Global Cooling????

[2020hindsight]

ps Why are air flights so damned cheap anyway
there should be a massive tax on them - carbon tax, resources tax, pollution tax, whatever you want to call it/them.

As Smurf said somewhere, the end of fossil fuels is just around the corner folks. ( And the US military is using it up at a massive rate - etc.)

When that happens (i.e. we all run out - except perhaps what is stockpiled in America or somewhere) there are gonna be a lot of cheap aeroplanes up for sale (you'd think)

 

[BIG BWACULL]

ps Why are air flights so damned cheap anyway
there should be a massive tax on them - carbon tax, resources tax, pollution tax, whatever you want to call it/them.

As Smurf said somewhere, the end of fossil fuels is just around the corner folks. ( And the US military is using it up at a massive rate - etc.)

When that happens (i.e. we all run out - except perhaps what is stockpiled in America or somewhere) there are gonna be a lot of cheap aeroplanes up for sale (you'd think)

Not if Richard Branson gets his way, as i posted in renewable energy news he plans to have a trial plane in the air running on Biodiesel next year Should be interesting to watch and hope he pulls it off as there are a lot of sceptics out there.

Regular readers of TreeHugger will be aware that aviation is becoming an increasingly hot topic in environmental circles. Readers will also be aware that Richard Branson, the owner of Virgin Atlantic, has been trying to position himself, and his company, as environmental leaders in the aviation industry. In particular, Virgin have been making big claims about developing biofuels that could one day replace kerosene in jet engines, something that many people claim can’t be done (see George Monbiot's attack on Virgin, and Virgin's response here). We first reported on Mr Branson’s claims here, when he announced he was looking at cellulosic ethanol for jet fuels, and that they might replace fossil fuels in the next 20 – 30 years. We later posted on this again with an update, when Mr Branson was not talking about ethanol anymore, but ‘a new kind of fuel’, which he claimed could be working in cars and trucks within a year, and airplanes within five years. In between then and now, the Virgin boss also announced that he would be ploughing all of his profits from his travel companies (he also own Virgin Trains in the UK) into renewable energy, claiming this would amount to $3bn in investment. It doesn't end there, however. According to a recent report on Sky News, Mr Branson is at it again. Apparently he now hopes to run a test flight of a Boeing 747-400 using biofuel by the end of next year, and the first passenger flights could be taking off within the next two years.

Rest of the article here

Heres an interview with him, quite interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16190265/

 

[2020hindsight]

BB thanks mate -

Branson plans to have a trial plane in the air running on Biodiesel next year

hope the plugs don't carbon up
just have a sacrificial Virgin out on the wing to change em I guess.
PS make that the injectors lol

 

[wayneL]

so in summary
1. I think Al Gore is talking the talk AND because his role in this is to educate ...
he is simultaneously walking the walk.

I'm sorry to have to laugh, but I'm LMFAO at that one.... walking the walk AHAHAHAHA.

That is worthy of any political spinmeister.

PS Question for you Wayne...
Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?

Most absolutely not. Gore's agenda is different to anything you can imagine, but will leave you to ponder on that one.

It will result in massive taxation on the middle classes, with a clever sleight of hand that will ensure the "elite" will continue unaffected.

True change will mean dismantling the entire banking system. Why? Because the way money is created relies on ever increasing debt and ever increasing economic growth. What we need right now is a few steps backward (with some concurrent steps forward in other areas).

The current banking/money system cannot survive that, and they won't go there.

"Real" change, I will support. Gores version is largely propaganda to a certain end. I will vote against Gores vision.

 

[2020hindsight]

I'm sorry to have to laugh, but I'm LMFAO at that one.... walking the walk AHAHAHAHA. That is worthy of any political spinmeister.

Most absolutely not. Gore's agenda is different to anything you can imagine, but will leave you to ponder on that one.

well I'm happy if I'm unintentionally funny, and made you laugh - Not much else to laugh at on this topic

PS Question for you Wayne...
Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?

btw, when I asked this, I was only referring to whether a pollie's attitude to doing something about man-made global warming would affect your vote.

Speaking of which - you're allowed to say
"I guess not", or
"it's a difficult one" or
"depends how you define etc etc"

PS Maybe I should have said
Is either Al Gore's message or the IPCC's message going to figure in your voting choice. ?

The message implied in the Nobel Peace Prize maybe?

 

[2020hindsight]

Wayne , from your reporter friend...

1. Gore predicts sea levels rising by up to 20ft in the near future. Not so, according to the judge: that will happen only after millions of years.

2. Those low-lying Pacific atolls that Gore claims have been evacuated? No evidence. Polar bears who drowned swimming to look for ice? Again, no evidence: four bears have drowned - but because of a storm.

3. None of which will surprise seasoned Gore-watchers. The man is not, as his enemies maintained when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a pants-on-fire liar. He's an exaggerator and a braggart.

1. straw man (so it's 10 foot "soon" and 20ft "later") - tell you waht - let your reporter friend go toNauru etc and say that rising sea levels aren't a problem - (I suggest he wears a teethguard.)
2. claiming impossible evidence, in the same sentence lol as claiming Gore doesn;t have evidence. since this is a trading website - ramping down the number of bears
3. attacking the man (as he does through his entire post).

My problem is with a Global Warn ing (and sure I have more respect for the IPCC than for Gore) , - but what I don't need is a Gore warning, which also plays down the problem.

I posted a heap of stuff back there by IPCC, including some incontrovertible stuff. That's what this thread is about surely.

And doing something about it - like electing people who care.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne , from your reporter friend...
1. straw man (so it's 10 foot "soon" and 20ft "later") - tell you waht - let your reporter friend go toNauru etc and say that rising sea levels aren't a problem - (I suggest he wears a teethguard.)

The problem with tis argument is that we are never told whether, the land mass thas is Naru is stable, rising or falling. The problem I see with the rising levels at Naru, is that it is not observable anywhere else. The land could be sinking, but we don't know cause we are not told. This and other inconsistencies make me highly suspicious.

2. claiming impossible evidence, in the same sentence lol as claiming Gore doesn;t have evidence. since this is a trading website - ramping down the number of bears

If you want 100% credibility, you better have "good" evidence and not selective spin. Just as if a witness lies in court over one matter, his whole testimony becomes suspect.

3. attacking the man (as he does through his entire post).

I'm not one for ad hominem attacks... unless they are deserved. In this case they are and it is material to his point.

My problem is with a Global Warn ing (and sure I have more respect for the IPCC than for Gore) , - but what I don't need is a Gore warning, which also plays down the problem.

There are those who wish to play down or ignore the problem, but there are numerous reasons that have been argued here why Gore/IPCC could be intentionally barking up the wrong tree. As I've stated before, I am firmly of the belief they are.

I posted a heap of stuff back there by IPCC, including some incontrovertible stuff. That's what this thread is about surely.

Not many deny GW, the argument is whether it is anthropomorphic or not.

And doing something about it - like electing people who care.

If you think ANY politician cares, you're dreaming. What they are interested in is votes. If being "green" means winning more votes than they lose, even Dubya would become a greenie.

The people who matter are US, you and me & Bobby McGee and the bloke down the road. The truth is, I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of people give a toss. The typical attitude is "I be dead anyway" (and this is something they say in front of their children! )

I remain very skeptical on AGW, but am deeply concerned about those other things I've outlined previously, so I care enough to DO SOMETHING MYSELF and politicians be damned!! People will never follow politicians with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!

(But don't be a nazi about it, they won't listen, be subtle )

 

[2020hindsight]

So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!

(But don't be a nazi about it, they won't listen, be subtle )

no argument from me about doing something
including drumming up public awareness ( which is where I started)

and we've gone full circle on the question of me claiming that STFU is wrong attitude.

 

[long$$]

It's been shown that industrial air pollution is a factor in both global warming and global cooling. More particals in the air reduce the intensity of the sun, thus acting as a kind of shade cloth. This has only recently started to gain credibility since pan evaporation rates all accross the world have indicated that pan evaporation is dropping and the primary factor in pan evaporation is the intensity of the sun. Everyone is familiar with causes of global warming. There can be no doubt that humans make an impact on the climate, you can't just say that it's completly natural for these things to be happening. It's true though that the earth does have natual cycles of warming and cooling but not to the extent that wayneL is suggesting. Significant environmental changes like that leave lasting evidence, not to mention most cultures would have recorded anything like that (convienient that it was two cultures that have left nothing readable behind). If florida suddently melts or England freezes, then that's a truely significant and unusual even. In nature, changes like that occur over gradually over thousands of years (unless it's volcanic or a meteor).

Um, the Mayan's weren't around in the 14th century, and it's pretty well accepted by the people who have all the available facts that most of the Aztec cities were wiped out by disease after first contact with the spanish. For instance, the second bunch of Spanish dudes to sail down the Amazon couldn't believe that there were supposed to be all these huge cities along the banks, because by the time they got there most of them had been decimated by disease. The accounts of the first discoveries were assumed to be false for hundreds of years. But recent investigation around the areas were those cities were reported to be showed evidence of large scale agricultural civilization inhabiting those areas in about the same places as was originally reported by Spanish eye witnesses.

It's likely that Aztecs had the largest agricultural system in the world just before they got wiped out. Arial photography of the savana grass lands show distinct lines were irrigation systems used to be in place. I don't know what science could possibly be backing up claims of global warming there.

From my understanding of the situation, either there was global warming at the exact same time as everyone was also dying of disease and the Spanish just didn't bother to mention in their reports that the people were all dying of starvation, or it was not a factor here. Since you claim that they died out before the spanish arrived (which in order to be true means that there is some huge ancient Spanish conspiracy going on), I'm just going to stick with the latter conclusion in order to preserve my sanity.

A documentary on the subject of the effect of particles in the air reported that when air traffic was grounded after 9/11, rainfall increased. This was attributed to increased solar radiation in the absence of particles from aircraft causing increase in evaporation from standing water eg lakes & rivers etc, and hence more rainfall. The effect of particles when present was called "global dimming". This effect it was claimed does not cancel "global warming" as heat is still prevented from escaping the atmosphere by CO2 & other greenhouse gases.

 

[Smurf1976]

So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!

I'd better stop reading this thread. Sitting here coming up with lots of ideas on how to make my new house more energy efficient.

Then I realised just one problem. Not only haven't moved in yet but no power connected at the moment either. I guess you could say that makes it the ultimate in energy efficiency.

So my short term intention is to make it MORE polluting not to destroy the earth, but because I do like the idea of having lights that work and being able to cook. No power would keep me off ASF too...

Nothing structural to change but there's resisitive heating, peak rate hot water and not a single energy efficient light there at the moment. First power bill from that lot is sure to be a rather blunt reminder to get on with the energy efficiency real quick.

Either that or "electric" Smurf will have to work out how to get the wood fire going... (Woodheaters, now there's something that causes lots of argument about the environment!).

 

[noirua]

I think this proves the North Pole is getting warmer and the South Pole is getting colder. Therefore part of planet Earth is the subject of Global Warming and the other part is the subject of Global Cooling. It could be that Earth has been jolted off its axis by different Polar winds. Soon the Polar winds will change plunging Australia into a new ice age.

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record​

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[bellenuit]

It could be that Earth has been jolted off its axis by different Polar winds

Wouldn't that have been noticed?

 

[rederob]

Wouldn't that have been noticed?

I doubt it!
When did you ever see Santa deliver his presents?
Last year Santa DM'd with news that global warming caused him to abandon his North Pole abode due to warehouse flooding.
His new home at the South Pole is absolutely cool, however, the relocation of his abundance of presents has caused a few wobbles of our planet's axis.

I admit to being very confused about this global warming hoax. The temperature of my fridge has been the same for at least 30 years, and I don't have any trouble getting ice from the freezer.