Bank Account Cheques For Pip Claimants
How it Works2 mins ago
Some Uncomfortable Reading For The Eco Warriors?
33 Answers
No doubt they will find some excuse whilst conveniently forgetting the earths 4 bn year history.
Well seems 1855 (my grandads birth year) was the driest on record now.
Damn those Spinning Jennies, should have taken a cudgel to them.
https:/
Well seems 1855 (my grandads birth year) was the driest on record now.
Damn those Spinning Jennies, should have taken a cudgel to them.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ymb,
Sorry mate your history is out.
Spinning Jennies had long been made redundant by 1855. Several decades of dirty coal driven steam engines were producing cloth.
// The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. //
So 50-70 years of dirty could have affected the climate.
// The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. //
So not at all uncomfortable reading. If anything it confirms what we knew in the 19th century.
Sorry mate your history is out.
Spinning Jennies had long been made redundant by 1855. Several decades of dirty coal driven steam engines were producing cloth.
// The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. //
So 50-70 years of dirty could have affected the climate.
// The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. //
So not at all uncomfortable reading. If anything it confirms what we knew in the 19th century.
The theory of the green house effect from man made emissions is not new (see above).
The amount of man made emissions is known.
https:/
The only bit in dispute if whether you believe the science or attribute the extremes of weather that we currently see is coincidental and nothing to do with us.
The amount of man made emissions is known.
https:/
The only bit in dispute if whether you believe the science or attribute the extremes of weather that we currently see is coincidental and nothing to do with us.
SP, fair enough questions
//So what’s your position on climate change?//
I believe the climate changes regularly and naturally. How much is 'man made' is what I have reservations on.
//Is it all overblown nonsense by ‘the eco-warriors’?//
By the Eco warriors yes, they tend to be the extremists who will never look outside their own ideals. And those ideals even change depending on the group you are looking at.
//Can we ignore any evidence to the contrary and carry on consuming natural resources whilst ignoring data from climatologists//
Yes and No. Any regular on here knows that my point of view is that we should remove ourselves from the use of fossil fuels not so much for climate change (which is debatable whether you like it or not as it is based on models and I think we now know how models work!!) but for pollution. Ultimately the result is the same but unlike climate change we can measure pollution and therefore can measure our success easily.
However, I do believe we need to wean ourselves off in a reasonable time frame, fully off is likely to be 50-60 years I would say. The problem with the current thinking is we can be off very quickly. Well we can if we flood the valleys, turn farm land over to bio fuel and windmills and jack the price of fuel right up with only the elitist few driving vehicles. For me that is not acceptable, we need to move at a pace that is in keeping with the poorest in society, just abandoning them with the choice of heat or eat is not right (Sorry if I sound a bit of a lefty but thats how I feel).
//So what’s your position on climate change?//
I believe the climate changes regularly and naturally. How much is 'man made' is what I have reservations on.
//Is it all overblown nonsense by ‘the eco-warriors’?//
By the Eco warriors yes, they tend to be the extremists who will never look outside their own ideals. And those ideals even change depending on the group you are looking at.
//Can we ignore any evidence to the contrary and carry on consuming natural resources whilst ignoring data from climatologists//
Yes and No. Any regular on here knows that my point of view is that we should remove ourselves from the use of fossil fuels not so much for climate change (which is debatable whether you like it or not as it is based on models and I think we now know how models work!!) but for pollution. Ultimately the result is the same but unlike climate change we can measure pollution and therefore can measure our success easily.
However, I do believe we need to wean ourselves off in a reasonable time frame, fully off is likely to be 50-60 years I would say. The problem with the current thinking is we can be off very quickly. Well we can if we flood the valleys, turn farm land over to bio fuel and windmills and jack the price of fuel right up with only the elitist few driving vehicles. For me that is not acceptable, we need to move at a pace that is in keeping with the poorest in society, just abandoning them with the choice of heat or eat is not right (Sorry if I sound a bit of a lefty but thats how I feel).
//I think there may be some dispute about the amount of effect human activity is having.//
And I think there is (or should be) some dispute as to whether humans can do anything about it. A bigger dispute than even that is whether the "Net Zero" nonsense (**see below) which this government insists on pursuing and which will eventually bankrupt the country and impoverish everyone in it, will make any difference whatsoever. "Setting a good example" is the reason often quoted, but when nobody who matters has any intention of following that example, it's a bit foolhardy.
**"Net Zero" includes allowing Drax power station in Yorkshire to burn annually some 7 million tons of "biomass" (aka wood) without it being seen as a contribution to the nation's "carbon emissions". Most of this wood (which originates from around 14 million tons of green wood) is harvested in the USA and Canada where it is processed before being shipped to the UK. Drax is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the UK and burns about 35% more wood than the entire annual UK production and wood is heavier on CO2 emissions per unit of electricity than coal is. When this scandal is ended I may begin to take an interest in the government's ridiculous and ill-thought out Net Zero policy. Until then I have no interest in it whatsoever other than to ridicule it at each and every opportunity.
And I think there is (or should be) some dispute as to whether humans can do anything about it. A bigger dispute than even that is whether the "Net Zero" nonsense (**see below) which this government insists on pursuing and which will eventually bankrupt the country and impoverish everyone in it, will make any difference whatsoever. "Setting a good example" is the reason often quoted, but when nobody who matters has any intention of following that example, it's a bit foolhardy.
**"Net Zero" includes allowing Drax power station in Yorkshire to burn annually some 7 million tons of "biomass" (aka wood) without it being seen as a contribution to the nation's "carbon emissions". Most of this wood (which originates from around 14 million tons of green wood) is harvested in the USA and Canada where it is processed before being shipped to the UK. Drax is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the UK and burns about 35% more wood than the entire annual UK production and wood is heavier on CO2 emissions per unit of electricity than coal is. When this scandal is ended I may begin to take an interest in the government's ridiculous and ill-thought out Net Zero policy. Until then I have no interest in it whatsoever other than to ridicule it at each and every opportunity.
//Not sure why our climate is changing but it is.I have just been sitting in the sun for the first time in March and the sun was warmer than I can remember for this time of year.//
That has nothing to do with the climate, danny. It is because there has been is a large high pressure system sitting smack bang over Western Europe for about a week which is enabling warm air to be drawn up from Spain, Portugal and North Africa. You may recall about a week ago that much of the country suffered "Saharan Rain" and everybody's cars and windows were coated in desert sand. Wait until about the middle of next week when the high pressure is due to slip away and normal service will be resumed.
That has nothing to do with the climate, danny. It is because there has been is a large high pressure system sitting smack bang over Western Europe for about a week which is enabling warm air to be drawn up from Spain, Portugal and North Africa. You may recall about a week ago that much of the country suffered "Saharan Rain" and everybody's cars and windows were coated in desert sand. Wait until about the middle of next week when the high pressure is due to slip away and normal service will be resumed.
//
I believe the climate changes regularly and naturally. How much is 'man made' is what I have reservations on.
//
No Climate Scientists would disagree with the first part, at all. The point however is that there are clear sources, which are fairly regular, that can be identified for such natural changes. These include, but aren't limited to: variations in Earth's orbit (characteristic time scale greater than 10,000 years); natural emissions from volcanic eruptions, and so on (which are essentially constant, or at least fluctuate around a stable average); and, at the other side, re-absorption of CO2 by plant life (again, broadly constant).
Barring any major disruptions, then, the natural cycles on which climate change occurs are relatively slow, measured over millennia at least. Compared to that, a rapid change taking place over timescales measured in decades, which happens to correlate with changes in human activity, is readily isolated as a signal from the natural background.
I believe the climate changes regularly and naturally. How much is 'man made' is what I have reservations on.
//
No Climate Scientists would disagree with the first part, at all. The point however is that there are clear sources, which are fairly regular, that can be identified for such natural changes. These include, but aren't limited to: variations in Earth's orbit (characteristic time scale greater than 10,000 years); natural emissions from volcanic eruptions, and so on (which are essentially constant, or at least fluctuate around a stable average); and, at the other side, re-absorption of CO2 by plant life (again, broadly constant).
Barring any major disruptions, then, the natural cycles on which climate change occurs are relatively slow, measured over millennia at least. Compared to that, a rapid change taking place over timescales measured in decades, which happens to correlate with changes in human activity, is readily isolated as a signal from the natural background.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.