What happened to 'Global Warming'?

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Oil_Slick, May 28, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Seems only a few weeks ago we had all the tree huggers and the BBC hysterically screaming this was going to be the hottest and driest year on record… two inches of rain fell last night! :?
  2. Re: What happened to 'Gobal Warming'?

    I'm sure that some "Fraser-like" boffin in white lab coat and too many pens will get wheeled out of the lab by some party or other to give the doom and gloom view that its all because we had too many ice-creams as kids.
    Seasons shift, its nature at work. A nature that has been wounded by us, of that i'm sure, but nature all the same. :)
  3. Re: What happened to 'Gobal Warming'?

    Yes, and a nature that is bigger than all our pathetic efforts.
    It will win in the end...
    Kept the traffic down beautifully though!
  4. Re: What happened to 'Gobal Warming'?

    Good old Mother Nature will have the last laugh!

    Now, I'm off to B&Q to get a few cubits of goffa wood!!
  5. Re: What happened to 'Gobal Warming'?

    Global warming ? Has anyone ever seen a Penguin in tropical rig ?
  6. Re: What happened to 'Gobal Warming'?

    Many years ago in Cyprus: a Supply and Secretariat Flying Officer in shorts and bush jacket.
  7. Re: What happened to 'Gobal Warming'?

    Did we have 'Flying Officers' in the S&S branch ;P
  8. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    Global Wareming will affect the whole of the globe and not just the United Kingdom - if some predictions are to be believed global warming will result in localised cooling of the UK due to the potential disruption of the Gulf Stream. I'd guess that a couple of inches of rain overnight is the least of your problems with global warming - I dread to think of the effect that freezing rain will have on the UK transport system!
  9. Global Warming, a lot of people are making a lot of money out of us promoting this subject, including labour goverment.

    However there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the global warming scaremongerers.

    If there are clouds in the sky the temp on the planet is as an example 20 degrees, however if the clouds go away the temperature goes up to 22 degrees.

    Umm, also when 911 occured and the USA stopped all flights the actual temperatures rose on the ground.

    So if we are stopping the cloud that has always been there above us protecting us then the temperature will rise.

    So, the more we stop putting up clouds of smoke the hotter it will become.

    A very basic theory I know but it does add up.

    Also why is the snow on kilimangaro not melting like it should if Global warming is so prevalent.

    As I said at the start there are millions and millions of pounds being made by companies and goverments on the back of this.


  10. Global Warming is junk science…


  11. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Global warming is fact, the question of natural occurrence or human intervention is often junk science!
  12. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    I found this commentary quite amusing;


    The website has a pretty good collection of science based cartoons on a wide range of topics.
  13. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    That's brilliant, have bookmarked for future use, "differential equations" is still making me chuckle :thumright:
  14. I think you'll find that it Has!
  15. Prove it then genius [​IMG]
  16. They have got to find work for all these people who have taken useless degree's, like Sociology, Coronation Street, Pop Music, Media etc.
    "Green Ishoo's" is the next best thing to the Race relations industry, and anyway, all the Quango jobs are gone. :)
  17. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    LAMRI: Tell me what you doubt and I will seek to enlighten!

    Try the global temperature record, here are several sets of data for you to peruse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record

    Don't get me wrong here Lamri, I am not of the "oh dear I need to turn my thermostat down to save the world" gang, I am far from convinced that carbon is the major player in global temperature change. However that temperature change is fully recorded, statistically accurate and undeniable, what caused it isn't and the future trend of that temperature rise is far from clear.
  18. I wasn't being argumentative in that post (honestly :) ), couldn't find the right emo for confused, but I really don't think we (they) are looking far enough back to see if there are comparisons in the past wrt temperature increases.
    Its all very well trying to stop use of ICE powered vehicles etc, but if this is a natural occurance then doing that won't change a thing.
    I fear that the damage has already been done due to the massive loss of the worlds lungs in places such as South America if anything :( that continues to this day.
  19. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I think the issue is a lot more complicated than the media and government lead us to believe, they think we is thick, so seek to simplify everything. I'm not that convinced that the forests are as significant as we believe, destroying them was just plain bloody greedy.

    Here is a reply I gave to a Met office forecaster on another forum after a recent TV program on the subject, I haven't included the whole thread cos this is long enough, it's food for thought but long...........

    Hewitch, whilst their data doesn't match the Met offices I think it would be a long shot to say they used the data to 1980 and stretched it onto the extended axis, their data is actually significantly different and they claim it was supplied by NASA, the trend though is similar and does illustrate their point!

    The oceanic question I posed was rhetorical, I know the answer, or at least I know the complexity of the problem, read the following article:


    How convincing is it? very I would suggest especially with the references supplied at the bottom of the page (Royal Society etc) the problem is the article is in part nonsense, it jumps to conclusions and I doubt the Chemistry stands up to scrutiny. I know this because I keep Marine Fish in a Reef Aquarium, most people would just assume it was true(the article) but it leaves out so many unanswered questions. The Royal Society article you referred to, why do you think the reasearch is worded the way it is? Personally if I were seriously interested in a lowering Ph of the Oceans I would be more interested in what has happened to the Ph buffering capacity that the Oceans have. The Oceans buffering capacity is it's ability to resist Ph change, I add bicarbonate to my tank to resist the Ph changes I impose on that tank, the Oceans are incredibly stable because of variety of Ph buffering agents they contain.

    Let me explain what I do to maintain PH and ensure my reef tank is saturated with calcium carbonate so that the reef will grow, bear with me this is relevant to the Co2 argument: First I use a calcium reactor, I force water through a chamber where it's mixed with aragonite and Co2, the co2 reduces the Ph of the salt water turning it into an acid at about a Ph of 5.5, this dissolves the aragonite and allows the water to become saturated with calcium. This calcium saturated water is then drip fed into the main tank, the corals in my tank need calcium carbonate to produce their exoskeleton but they like a nice stable alkaline Ph of about 8.2, low PH kills most things so it is bad! To increase Ph I furiously aerate the water, this does 2 things it allows excess Co2 to escape at the water surface, the Co2 wants to do this, it is a gas and can't be bound to the water in this state, another clue is in the carbonate (of carbon) which explains where the rest of the carbon from the Co2 went. Aeration also creates a large current flow reducing the opportunity for stagnant areas of the reef where decaying matter can gather decreasing Ph. I do other things to my tank to maintain Ph and calcium, I add Calcium Hydroxide and vinegar which is more interesting chemistry and if I get it wrong results in the precipitation of calcium carbonate which actually reduces available calcium but binds huge amounts of Co2 causing a rapid rise in PH, I also add bicarbonate of soda as a buffer to help prevent this! The corals in my tank rapidly lose their ability to grow at temperatures above 24 degrees C, no-one is quite sure why because the zooplankton living in the coral can adapt to higher temperatures over time, it may be their ability to convert available calcium into calcium carbonate which leads to reduce growth, bleaching and ultimately death, I don't know and neither does anyone else at present.

    The point I am trying to make is this, why couldn't it be possible that a reduced Oceanic current flow due to temperature changes would lead to a decrease in Ph, Or an increased Oceanic current flow leading to increased Co2 interchange at the water surface leading to increased atmospheric Co2 and a reduction in the Oceans buffering capacity caused by the binding of bicarbonate in the Oceanic rock bed? (dead coral skeletons) The answer is simple and explained in the program.

    If you want funding for your research simply put the words "due to increased atmospheric Co2" in your hypothesis and book your place on the Great Barrier Reef with some bikini clad research assistants, but put "investigate altered buffering capacity" and you will find yourself floating in an inflatable kids dinghy off the coast of Ireland with small sample jars as friends. It's wrong!!!!

    Sorry about the long post but this whole thing infuriates me, I don't know if the accepted humanity driven climate change model is right or wrong, neither do you, neither do the UN. The program was good in that it hopefully destroyed peoples' perception of certainty, as scientists ( I use the term loosely in my case) we should be admitting what we do and don't understand, and certainly not supporting the easy black or white politicians' expression of what is TRUTH. I understand why carbon reduction is important, because we can do something about it so we should, but it is not necessarily the answer. When a Billion pound industry has sprung from it I am very very sceptical of their motive to support the public perception of its importance and field or fund further research.

    The whole thread is here if you are interested: http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4592&page=4

Share This Page