Gemmill 35524 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 17072 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Cheers for that Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? We are fucking up the planet and we all know it....All this trading scientific papers bollocks is neither here nor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18049 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Rob, did you ever see that Horizon where they had a scientist actually claiming we were in deeper shit than even the prevailiing CC scientists thought, whereby the heating of the planet should be much higher but is actually prevented by heavy pollutants suspended in cloud cover and contrail (suspended in water droplets) - he confirmed this in the days after 9/11 when contrails were removed from the equation. Anyway, the upshot of it was, if we remove the pollutants without repairing the ozone layer (which no-one has a clue how to do) we will actually heat up worse than if we stay as is but then again that science goes over the heads of most of the greens I watched that and concluded he was talking complete bollocks. How can you draw any meaningful data from temperature changes over a few days? That's weather change, not climate change. You are also showing you don't know what you are talking about when you somehow connect the ozone layer with global warming, I doubt you know as much as the average Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Rob, did you ever see that Horizon where they had a scientist actually claiming we were in deeper shit than even the prevailiing CC scientists thought, whereby the heating of the planet should be much higher but is actually prevented by heavy pollutants suspended in cloud cover and contrail (suspended in water droplets) - he confirmed this in the days after 9/11 when contrails were removed from the equation. Anyway, the upshot of it was, if we remove the pollutants without repairing the ozone layer (which no-one has a clue how to do) we will actually heat up worse than if we stay as is but then again that science goes over the heads of most of the greens I didn't see it but heard about it On the other hand there was an article in Scientific American a year or so back saying exactly the opposite We DO know how to fix the ozone layer and we are achieving it - since the BAS identified it back in the 60's it was decided to do sommat about CF's (and Mrs Thatcher was a big mover on this believe it or not). Since they were banned the hole has started to close again The trouble with science is that it rarely gives a simple answer and most peopel understand so little sciuence that they can't follow the arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? no, stay the same, or at least recognise that if pollution were ever to be erradicated (which won't happen anyway) without repairing the ozone layer (impossible) the percieved effects will be the reverse of the commonly held belief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Science can prove or disprove anything they want. Our planet is in danger and I know we all know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Rob, did you ever see that Horizon where they had a scientist actually claiming we were in deeper shit than even the prevailiing CC scientists thought, whereby the heating of the planet should be much higher but is actually prevented by heavy pollutants suspended in cloud cover and contrail (suspended in water droplets) - he confirmed this in the days after 9/11 when contrails were removed from the equation. Anyway, the upshot of it was, if we remove the pollutants without repairing the ozone layer (which no-one has a clue how to do) we will actually heat up worse than if we stay as is but then again that science goes over the heads of most of the greens I didn't see it but heard about it On the other hand there was an article in Scientific American a year or so back saying exactly the opposite We DO know how to fix the ozone layer and we are achieving it - since the BAS identified it back in the 60's it was decided to do sommat about CF's (and Mrs Thatcher was a big mover on this believe it or not). Since they were banned the hole has started to close again The trouble with science is that it rarely gives a simple answer and most peopel understand so little sciuence that they can't follow the arguments no Rob, we are not repairing it, it is returning naturally (ozone is produced by nature) as you say once the net destroyers of it (CFC's) etc were removed from the atmosphere, however, the rate at which it is replenishing is way short of what is needed if pollution were to be removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18049 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? no, stay the same, or at least recognise that if pollution were ever to be erradicated (which won't happen anyway) without repairing the ozone layer (impossible) the percieved effects will be the reverse of the commonly held belief The Ozone layer has NOTHING to do with global warming, and is being successfully "cured" by the Montreal treaty. Keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Science can prove or disprove anything they want seriously, stop it, you're killing me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18049 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Science can prove or disprove anything they want. Our planet is in danger and I know we all know. Bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 see the article posted above they measure the air bubbles trapped in the ice "Vostok time series and sea level derived by calibrating the marine Oxygen 18 molecules. The deuterium content of the ice is taken as a proxy for Antarctic temperature. The atmospheric content of CO 2 and CH4 were measured on the air enclosed in the ice ." simple when you know how................ They are proxy measurements, just like measuring the growth ring size of trees though. I'm sure direct measurement is more accurate. I have no experience of climatology, but in medicine measuring clinical outcomes is far superior to measuring surrogate outcomes, I would have thought the same principles applied. Since we can't measure temperatures directly in the past we HAVE to use proxy measurments FFS unless you have a time machine in the kitchen One of the real problems is that old measurements are innacurate by modern standards. People try to "adjust" for errors but sometimes you wonder if they are not inserting wrong values Believe it or not some guys spent time trying to adjust for old sea water temperature measurements taken at sea in the 17th -19th Century - the method then was to sling a bucket overboard, pull it in and measure the temperature using a thermometer on deck rather than the super scientific methods of having the thermometers at constant depths for hours as they do now. So they hauled up buskets of water and measured them in the old way while also measuring the temperatuire using modern techiques to see what the adjustments might be...... small but (unfortunately) significant.......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 (edited) So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Science can prove or disprove anything they want. Our planet is in danger and I know we all know. Fermat had science stumped for a while. If you believe Al Gore, Peer reviewed papers are pretty much 100% behind the theory that we're making things worse. Big business has a lot riding on the status quo, so you're going to get a lot of debunking. Edited January 17, 2007 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? We are fucking up the planet and we all know it....All this trading scientific papers bollocks is neither here nor there. There speaks the well informed Elf in the Street............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? no, stay the same, or at least recognise that if pollution were ever to be erradicated (which won't happen anyway) without repairing the ozone layer (impossible) the percieved effects will be the reverse of the commonly held belief The Ozone layer has NOTHING to do with global warming, and is being successfully "cured" by the Montreal treaty. Keep up. the hole in the ozone layer lets high energy radiation in which is bounced around underneath a layer of pollution which causes global warming no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18049 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 see the article posted above they measure the air bubbles trapped in the ice "Vostok time series and sea level derived by calibrating the marine Oxygen 18 molecules. The deuterium content of the ice is taken as a proxy for Antarctic temperature. The atmospheric content of CO 2 and CH4 were measured on the air enclosed in the ice ." simple when you know how................ They are proxy measurements, just like measuring the growth ring size of trees though. I'm sure direct measurement is more accurate. I have no experience of climatology, but in medicine measuring clinical outcomes is far superior to measuring surrogate outcomes, I would have thought the same principles applied. Since we can't measure temperatures directly in the past we HAVE to use proxy measurments FFS unless you have a time machine in the kitchen One of the real problems is that old measurements are innacurate by modern standards. People try to "adjust" for errors but sometimes you wonder if they are not inserting wrong values Believe it or not some guys spent time trying to adjust for old sea water temperature measurements taken at sea in the 17th -19th Century - the method then was to sling a bucket overboard, pull it in and measure the temperature using a thermometer on deck rather than the super scientific methods of having the thermometers at constant depths for hours as they do now. So they hauled up buskets of water and measured them in the old way while also measuring the temperatuire using modern techiques to see what the adjustments might be...... small but (unfortunately) significant.......................... Exactly what I was saying Rob, in complete agreement. There's enough evidence from the past 100 years alone though to have serious grounds for concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 found it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes...g_summary.shtml it made sense when I saw it. Make of it what you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Science can prove or disprove anything they want. Our planet is in danger and I know we all know. Fermat had science stumped for a while. If you believe Al Gore, Peer reviewed papers are pretty much 100% behind the theory that we're making things worse. Big business has a lot riding on the status quo, so you're going to get a lot of debunking. Basically what I said earlier. People are generally unaware of how much BB has riding on creating just enough doubt to ward of legislation that will cost money to impliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? no, stay the same, or at least recognise that if pollution were ever to be erradicated (which won't happen anyway) without repairing the ozone layer (impossible) the percieved effects will be the reverse of the commonly held belief The Ozone layer has NOTHING to do with global warming, and is being successfully "cured" by the Montreal treaty. Keep up. the hole in the ozone layer lets high energy radiation in which is bounced around underneath a layer of pollution which causes global warming no? certianly lets in the high energy radiation - whci causes skin cancers etc - but only has a very long term effect on warming IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? We are fucking up the planet and we all know it....All this trading scientific papers bollocks is neither here nor there. There speaks the well informed Elf in the Street............ Science is 25 yrs behind me tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 "Basically what I said earlier. People are generally unaware of how much BB has riding on creating just enough doubt to ward of legislation that will cost money to impliment." but many large companies ee a real chance to MAKE money out of environmental protection the guys who build atomic power stations and wind farms, farmers flogging ethanol, builders and DIY guys with insulation - its not 100% one way or the other TBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 "Basically what I said earlier. People are generally unaware of how much BB has riding on creating just enough doubt to ward of legislation that will cost money to impliment." but many large companies ee a real chance to MAKE money out of environmental protection the guys who build atomic power stations and wind farms, farmers flogging ethanol, builders and DIY guys with insulation - its not 100% one way or the other TBH True enough. But it still stands we are fucking up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18049 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 found it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes...g_summary.shtml it made sense when I saw it. Make of it what you will Nothing about the Ozone layer in that. Since the use of CFCs has been globally banned, the hole should recover, although it will take time. A classic example of how good science and political will power can prevent catastrophe. The hole in the ozone layer is presently only of concern to penguin dermatologists and their patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 So we should ratchet up the polluting then? scientific papers bollocks another gem Parky Science can prove or disprove anything they want. Our planet is in danger and I know we all know. Fermat had science stumped for a while. If you believe Al Gore, Peer reviewed papers are pretty much 100% behind the theory that we're making things worse. Big business has a lot riding on the status quo, so you're going to get a lot of debunking. Basically what I said earlier. People are generally unaware of how much BB has riding on creating just enough doubt to ward of legislation that will cost money to impliment. go do some of your special brand of 'research' into what has already been legislated and what industry has already spent and your theory collapses as quick as Tower 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now