Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2921 - 2940 of 2967 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Pollution in general is a huge problem that will lead to much more illness and death. The 'global warming" is a bit of a fluff as much of the climate change (air currents, etc.) is aggravated by increased urbanization. Concrete jungles mess up water tables (displaced due to foundations), air currents above built-up areas due to the retention or reflection of heat off of buildings, concrete and added heat from air conditioning units, etc. Yet, the urban planning specialists have been advocating building up urban areas for decades. "Concentrate infrastructure for efficiency, build transit to take cars off roads" may sound solid but it is really just a displacement, not a reduction of pollutants. In Toronto (I grew u there), as in many cities, condominiums were pushed. so, you have thousands of new units built in clumps then people wonder why traffic is congested. The experts then scream for more transit dollars and beat drivers with fees and disincentives. So, what is really warming the air? Cow farts, carbon release or a combination of issues, most of which are ignored? I dunno.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,437 Posts
"And this, of course, includes the august personages at Goddard? "

I have no idea, but do you have a problem with them? Or do you think they all just fell off a turnip truck, and are part of the Great International Scientist Cabal?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
"And this, of course, includes the august personages at Goddard? "

I have no idea, but do you have a problem with them? Or do you think they all just fell off a turnip truck, and are part of the Great International Scientist Cabal?
Go get 'em Del!!!
 

·
Out of the office!
Joined
·
11,276 Posts
Pollution in general is a huge problem that will lead to much more illness and death. The 'global warming" is a bit of a fluff as much of the climate change (air currents, etc.) is aggravated by increased urbanization. Concrete jungles mess up water tables (displaced due to foundations), air currents above built-up areas due to the retention or reflection of heat off of buildings, concrete and added heat from air conditioning units, etc. Yet, the urban planning specialists have been advocating building up urban areas for decades. "Concentrate infrastructure for efficiency, build transit to take cars off roads" may sound solid but it is really just a displacement, not a reduction of pollutants. In Toronto (I grew u there), as in many cities, condominiums were pushed. so, you have thousands of new units built in clumps then people wonder why traffic is congested. The experts then scream for more transit dollars and beat drivers with fees and disincentives. So, what is really warming the air? Cow farts, carbon release or a combination of issues, most of which are ignored? I dunno.
I don't think it's cow farts. It's more like cow belching. Farts are only a small part of the methane created by cows.

Don't waste your efforts on this thread, the nay sayers will just ignore your post or pooh pooh it off as heresy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I don't think it's cow farts. It's more like cow belching. Farts are only a small part of the methane created by cows.

Don't waste your efforts on this thread, the nay sayers will just ignore your post or pooh pooh it off as heresy.
I'm neither a "believer" or "unbeliever". I am questioning motives all around. The anti-climate types that have a vested interest in maintaining the industries that feed them will fight against changes. The pro-climate types are happy to label everyone who questions their charts as "deniers" and will fight to implement changes, regardless of any evidence that this world has been "warming" since the end of the last ice age (which was around 5000 bc, not 50,000 bc..... but that's anther debate). Neither side will bother to give a second of thought to the masses of historical information, in the form of "folklore" (that's what scientists call oral history) that has described catastrophic warming in the past.
Both are correct and incorrect.
As for the 1100 or so scientist-types that have signed that letter, I do not doubt that most believe in their cause but governments will use that fear of climate-catastrophe to tighten their hold on territory and food sources, not change their carbon footprint. Would your government raise taxes, risk many short-term job losses and open their borders to those seeking refuge if that government really believed that things will get worse, sooner than predicted, if another government chose to tighten their border policies, ramp up food production and secure their energy reserves instead? This type of fear will lead to hoarding of resources, not lessening of carbon production. Ask yourselves why wars start.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
You are correct that CO2 levels were higher 500+ million years ago. What you fail to understand is that if you lived in Florida or anywhere near a present coastline you would be under 200 feet of seawater. Look closer at any graph of CO2 and global temperatures and explain to me why the curves of both are increasing together about the time the industrial revolution hit the scene because they are. The last time I checked humans are the ones burning coal. Since it seems quite a few of you think global warming is some kind of conspiracy you can be the ones or more specifically your offspring can share space to live when rising sea levels displace billions of people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, FL area from 1998-2006 and if any of the BS predictions that the fraud named Al Gore were correct then South Florida would be under water by now... FAKE NEWS.... face it, we don't control mother nature...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,678 Posts
Religious people; believe an old book that is constantly misinterpreted to control the masses, but haven't the ability to understand science.

It was science that made your Alfa work, and the modern world and yet you can't see it.

Its worrying
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,142 Posts
Don't waste your efforts on this thread, the nay sayers will just ignore your post or pooh pooh it off as heresy.
[/QUOTE]


I think you're right, Osso. The is/isn't argument on this thread has largely become one of virtue signalling, something I've come to regard as thoroughly uninteresting and slightly vulgar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,142 Posts
And here I was hoping that our 'new' BB might at least have retired this worn-out thread. But no....hang on, wait a minute....the humor continues!

I presume that your objection to this thread lies with the simple fact that it exists. I shouldn't have to remind you that this is an off topic forum: you aren't required to come here nor or you required in any way to read the posts or agree with the ideas expressed herein. This is one of the longest running threads on the Alfabb. If it is ever "retired" it should be because those participating in its discussions have stopped talking---and not because you don't happen to like it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,755 Posts
Wow. "New " sidetracks you quickly.

Um, climate change isn't a matter for belief, consensus or opinion. The science is either valid or it isn't. So far, the science is not valid. The claimed measured temperature change since 1850 remains less than the margin of error for each datum measurement of temperature. Averaging the data cannot improve the margin of error because the data do not consist of multiple measurements of the same thing.

You can't deduce the probable length of one particular board by measuring 50,000 boards. You can deduce the probable length of one particular board by measuring it multiple times. Recorded temperature records are not suitable for calculating any useful average. Comparing useless averages over time doesn't tell you anything useful.

It's that simple. The Earth may be heating up but we have no way of measuring that. It could as easily be cooling down. We just have no way to know. However, we (meaning of course just the USA) are in the process of launching hundreds of tiny satellites which will be able to take the appropriate measurements. By 2050 we may have a usable set of data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
And here I was hoping that our 'new' BB might at least have retired this worn-out thread. But no....hang on, wait a minute....the humor continues!

I presume that your objection to this thread lies with the simple fact that it exists. I shouldn't have to remind you that this is an off topic forum: you aren't required to come here nor or you required in any way to read the posts or agree with the ideas expressed herein. This is one of the longest running threads on the Alfabb. If it is ever "retired" it should be because those participating in its discussions have stopped talking---and not because you don't happen to like it.
It's OK Jim, I was having a little dig. Don't take offence. I come here occasionally because my antipodean sense of humour draws me back....;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
How do they measure global temps? Good question. Also the DOD is spending millions to combat sea level rise at the Norfolk navel yard. Any one been to Glacier National Park lately? They will have to change the name in a couple of years. Coastlines especially in Alaska are receding faster than the locals can move their houses back. No more igloos due to lack of snow.
This year, there’s particular interest as it looks likely 2014 will be the hottest year on record.
First out the blocks with the official data was the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Earlier this month, it confirmed 2014 had taken the top spot with global temperatures 0.27 degrees Celsius above the long-term average. Today, it’s the turn of NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the UK Met Office following suit next week.
Why so many records? While global temperature is a simple enough idea, measuring it is harder than you might think. We take a look at how scientists measure global temperature.
The basics
To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.
The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.
A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.
Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.
Four major datasets
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset.
Here’s how global temperatures in the four datasets compare over the past 130 years. You can see they all show a warming trend, but there are some year-to-year differences too.


1604143
 
2921 - 2940 of 2967 Posts
Top