Global Warming

Halla Basin

Has anyone noticed that in the Day after Tomorrow, one of the big storms that freezes people in seconds was centered over Scotland...? ... Erm... Forget about the recession and focus on killer cold, maybe? Why isn't the government preparing for this?

Phlann

Because global warming is a lie.

Jeremy Clarkson said so.

javaboy

Has anyone noticed in the film Mars Attacks that the aliens came down and killed loads of people? Why isn't the government preparing for this?

Wazdakka

Phlann wrote: »

Because global warming is a lie.

Jeremy Clarkson said so.

Agreed..
Global warming to a point of being a danger to the planet is complete bunk.

Also I'd like to point out that Jeremy Clarkson is a loud, opinionated, mad old pillock with all the journalistic ability of a bacon sandwich.

Halla Basin

javaboy wrote: »

Has anyone noticed in the film Mars Attacks that the aliens came down and killed loads of people? Why isn't the government preparing for this?

Please, as a mod you should try to show a little more restraint. This is a serious topic and I don't want any silly comments.

Four-Percent

Halla Basin wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that in the Day after Tomorrow, one of the big storms that freezes people in seconds was centered over Scotland...? ... Erm... Forget about the recession and focus on killer cold, maybe? Why isn't the government preparing for this?

Forget the movie and focus on the real world, maybe?

MikeC101

Halla Basin wrote: »

Please, as a mod you should try to show a little more restraint. This is a serious topic and I don't want any silly comments.

Assuming you're being serious with that post...

You're wondering why the government isn't preparing for an event depicted in a fictional movie?

Is it specifically people freezing in Scotland you're worried about, or do you think they should be building some sort of massive sea wall to protect New York from tsunamis as well?

To calm your nerves:
Q. In the movie, a giant hurricane descends from the Arctic, freezing people with -150° F wind. Is this possible?
A. No. Hurricanes, by definition, gather strength from heat and moisture from warm ocean waters. They lose strength over land, and when the air or water temperature falls below tropical levels. Hurricanes cannot form in the Arctic. In addition, no storm could grow large enough to cover the entire northern hemisphere. Storms and strong winds form because of a gradient in atmospheric pressure. You can have a strong gradient (and therefore a strong wind) over only relatively small distances. It cannot be stormy everywhere at once.

In addition, a chill of minus 150° F is colder than any temperature so far observed in nature. The lowest recorded temperature on Earth was minus 128.6° F at Vostock, Antarctica on July 21,1983. (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env040.htm) The coldest recorded temperature in North America was minus 81.4° F at Snag in the Yukon Territory, on February 3, 1947.

from http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9948

Long Onion

Halla Basin wrote: »

Please, as a mod you should try to show a little more restraint. This is a serious topic and I don't want any silly comments.

Hmmmmmmm perhaps should have thought of this before you based your thread on the bumbling musings of a Hollywood script writer then.

I am also of the "Global warming is a total myth" school of thought.

Jeremy Clarkson is indeed a mad old opinionated bollix ... but I can't help but find him amusing, he annoys me in the same way as Michael Winner and George Hook - it confuses me.

My name is URL

Phlann wrote: »

Because global warming is a lie.

Jeremy Clarkson said so.

The theory that humans are causing it may be a lie, I'm not sure if many people would say it's not actually happening though

I think it's a natural cycle personally

Halla Basin

MikeC101 wrote: »

Assuming you're being serious with that post...

You're wondering why the government isn't preparing for an event depicted in a fictional movie?

Is it specifically people freezing in Scotland you're worried about, or do you think they should be building some sort of massive sea wall to protect New York from tsunamis as well?

Absolutely! We should do everything in our power to prevent even a single human death because of Global Warming.

ScumLord

Halla Basin wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that in the Day after Tomorrow, one of the big storms that freezes people in seconds was centered over Scotland...? .

No I was gouging my eyes out at the time because the film was so ridiculous.

Snakeblood

Halla Basin wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that in the Day after Tomorrow, one of the big storms that freezes people in seconds was centered over Scotland...? ... Erm... Forget about the recession and focus on killer cold, maybe? Why isn't the government preparing for this?

Roland Emmerich's next movie is 2012. Going by the trailer, I think we should wait to see the end of that movie before making any long term plans.

javaboy

Halla Basin wrote: »

Please, as a mod you should try to show a little more restraint. This is a serious topic and I don't want any silly comments.

I was simply pointing out that expecting real life governments to take their cues from fictional movies is a bit silly.

Reagan's Star Wars project anyone?

Halla Basin

ScumLord wrote: »

No I was gouging my eyes out at the time because the film was so ridiculous.

Yes, I suppose it was very inconvenient for you, right?

Biggins

Lets be honest, the Government fail badly at preparing for a lot of things so far.
Whats more, the only person you can trust regards preparations is yourself.
(and you'd probably do a darn better job too to boot!)

If some of these things come to pass, two things will be left alive.
Cockroaches and survival nuts who will be busy laughing later in between bursting out shouting "We told ya so!"

MikeC101

ScumLord wrote: »

No I was gouging my eyes out at the time because the film was so ridiculous.

Halla Basin wrote: »

Yes, I suppose it was very inconvenient for you, right?

Yes Scumlord, I'd imagine it was quite the inconvenience for you, with your vested interests in keeping the truth about global warming suppressed!

Ah, you thought we didn't know about that, didn't you?

Halla Basin

Biggins wrote: »

Lets be honest, the Government fail badly at preparing for a lot of things so far.
Whats more, the only person you can trust regards preparations is yourself.
(and you'd probably do a darn better job too to boot!)

If some of these things come to pass, two things will be left alive.
Cockroaches and survival nuts who will be busy laughing later in between bursting out shouting "We told ya so!"

Exactly, exactly. By the way, perhaps we could collaborate on our survival plans? I'm thinking of buying some property on the cheap in central Africa, do you want join funds?

Turtwig

Firstly,

It's not about saving the planet, that will always be here : it's about saving the people.

Secondly, TDAF is what one can only dub as being based on a different universe from ours - perhaps M theory or the likes can explain it

Thirdly, Global Warming is REAL!

MikeC101

Halla Basin wrote: »

Exactly, exactly. By the way, perhaps we could collaborate on our survival plans? I'm thinking of buying some property on the cheap in central Africa, do you want join funds?

I have some friends in the Cote D'Ivoire Ministry of Finance who could help out.

Long Onion

Halla Basin wrote: »

Yes, I suppose it was very inconvenient for you, right?

Al Gore and get the popcorn ...



... good lord jebus that was awful - sorry


OP, could i perhaps interest you in some of these magic beans?

DrumSteve

ah sure its only scotland.

ScumLord

MikeC101 wrote: »

Yes Scumlord, I'd imagine it was quite the inconvenience for you, with your vested interests in keeping the truth about global warming suppressed!

Ah, you thought we didn't know about that, didn't you?

Your too late to stop operation "feed baked beans to the cows so they fart more and slowly release more CO2 into the atmosphere speeding up global warming" FBBTTCSTFMASRMCO2ITASSUGW for short. Muhahahahahahahahaha

Halla Basin

Long Onion wrote: »

Al Gore and get the popcorn ...



... good lord jebus that was awful - sorry


OP, could i perhaps interest you in some of these magic beans?

Haha very funny. We'll see who's laughing when you're frozen solid just out of reach of me and Biggins' insulated bunker.

Wazdakka

Halla Basin wrote: »

Exactly, exactly. By the way, perhaps we could collaborate on our survival plans? I'm thinking of buying some property on the cheap in central Africa, do you want join funds?

A-haa

PapaQuebec

Anyone seen the documentary "The Great Global-Warming Swindle"? Well worth a look especially as it features many of the very experts the IPCC report quote so liberally - and guess what? - they all claim to have been seriously misquoted!!! One of them (forget the name without watching the film again) is the author of the temp v's CO2 graph that Al Gore uses to such effect in his movie - except that Gore presented the graph upside down!!!!

Halla Basin

Wazdakka wrote: »

A-haa

No, I'm not a troll. It's amazing how conditioned the population is to dismiss all inconvenient environmental claims.

Wertz

Halla Basin wrote: »

No, I'm not a troll. It's amazing how conditioned the population is to dismiss all inconvenient environmental claims.

Jesus f*cking wept. It's a a bloody MOVIE.

I believe in human influenced climate change but FFS, the hollywood depiction isn't where you want to be sourcing your facts or your ethics.

Alternative answer...in the event of such cataclysmic sudden onset ice age we're obviously all going to cram into NYC library and burn books whilst we wait for Dennis Quaid and a team of huskeys...

Wazdakka

Halla Basin wrote: »

It's amazing how conditioned the population is to dismiss all inconvenient environmental claims.

It's amazing how many people want to go half's on some land in Africa for when the plot of a b grade movie comes true.

How many times do I have to tell you all??
It's MY Africa!

Sincerely yours,

Robert J Mugabe.

Biggins

PapaQuebec wrote: »

...except that Gore presented the graph upside down!!!!

Point of order:
While not saying your wrong or agreeing with you, surely if the above was the case, a LOT more (then or since) would have pointed that out and secondly, used it every time they could to hit him with it!

hidinginthebush

PapaQuebec wrote: »

Anyone seen the documentary "The Great Global-Warming Swindle"? Well worth a look especially as it features many of the very experts the IPCC report quote so liberally - and guess what? - they all claim to have been seriously misquoted!!! One of them (forget the name without watching the film again) is the author of the temp v's CO2 graph that Al Gore uses to such effect in his movie - except that Gore presented the graph upside down!!!!

Apparently people wroth into the irish times complaining about this being shown on telly because the film was so wrong. Just goes to show, normal people shouldn't be allowed near science. Besides, statistics are like signposts for drunk men, more for leaning on than showing the way.

I'm of the global warming is a natural process school of thought.

Anyway, the great global warming swindle is a great film, take that pinkos!

Biggins

Halla Basin wrote: »

Exactly, exactly. By the way, perhaps we could collaborate on our survival plans? I'm thinking of buying some property on the cheap in central Africa, do you want join funds?

Well start by building your safe room (http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/residential.shtm). Then work on getting some form of water transport that is less prone to high waves and thus sinking (for example: http://www.yachtsurvey.com/sinking.htm or http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Dinks/TinyRipple.html).

Then I recommend people getting good guides on hunting, snipering, winter protection, etc.

I'd personally buy a plot somewhere in central north America or Central Europe, not Africa.

--Kaiser--

Don't feed the troll

Antamojo

Have you not seen The Matrix?

None of this is real, Mr Anderson.

PapaQuebec

Google "The Great Global-Warming Swindle" and download it.

ScumLord

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Apparently people wroth into the irish times complaining about this being shown on telly because the film was so wrong. Just goes to show, normal people shouldn't be allowed near science.

Are you suggesting a uneducated general population is better for society and the environment? Wasn't that the same tactic the Catholic church used? Did it work?

Biggins

Speaking of world ending, we better not mention the CERN accelerator!

Ooops too late.

Halla Basin

Biggins wrote: »

Well start by building your safe room (http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/residential.shtm). Then work on getting some form of water transport that is less prone to high waves and thus sinking (for example: http://www.yachtsurvey.com/sinking.htm or http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Dinks/TinyRipple.html).

Then I recommend people getting good guides on hunting, snipering, winter protection, etc.

I'd personally buy a plot somewhere in central north America or Central Europe, not Africa.

I don't know... If we had a large complex with some of the best and brightest in Africa, we could be the haven of mankind for the decades of climate turmoil. Then, we can re-emerge as the leaders of the new world order.

Biggins

Halla Basin wrote: »

I don't know... If we had a large complex with some of the best and brightest in Africa, we could be the haven of mankind for the decades of climate turmoil. Then, we can re-emerge as the leaders of the new world order.

Nice idea but to be able to maintain that in the long run you need to be where mineral resources are in abundance and of many various kinds. From uranium to iron and oil deposits, etc.
I'm heading towards the East!

Halla Basin

Biggins wrote: »

Nice idea but to be able to maintain that in the long run you need to be where mineral resources are in abundance and of many various kinds. From uranium to iron and oil deposits, etc.
I'm heading towards the East!

I feel solar power will be enough to sustain the complex, seeing as we will be in cyogenic stasis for the bulk of the time.

Biggins

Halla Basin wrote: »

I feel solar power will be enough to sustain the complex, seeing as we will be in cyogenic stasis for the bulk of the time.

Nope, sorry. The nuclear dust clouds will be blocking those all important rays of sunlight.
Its a bummer!

Halla Basin

What nuclear dust clouds? We're talking about Global Warming, not Nuclear annihilation here.

sells

Sure if that happens, Denis Quaid will come for you. he will come for you!!!

Biggins

Halla Basin wrote: »

What nuclear dust clouds? We're talking about Global Warming, not Nuclear annihilation here.

Aaa ya see when the warming starts, there will be fighting for the limited earth resources. Even fighting for the safest areas to be positioned on!
Some lunatic is gonna press the wrong button and there you go, repeated tit for tat...

Nature of the beast!

major bill

is this thread real or a piss take? That film day after tomorrow is a load of sh1te. Al gore is a money making genius that has made the world believe in his theory of man made global warming.governments have made the people so hung up on man made(:rolleyes:) global warming now that its easier to stoop the people into paying more taxes.

Its the universe thats heating up, as the sun grows older it heats up. NASA have warned us already that solar storms are coming.

IT AINT MAN MADE:mad:

anyway if the worse comes to the worse we can always do what they did in highlander and put a big giant cover over the earth;)

hidinginthebush

ScumLord wrote: »

Are you suggesting a uneducated general population is better for society and the environment? Wasn't that the same tactic the Catholic church used? Did it work?

what I meant is that normal people, when presented with scientific "evidence", rarely see the whole picture, and will most likely not be arsed looking further into the issue. They'll just see what they're told and take it as fact, since they've been told it's science.

Turtwig

hidinginthebush wrote: »

what I meant is that normal people, when presented with scientific "evidence", rarely see the whole picture, and will most likely not be arsed looking further into the issue. They'll just see what they're told and take it as fact, since they've been told it's science.

M'mmm Dan-one

major bill wrote:

Its the universe thats heating up, as the sun grows older it heats up. NASA have warned us already that solar storms are coming.

IT AINT MAN MADE

Universe heating up? Sun heating up? Wha?? The sun goes through solar cycles every 10 years or so (too lazy google:P) that's what NASA is warning us about.
As for the Universe, if anything it cooled ....alot!

gerky

This seriously needs an injection of science, cause its really lacking.

Seriously why would anyone with even a few brain cells depend on a channel 4 program for real scientific evidence, it'd be like reading the sun for accurate health news.

That steaming heap of a program was widely shown to full of rubbish.

But why do I bother:rolleyes:

Mrmoe

hidinginthebush wrote: »

what I meant is that normal people, when presented with scientific "evidence", rarely see the whole picture, and will most likely not be arsed looking further into the issue. They'll just see what they're told and take it as fact, since they've been told it's science.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

Bob_Harris

gerky wrote: »

This seriously needs an injection of science, cause its really lacking.

Seriously why would anyone with even a few brain cells depend on a channel 4 program for real scientific evidence, it'd be like reading the sun for accurate health news.

That steaming heap of a program was widely shown to full of rubbish.

But why do I bother:rolleyes:

There is plenty of real scientific evidence which shows incorrect many of the theories of man made climate change.

Bob_Harris

Excellent article, found here

Some of the questions raised in this column are addressed in FREE's forthcoming book, "Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance."

THE global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of the political process.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13, 1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super-hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent.

Amidst the uncertainties, one thing is certain: Some groups benefit if the public believes global warming is a genuine crisis that can only be stopped with massive political mobilization. Irresponsible efforts by these groups fuel fears of widespread drought and crop failures, of super powerful hurricanes, of oceans engulfing coastal cities, and of blazing summer temperatures. How do they gain by hyping global warming?

For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.

Insurance companies may also gain from government efforts to control global warming. Insurers are motivated more by profits than ideology. If global warming causes increased hurricane damage or floods, they may lose immense amounts of money. Massive carbon taxes or regulation may halt warming and their losses. Since they as taxpayers will pay only a trivial portion of any regulatory bill, it is reasonable for them to seek such measures. If global warming never manifests, they lose little, but society loses a lot.

When making decisions and facing uncertainty, responsible people evaluate the most likely costs and benefits of alternative strategies. Given our current understanding, the changes wrought by global warming may well bring small costs or perhaps benefits. Massive prevention programs will surely be expensive, they will slow economic progress worldwide. Moreover, delaying action for a few years, while our understanding of climate change improves, is likely to lead to more prudent policies. If substantial warming is going to occur, a few years delay will make very little difference.

The global warming debate is far from settled. In deciding what to do, we should consider both the merits of the arguments and the possibility that they are being manipulated for hidden agendas. If we do not, we are likely to be stampeded into public policies with huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

John A. Baden, Ph.D., is Chairman of FREE and Gallatin Writers.

gerky

Bob_Harris wrote: »

There is plenty of real scientific evidence which shows incorrect many of the theories of man made climate change.

Would you mind posting links to the peer reviewed papers on this real scientific evidence you're talking about, I'd be interested in reading them.