
the chinks are putting sulphur into the air which helps to cool it down
you never learn do you?
Posted 7 years ago # -
> another point in the article states that the chinks are putting sulphur into the air
Please keep your racist shit off this site.
And anyway, are you saying that we're going to be saved from a global warming disaster by China's rampant pollution?
Yes, SO2 in upper atmosphere can reduce temperature in short term, but it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long times, it reacts with water to produce acid rain. The CO2 however stays in the atmosphere much longer (solubility of CO2 in water vapour to form H2CO3 - carbonic acid, is far far far less than SO2 to H2SO3 - sulphurous acid).
Same deal with Methane. People say farting cows produce a gas thats far worse than co2 for global warming. In the short term it's true - methane is much worse. But again methane doesn't last in the atmosphere very long before it's broken down into carbon dioxide and water (around 10 years or so).
Some people have suggested using SO2 or particulate matter for deliberate climate control to combat global warming. But most respectable scientists think that idea is bat-shit insane because you're just trying do deal with one wobbly system by throwing another parameter at it to make it wobble in the other way. And of course you get acid rain.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Multiply your 0.8 by 10 and you get 8 degrees change in 100 years. My son will have to experience that because all the planet's major governments couldn't be bothered to trust their scientists.
I don't like the phrase "Climate Change Sceptics" as it implies a lack of intelligence. My grandfather truly believed the Earth was flat as a spherical planet was outside of his experience and therefore incomprehensible. He was intelligent, though. The problem of Climate Change is so complicated and doesn't appear to be imminent that it's hard to absorb. And, the danger is so far beyond anyone's experience. To be honest, I'm surprised there aren't more non-believers.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well, rrrrrrrrrrrrrgarrrry, I've decided to abandon all logic and sense and believe you're right. You are my new Messiah. Welcome into my life.
I had a quick look at the Mail site just now. They've finally decided to report on the battle of Towton from 1461 (an exceptionally evocative site if you're into that sort of thing). They were talking about the introduction of hand guns from the continent and how they were going to put our longbowmen out of a jobPosted 7 years ago # -
I bet when that Hitler chap comes along, they're going to LOVE him! :-)
Posted 7 years ago # -
Is it youhoo?:
Posted 7 years ago # -
I was going to take umbrage and respond with my own vitriolic tirade. However, having now seen arrghgarry, I've had a change of heart. You see I've been really, really good all year long and have already sent in my list - so wouldn't want to piss him off and blow my chances this late in the day.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Thanks for biting Charlie. and Bono .The point is whether it is man that is causing it ,and I and many others don`t think it is .And Governments are using it to raise taxes and do what ever they want because they have the worlds collective fear that they are to blame .
Anyone find it suspicious that they release this information just when the GW believers are just starting to doubt whether it is true or not ..
Posted 7 years ago # -
Z.Z. Top. Zee Zee, not Zed Zed.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Some references for you -
Climate change science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Carbon Sources and sinks:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html
Ecological Impacts:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n7/abs/ngeo555.html
Response of the insurance sector:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/gpp/journal/v34/n3/abs/gpp200914a.html
Best
AlPosted 7 years ago # -
I've tried generating my own electricity
I bought a solar panel to charge up my car battery
Another 'useful' solar gadget to charge up my Nokia
A windup radio so I can listen to radio phone in shows in the toiletNone of the fuckers worked. They didn't save me a penny on electricity charges and cost me an investment of around £100 all in.
They reduced my carbon footprint by nothing
But they would have created 20 tons of CO2 to manufacture.So, the results are:
GreenWash United 3
Eco Mug Punter 0Posted 7 years ago # -
Allo Alo ,I will read the links alter a bit busy and tired at the mo.
but briefly ,the bright sparks say that the temperature might change between 2 C and 7 C by the end of the century .Are people really serious that they are concerned about what is going to happen in 90 years ?
The biggest threat to mankind is how Governments are using the threat of it to scare people and control people and of course to tax people their favourite .Governments have always used fear to control people ,and introduce legislation,i.e. communism ,nuclear war ,aids ,bird flu ,political correctness ,the kraft take over of Cadbury .Don`t worry about what may or may not happen in 50 or 100 years ,worry about what is happening now.
your Grandkids might turn out to be little shits in anywayregards Arrgh
Posted 7 years ago # -
Ronseal, if the stuff did not work, then it is a waste of money. If it was more expensive than conventional stuff, then it's down to your conscience because they did reduce your carbon footprint. It is a stone cold fact that everything but everything exerts the vast majority of its environmental impact in use, not manufacture or disposal - which is also why recycling is not a panacea.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I bought a car 4 months ago ,the salesman told me 21/22 KM to the Litre as it is an ECO car
turns out it was 14 KMpG on a good day ,I went to see the salesman he said it was standard that the real figures were 60 to 70% off the advertised rate .I spoke to a Jp friend and he said ECO is just a catch phrase ,fuck all to do with ecology and everything to do with business and conning people that want to save the world .
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.