Global Warming

I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".


--
I remember when the internet was only in black & white.
It only had a few pages but at least they all worked.

In article , usenet01
@artybee.net says...
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".



I like that, I'll have to remember it for future use.
--
..paul

If at first you don't succeed...
Skydiving is probably not the sport for you.

Richard Bates wrote:
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".



Yep, we need to fire a rocket load of acne cream at the sun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

Tony

"Richard Bates" wrote in message
...
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times and what
melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

"Simon Mason" wrote in
:

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times

But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated,
varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that
prefer a warmer climate?

and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

Farting mammoths? :-)

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice
Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that the
crap we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is
not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to change
our behaviour?

Graeme

Richard Bates writes:
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".

You've obviously got a genius for a colleague, given that all the data
showing the need to worry about global warming is incredibly complex
and presumably requires one to be a pretty good climatologist, ideally
working in front of a computer in a lab.

Sorry, I thought the above paragraph was an insight into the way
people think about things and how opinions are actually formed and how
little they have to do with the evidence. But it's not clear from what
I wrote.

Ambrose

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations

Indeed, and some aperiodic ones as well. Global cooling started
before the black death, although the black death didn't help

(it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice
Fair" on the Thames).

Indeed. Not since they got rid of the bridge piers of old London
Bridge, which restricted the tidal flow etc. I do know somebody who
walked across the Thames at Oxford in 1963, though

How many people are confident enough to say that the
crap we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or
more is
not responsible for the current change

Probably it is responsible for a chunk, but don't forget the rebound
from the Little Ice Age of the 18th century. The foot and a quarter
rise in high tide level at London Bridge, during the last century,
however, has nothing to do all that. The water level rise is because
of the see-saw effect as the Scottish end of Britain continues to
bounce up owing to the recent (in geological terms) melting of all
the ice-age ice up there.

and it is not worth trying to change
our behaviour?

I'm not bothered. I haven't heard of *anyone* yet who has turned
their house thermostat down. I suppose we should thank Arthur
Scargill for discouraging burning of lumps of carbon in Britain,
thank the East Germans similarly for all of East Germany's industry
being switched off, and thank the French for building lots of nuclear
power stations so they can sell clean energy to their more squeamish
neighbours. Everybody seems to be against encouraging the Amreica\ns
from paying to clean up the dirty industry of China.

If the ice did all melt, it would be really neat to see the ecology
of Siberia return to what it was before the ice age. How did all
those tree behave when it got dark for three meonths in the winter?

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker:
and thank the French for building lots of nuclear
power stations so they can sell clean energy to their more squeamish
neighbours.

No, the French built lots of nuclear power stations to stop the Germans
invading and nicking their coal.

d.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:09:17 GMT, Graeme
wrote:

"Simon Mason" wrote in
:

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times

But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated,
varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that
prefer a warmer climate?

and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

Farting mammoths? :-)

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice
Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that the
crap we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is
not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to change
our behaviour?

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2 and we have to
decide whether or not to change our behaviour and reduce CO2. Consider
the implications of getting the wrong answer to the question "is
manmade global warming real?"

If it turns out to be spurious science but we have gone ahead and
reduced C02 output, what is the downside of this incorrect assessment
to individuals and society? Not much, really; the oil will last
longer, people might be fitter and healthier and economic growth might
have slowed.

Conversely, if it turns out that manmade CO2 really is creating a
atmospheric greenhouse but we have decided to do nothing, the
implications for the planet, civilisation and the human species are
uncontemplatable.

I'm undecided as to the reality of global warming but I am very clear
that we must act to reduce CO2 emissions.

In article ,
lid says...
If it turns out to be spurious science but we have gone ahead and
reduced C02 output, what is the downside of this incorrect assessment
to individuals and society? Not much, really; the oil will last
longer,

Tangible, physical effect.

people might be fitter and healthier

Tangible, physical effect.

and economic growth might have slowed.

Abstract.

I'm with you on this one!

Jon