Global Warming
- Thread starter bigal
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
:geek: :ugeek: 
:nono: The problem with Climate Change is that we will see more extremes of weather . . . Warmer/Wetter Summers and Colder Dryer Winters than before. Also it the the rate at which these changes are happening that is frightening. Things that used to take an Epoch are now happening in a millenia, those that happened over a millennia are taking a century, and century events are taking place in decades.
Remember back in the middle ages winters were very mild . . . Victorian times and the Thames used to regularly freeze. . . .Climate change has always happened, but now it is happening much faster so we notice the sudden onset of extreme weather
<Sorry
for the :ugeek: rant :lol:>
:nono: The problem with Climate Change is that we will see more extremes of weather . . . Warmer/Wetter Summers and Colder Dryer Winters than before. Also it the the rate at which these changes are happening that is frightening. Things that used to take an Epoch are now happening in a millenia, those that happened over a millennia are taking a century, and century events are taking place in decades.
Remember back in the middle ages winters were very mild . . . Victorian times and the Thames used to regularly freeze. . . .Climate change has always happened, but now it is happening much faster so we notice the sudden onset of extreme weather
<Sorry
for the :ugeek: rant :lol:>Funny how more and more of the scientific community seem to be standing up and saying âwell hey, we're not so sure any more, this could all be a load of old cobblersâ, but it's a convenient excuse for the gubbinment to screw us more and more at every opportunity.
I'm sure I've heard that ice caps and glaciers are now on the increase.
Particle pollution is a different matter, if we got rid of that we could be in serious sh!t.
Save the Planet my a**e, the planet can look after itself, although I do wonder just how much longer our species has got left to run. Not long, I suspect.
I'm sure I've heard that ice caps and glaciers are now on the increase.
Particle pollution is a different matter, if we got rid of that we could be in serious sh!t.
Save the Planet my a**e, the planet can look after itself, although I do wonder just how much longer our species has got left to run. Not long, I suspect.
Vossy1
Landlord.
I like the fact that nobody ever mentions the beverage industry regards leading contributors to C02 production :lol:
The government better slap another tax on fizzy drinks.....quick :nono:
The government better slap another tax on fizzy drinks.....quick :nono:
tubthumper
Regular.
there has been no increace in c02 since the industrial revalution
its a way for them to tax us without anyone noticing
they think we are sheep
I am going to start complaining to the IPC about all the lying adverts we hear on the radio now days
and as for the WWF and the lies about the polar bears I think they should be sued over that
they are on the increase not an endagerd spieces
one really good speach on youtbe worth looking at
this
its a way for them to tax us without anyone noticing
they think we are sheep
I am going to start complaining to the IPC about all the lying adverts we hear on the radio now days
and as for the WWF and the lies about the polar bears I think they should be sued over that
they are on the increase not an endagerd spieces
one really good speach on youtbe worth looking at
this
brewzone
Regular.
My take on it is this:
We all know how CO2 aborption in water/beer is pretty much related to temperature.
Therefore if there were some external factor causing the seas to warm any CO2 above equilibrium should be released into the atmosphere.
Whether this is Human activity or Solar/Galactic in origin I would expect CO2 to rise as a result.
There are so many factors I'm sure the scientists are no better able to explain this than a layman.
I read somewhere that Mars has undergone some kind of global warming.
With a huge ball of fire at the centre of Our solar system and the fact that We are alledged to be passing through an arm of the Galaxy who's background temp is 6000C then perhaps that would have an effect.
BZ
We all know how CO2 aborption in water/beer is pretty much related to temperature.
Therefore if there were some external factor causing the seas to warm any CO2 above equilibrium should be released into the atmosphere.
Whether this is Human activity or Solar/Galactic in origin I would expect CO2 to rise as a result.
There are so many factors I'm sure the scientists are no better able to explain this than a layman.
I read somewhere that Mars has undergone some kind of global warming.
With a huge ball of fire at the centre of Our solar system and the fact that We are alledged to be passing through an arm of the Galaxy who's background temp is 6000C then perhaps that would have an effect.
BZ
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
EskiBrew
Regular.
This subject can cause very heated responses. I hope I take a measured response
The Climate is changing - there are clear scientific records showing that it always has changed and therefore probably always will change and there is probably little to nothing we can do about that - the best we can do is minimise the negative effects for ourselves and those less fortunate than us.
While we are repeatedly told that "all scientists" agree about man-made global warming, this is not true. There are respected scientists who do not agree. It would probably be less controversial to say that all "climate scientists" agree about man-made global warming but the two statements are not he same.
Personally I am not convinced that 'man' is causing the climate to change significantly although I remain open minded.
Looking at the scientific data, it is possible to show that the increase in CO2 is actually lagging behind the increase in temperature which would tend to indicate that CO2 increase is an effect rather than a cause of warming.
There are times in the past when the climate has changed arguably much more rapidly than it is currently changing. Man was not the cause of these previous rapid changes.
It is not sensible to include these two as if they back each other up (I'm not suggesting that is why you included them ). During the medieval warm period, vineyards were grown in Yorkshire, the winters were mild and the summers were hot - it was said to be a time of abundance. Following that we enter the "Little Ice Age" and the climate cooled for a few hundred years leading to the well documented skating on the frozen Thames.
Better stop now
The Climate is changing - there are clear scientific records showing that it always has changed and therefore probably always will change and there is probably little to nothing we can do about that - the best we can do is minimise the negative effects for ourselves and those less fortunate than us.
While we are repeatedly told that "all scientists" agree about man-made global warming, this is not true. There are respected scientists who do not agree. It would probably be less controversial to say that all "climate scientists" agree about man-made global warming but the two statements are not he same.
Personally I am not convinced that 'man' is causing the climate to change significantly although I remain open minded.
brewzone said:
Looking at the scientific data, it is possible to show that the increase in CO2 is actually lagging behind the increase in temperature which would tend to indicate that CO2 increase is an effect rather than a cause of warming.
Aleman said:
There are times in the past when the climate has changed arguably much more rapidly than it is currently changing. Man was not the cause of these previous rapid changes.
Aleman said:
It is not sensible to include these two as if they back each other up (I'm not suggesting that is why you included them
). During the medieval warm period, vineyards were grown in Yorkshire, the winters were mild and the summers were hot - it was said to be a time of abundance. Following that we enter the "Little Ice Age" and the climate cooled for a few hundred years leading to the well documented skating on the frozen Thames.Better stop now
The cimate changes yes, the tides change yes but they don't tax us on tidal flow.... damn I hope they are not reading this.
Anyway the global temperatures (average) has fallen year on year for over a decade now, global warming has changed to become climate change, no one mentions the ozone whole anymore. Next they are going to worry about industrial nations changing the earths rotional balance by building cities and such like and therefore producing a variation in the earths spin and orbit.
I have nothing against scientists making wacky claims, hell the wackier the better, just I don't like the fact that people get rich and governments abuse hypotheses in order to create fear in the populace and concenrate power, hell wasn't it some blokes Phd thesis that let to the invasion of Iraq? And when scientists nah say the government they are found dead behind hedges or discredited and sacked.
Not really sure where I am going with this ran out of steam, that would be the lack of fossil fuels :rofl:
Anyway the global temperatures (average) has fallen year on year for over a decade now, global warming has changed to become climate change, no one mentions the ozone whole anymore. Next they are going to worry about industrial nations changing the earths rotional balance by building cities and such like and therefore producing a variation in the earths spin and orbit.
I have nothing against scientists making wacky claims, hell the wackier the better, just I don't like the fact that people get rich and governments abuse hypotheses in order to create fear in the populace and concenrate power, hell wasn't it some blokes Phd thesis that let to the invasion of Iraq? And when scientists nah say the government they are found dead behind hedges or discredited and sacked.
Not really sure where I am going with this ran out of steam, that would be the lack of fossil fuels :rofl:
EskiBrew
Regular.
prolix said:
Good point. Looking at the data, it is possible to say that the average global temperature has NOT increased since 1998.
prolix said:
If we listen to the solar experts then it is possible that we could actually be heading towards a period of global cooling - that would be far more serious for mankind and less easy to adapt to :shock:
prolix said:
Well to be fair, it is a much more serious problem in the southern hemisphere however the banning of CFCs in aerosols and refrigerants has meant that the amount we are releasing into the atmosphere is a tiny proportion compared to previously. Ozone is slowly regenerated naturally (albeit slowly) and therefore the problem will reduce - providing we cover/protect up when in the sun then it is not a really serious problem for the future of mankind.
prolix said:
Bl@@dy hell, that sounds dangerous :grin:
leondz
Regular.
Scientific theories can never be completely proven, you can only fail to disprove them. For example, we might say "All swans are white", and until a black swan turns up, you can't disprove this theory - though having ten million white swans as evidence isn't proof of its accuracy!
Global warming can't be seen as a scientific theory - there's no good disproof for it, and there's no good proof for it either. Nothing can convince either camp of thought that they're wrong, apart from waiting 50 years to see what happens (by which time, it'll either be too late to take action, or too late to care). So it just becomes a risk management thing; you have to compare the consequences of doing nothing vs. the cost of taking action / not taking action. And when you do that, well, the whole thing becomes a lot simpler!
That's my 2p as a scientist :)
Global warming can't be seen as a scientific theory - there's no good disproof for it, and there's no good proof for it either. Nothing can convince either camp of thought that they're wrong, apart from waiting 50 years to see what happens (by which time, it'll either be too late to take action, or too late to care). So it just becomes a risk management thing; you have to compare the consequences of doing nothing vs. the cost of taking action / not taking action. And when you do that, well, the whole thing becomes a lot simpler!
That's my 2p as a scientist :)
unclepumble
Landlord.
Global warming/climate change what a load of b*llocks!!!!!
I remember watching a very good program on this subject!
Maggie Thatcher was the main instigator in this taxation policy, she Paid very large grants to universities that could come up with evidence that fossil fuels were damaging the environment.
She did so because she wanted to close collieries to preserve coal for future generations when oil ran out, & more importantly to promote nuclear power.
Evidence arrived thick and fast from some very well funded universities.
The research departments at universities that started to provide evidence against the new global warming evidence, suddenly had their funding turned off!!!!
Due to the extra revenue the gov was able to raise via green taxation, other political parties soon jumped on the band waggon, hence the current green taxation policies (Taxman "Right then sir I see your bent over for me how far are you going to let me put it in before you can't take it anymore")
Scientific evidence, can be manipulated to what ever the end user requires.
The program also confirmed that CO2 levels were rising, but not due to global warming. as claimed by the governments of the world.
They stated that C02 levels were rising as a result of global warming, but that there was an 800 year lag.
World C02 levels rise and fall in corrolation to rising and falling global mass temperatures but are driven by global temperature change not the other way around, hence the carbon footprint co2 emmisions argument is b*llocks and purely a taxation tool.
The claims in the program were backed by the founder of greenpeace and also the editor of the new scientist etc......
watch it for yourself here it is very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
Shane
I remember watching a very good program on this subject!
Maggie Thatcher was the main instigator in this taxation policy, she Paid very large grants to universities that could come up with evidence that fossil fuels were damaging the environment.
She did so because she wanted to close collieries to preserve coal for future generations when oil ran out, & more importantly to promote nuclear power.
Evidence arrived thick and fast from some very well funded universities.
The research departments at universities that started to provide evidence against the new global warming evidence, suddenly had their funding turned off!!!!
Due to the extra revenue the gov was able to raise via green taxation, other political parties soon jumped on the band waggon, hence the current green taxation policies (Taxman "Right then sir I see your bent over for me how far are you going to let me put it in before you can't take it anymore")
Scientific evidence, can be manipulated to what ever the end user requires.
The program also confirmed that CO2 levels were rising, but not due to global warming. as claimed by the governments of the world.
They stated that C02 levels were rising as a result of global warming, but that there was an 800 year lag.
World C02 levels rise and fall in corrolation to rising and falling global mass temperatures but are driven by global temperature change not the other way around, hence the carbon footprint co2 emmisions argument is b*llocks and purely a taxation tool.
The claims in the program were backed by the founder of greenpeace and also the editor of the new scientist etc......
watch it for yourself here it is very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
Shane
leondz
Regular.
Yeah, pretty much. There's no proof that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to higher temperatures; but there's no proof that it doesn't, either. We simply don't know. It definitely leads to increased sea acidity and decreased fish populations, but that's neither here nor there.
Of course, the other gases tackled by "green" policies are a much worse problem - sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, CFCs, benzene etc - and there's solid proof that all of them are massively harmful to human health and our food chain.
Of course, the other gases tackled by "green" policies are a much worse problem - sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, CFCs, benzene etc - and there's solid proof that all of them are massively harmful to human health and our food chain.
It does affect plankton populations though . . . and 50% of CO2 is fixed in the oceans by phytoplankton. One of the biggest problems that really clouds the issue is that the facts are not reported . . . just the extreme views, so it becomes somewhat difficult to form a balanced reasoned opinion, when there are no facts behind the 'so called' investigative journalismleondz said:
Yawn. One cold winter over parts of northern Europe a cold climate doth not make.
edit: also I take umbrage over the misuse of science in popular media, and people saying in a sarky voice 'well what do they know?' like a PhD in Daily Heil reading is worth anything? or saying 'well scientists don't know everything'. OF COURSE they don't know everything, if they did, they'd stop!
edit: also I take umbrage over the misuse of science in popular media, and people saying in a sarky voice 'well what do they know?' like a PhD in Daily Heil reading is worth anything? or saying 'well scientists don't know everything'. OF COURSE they don't know everything, if they did, they'd stop!
TheMumbler
Landlord.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 843
- Reaction score
- 1
ano said:
you may like this then Science News Cycle
this too If TV Science was more like REAL Science
