FAO those who believe in climate change

[Thun]

Copenhagen climate summit: Science Q&ABy David DerbyshireLast updated at 11:50 AM on 06th December 2009Starting tomorrow politicians, activists and civil servants from around the world will descend on Copenhagen for the UN conference. Delegates from the 192 countries represented will be aiming to reach at new treaty on climate change at the end of two weeks of arguing and horse-trading. But why are the talks happening and are they really necessary?Science editor David Derbyshire examines the issues at stakeIS THE WORLD WARMING?The vast majority of climate scientists say yes. The average global temperature increased by 0.74C or 1.33 F in the 20th century and by 0.6C in the century before that. Central England temperatures have gone up by 1C since the early 1970s. According to the Met Office, the ten warmest years since records began in 1850 have occurred since 1997.DOESN'T CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGE?Yes. Temperatures have risen and fallen throughout history. Natural variations in temperature are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit, changes in the Sun’s intensity, volcanic eruptions which fill the atmosphere with dust and natural weather cycles such as El Nino.SO WHY DO SCIENTISTS BLAME MANKIND FOR GLOBAL WARMING?They argue that natural variations can only account for some of the recent warming. The orbit of the Earth should be propelling us to a cooler spell, not a hotter one. And solar cycles cannot explain warming since the 1960s. The Met Office says the warmth of the last half century is 'unprecedented' in the last 1,300 years.Computer climate models can only explain warming of the last half century if human activity is included. The most recent report from the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 says human activity is 'very, very likely' to be contributing to global warming - and that burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the 'greenhouse effect'.WHAT'S THE 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT'?Since the early 19th century, scientists have known that the Earth is kept warm by a blanket of gases in the atmosphere. Without these greenhouse gases to trap heat from the sun, the world would be a much cooler place. The most important is carbon dioxide - or CO2. Others include methane and water vapour.WHERE DO GREENHOUSE GASES COME FROM?They are released from volcanoes, from evaporating oceans and burning forests. They are removed from the air by plankton, seawater , the weathering of rocks and the creation of fossil fuels.Climate scientists say the burning of coal, oil and gas since the industrial revolution has released CO2 that has been locked away for millions of years. These higher levels of CO2 have enhanced the greenhouse effect.IS THERE EVIDENCE THE CO2 LEVELS HAVE GONE UP?Studies of ice cores (where bubbles of prehistoric air are trapped in ice) show the concentration of CO2 in the air has gone up sharply over the last 150 years.Since 1880 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 270 parts per million (ppm) to 370ppm today, scientists say. That level is thought to be the highest for 650,000 years.DO CO2 LEVELS VARY NATURALLY?Yes. At the end of the last Ice Age, levels of CO2 rose by 50 per cent. Millions of years ago levels were far higher than today. However, climate scientists say the current rise in CO2 mirrors the advent of the industrial age, and is unprecedented in recent history.Confusingly, historical CO2 levels don't just appear to cause warming, warming also increases levels of CO2. So a natural warming of climate caused by a wobble in the Earth's orbit leads to more CO2 which leads to more warming. A wobble that triggers an ice age reduces CO2 which leads to more cooling. This feedback effect is thought to have speeded up natural global warming and cooling in the past.WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS?The warmest year since records began was 1998, according to the Met Office. It was unusually hot because of a natural weather event called El Nino. Since then temperatures have been stable, but remain historically high. The Met Office points out that the last ten years are still among the hottest on record and says there is no sign of global cooling.IS IT THE END OF GLOBAL WARMING?Probably not. Throughout the last 150 years, temperatures have ebbed and flowed. Between 1940 and 1970s temperatures fell even though the long-term trend was up. (The post-war cooling has been linked to a rise in soot in the atmosphere released from factories and power stations which ended with clean air legislation.) A decade of stable or falling temperatures doesn’t necessarily mean the upward trend has stalled. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE?The U.N.'s IPCC has set out a range of scenarios based on the latest climate models. Any prediction of the future has to be taken with a pinch of salt. They show a rise in temperatures of between 1.1C and 6.4C by the end of the century. climate change demonstator in londonWHAT TO DO THE SCEPTICS ARGUE?There are many different types of sceptics - from those who dismiss the science completely - to those who accept the science, but disagree with the 'hair shirt' response of the green movement.It is fairly uncontroversial to argue that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 - or that CO2 in the atmosphere retains heat from the sun.However, some sceptics challenge the historical temperature records, particularly when it is compiled using data from tree rings or ice cores. Others say the climate models are inaccurate.WHO IS RIGHT?On the science, the sceptics are hugely outweighed by scientists. The pro-lobby says the evidence is overwhelming and is getting stronger all the time. The sceptics say dissenting voices are suppressed because they don’t get the funding or support from universities. Challenging the climate change orthodoxy can be career suicide for a young scientists, they say.WHAT ARE THE UNCERTAINTIES?Sceptics say the models don’t take into account the effects of clouds which are more likely in a warmer world. Others say the higher atmosphere is not warming in line with the computer models. Some question the historical records that appear to show a warming world, others say the warming is natural - and that climate scientists underplay the role of the Sun and even cosmic rays.IS THERE EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING NOW?No single events can be linked to climate change - despite the attempts of environmentalists and politicians to make capital out of disasters. Hurricane Katrina, droughts in Australia, the vanishing snow on Kilimanjaro are not necessarily caused by climate change - although they make good pictures for TV news.A RISE OF A FEW DEGREES DOESN'T SEEM THAT SERIOUS?It depends where you live. If temperatures go up, seas become warmer and the volume of water in the oceans expands. Warmer seas will melt ice sheets in the Antarctic and speed up the flow of ice from the Antarctic into the oceans. The latest forecasts are for a 4.5ft ise in sea levels by 2100 - enough to drown London, huge areas of Bangladesh and New York.Global warming could turn fertile farmland into deserts, and frozen tundra into farmland. Water and food shortages could cause mass migration and armed conflicts. Higher CO2 levels could make the oceans more acidic, killing off coral reefs and wiping out fish.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1233622/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Q-A.html#ixzz0Yucasx2e

[Bardissimo]

from when there was a volcanic eruption which emitted more greenhouses gases thanWAIT FOR ITALL GLOBAL MANMADE GREENHOUSE GASES SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (which happened in the 1800s mind you)I cannot take them totally seriously, there is DEFINITELY, a hidden agenda(and before you say i'm gassing it was even posted on this forum with a reputable news link)

[Thun]

If you agree to there climate scam this is what will probably happen

Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment AgencyIf people used up their yearly ration early, they would have to buy extra from those who had not used their full allowanceFrom The TimesNovember 9, 2009Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency.Lord Smith of Finsbury, the agency’s chairman, will say today that rationing is the fairest and most effective way of meeting Britain’s legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.People would be given a “carbon account” and a unique number that they would have to submit when making purchases of carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets. As with a bank account, people would receive statements showing the carbon weight of each purchase and how much of their ration remained.If they used up their ration within a year, they would have to buy extra credits from those who had not used their full allowance.Lord Smith, who was Culture Secretary in Tony Blair’s Government, believes that the system would encourage people to think about the carbon cost of their purchases as well as reward those who lived frugally and did little travelling, who could make a significant profit from selling their unused credits.Speaking at the agency’s annual conference in London, Lord Smith will say that carbon rationing would help people to “judge how they want to develop their own quality of life in a sustainable way”.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6909046.ece

[J. Edgar]

from when there was a volcanic eruption which emitted more greenhouses gases thanWAIT FOR ITALL GLOBAL MANMADE GREENHOUSE GASES SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (which happened in the 1800s mind you)I cannot take them totally seriously, there is DEFINITELY, a hidden agenda(and before you say i'm gassing it was even posted on this forum with a reputable news link)

Watched a documentary on it about the toba eruption, happened about 74,000 years ago, was so violent it nearly wiped out the whole of the indian population thats why most of them today don't have distinct genetic pastall this climate change is just a way of the government proposing new ideas to profit from it

[Angelo]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

[Guest WAVESURFER]

Copenhagen climate summit: Science Q&ABy David DerbyshireLast updated at 11:50 AM on 06th December 2009Starting tomorrow politicians, activists and civil servants from around the world will descend on Copenhagen for the UN conference. Delegates from the 192 countries represented will be aiming to reach at new treaty on climate change at the end of two weeks of arguing and horse-trading. But why are the talks happening and are they really necessary?Science editor David Derbyshire examines the issues at stakeIS THE WORLD WARMING?The vast majority of climate scientists say yes. The average global temperature increased by 0.74C or 1.33 F in the 20th century and by 0.6C in the century before that. Central England temperatures have gone up by 1C since the early 1970s. According to the Met Office, the ten warmest years since records began in 1850 have occurred since 1997.DOESN'T CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGE?Yes. Temperatures have risen and fallen throughout history. Natural variations in temperature are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit, changes in the Sun’s intensity, volcanic eruptions which fill the atmosphere with dust and natural weather cycles such as El Nino.SO WHY DO SCIENTISTS BLAME MANKIND FOR GLOBAL WARMING?They argue that natural variations can only account for some of the recent warming. The orbit of the Earth should be propelling us to a cooler spell, not a hotter one. And solar cycles cannot explain warming since the 1960s. The Met Office says the warmth of the last half century is 'unprecedented' in the last 1,300 years.Computer climate models can only explain warming of the last half century if human activity is included. The most recent report from the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 says human activity is 'very, very likely' to be contributing to global warming - and that burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the 'greenhouse effect'.WHAT'S THE 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT'?Since the early 19th century, scientists have known that the Earth is kept warm by a blanket of gases in the atmosphere. Without these greenhouse gases to trap heat from the sun, the world would be a much cooler place. The most important is carbon dioxide - or CO2. Others include methane and water vapour.WHERE DO GREENHOUSE GASES COME FROM?They are released from volcanoes, from evaporating oceans and burning forests. They are removed from the air by plankton, seawater , the weathering of rocks and the creation of fossil fuels.Climate scientists say the burning of coal, oil and gas since the industrial revolution has released CO2 that has been locked away for millions of years. These higher levels of CO2 have enhanced the greenhouse effect.IS THERE EVIDENCE THE CO2 LEVELS HAVE GONE UP?Studies of ice cores (where bubbles of prehistoric air are trapped in ice) show the concentration of CO2 in the air has gone up sharply over the last 150 years.Since 1880 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 270 parts per million (ppm) to 370ppm today, scientists say. That level is thought to be the highest for 650,000 years.DO CO2 LEVELS VARY NATURALLY?Yes. At the end of the last Ice Age, levels of CO2 rose by 50 per cent. Millions of years ago levels were far higher than today. However, climate scientists say the current rise in CO2 mirrors the advent of the industrial age, and is unprecedented in recent history.Confusingly, historical CO2 levels don't just appear to cause warming, warming also increases levels of CO2. So a natural warming of climate caused by a wobble in the Earth's orbit leads to more CO2 which leads to more warming. A wobble that triggers an ice age reduces CO2 which leads to more cooling. This feedback effect is thought to have speeded up natural global warming and cooling in the past.WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS?The warmest year since records began was 1998, according to the Met Office. It was unusually hot because of a natural weather event called El Nino. Since then temperatures have been stable, but remain historically high. The Met Office points out that the last ten years are still among the hottest on record and says there is no sign of global cooling.IS IT THE END OF GLOBAL WARMING?Probably not. Throughout the last 150 years, temperatures have ebbed and flowed. Between 1940 and 1970s temperatures fell even though the long-term trend was up. (The post-war cooling has been linked to a rise in soot in the atmosphere released from factories and power stations which ended with clean air legislation.) A decade of stable or falling temperatures doesn’t necessarily mean the upward trend has stalled. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE?The U.N.'s IPCC has set out a range of scenarios based on the latest climate models. Any prediction of the future has to be taken with a pinch of salt. They show a rise in temperatures of between 1.1C and 6.4C by the end of the century. climate change demonstator in londonWHAT TO DO THE SCEPTICS ARGUE?There are many different types of sceptics - from those who dismiss the science completely - to those who accept the science, but disagree with the 'hair shirt' response of the green movement.It is fairly uncontroversial to argue that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 - or that CO2 in the atmosphere retains heat from the sun.However, some sceptics challenge the historical temperature records, particularly when it is compiled using data from tree rings or ice cores. Others say the climate models are inaccurate.WHO IS RIGHT?On the science, the sceptics are hugely outweighed by scientists. The pro-lobby says the evidence is overwhelming and is getting stronger all the time. The sceptics say dissenting voices are suppressed because they don’t get the funding or support from universities. Challenging the climate change orthodoxy can be career suicide for a young scientists, they say.WHAT ARE THE UNCERTAINTIES?Sceptics say the models don’t take into account the effects of clouds which are more likely in a warmer world. Others say the higher atmosphere is not warming in line with the computer models. Some question the historical records that appear to show a warming world, others say the warming is natural - and that climate scientists underplay the role of the Sun and even cosmic rays.IS THERE EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING NOW?No single events can be linked to climate change - despite the attempts of environmentalists and politicians to make capital out of disasters. Hurricane Katrina, droughts in Australia, the vanishing snow on Kilimanjaro are not necessarily caused by climate change - although they make good pictures for TV news.A RISE OF A FEW DEGREES DOESN'T SEEM THAT SERIOUS?It depends where you live. If temperatures go up, seas become warmer and the volume of water in the oceans expands. Warmer seas will melt ice sheets in the Antarctic and speed up the flow of ice from the Antarctic into the oceans. The latest forecasts are for a 4.5ft ise in sea levels by 2100 - enough to drown London, huge areas of Bangladesh and New York.Global warming could turn fertile farmland into deserts, and frozen tundra into farmland. Water and food shortages could cause mass migration and armed conflicts. Higher CO2 levels could make the oceans more acidic, killing off coral reefs and wiping out fish.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1233622/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Q-A.html#ixzz0Yucasx2e

Why did you post this?It completely contradicts what you've been saying about this stuff.Did you read it before you posted it?

[Guest Triple XXX]

i dont see why theyre hypin it nowi dnt wanna pay some useless tax to these f*ckers

[Da Luv Doc]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

SMHIf you know basic geology you would know it is true.LOL @ you going on like there isn't eruptions going on everyday that poor our much more co2 than man can make.Silly guy.Also:

LOL @ Justin's new "Thun Jr." e-persona.What a f*ck*ng knob.

You come with nothing, no contribution to ANY topic. It seems like you lack the ability knowledge about anything really.I have come with stuff that is truth, you want to pay tax, that's your time. You believe in the blatant lies, that's your time. You want to follow me around on this forum, that's your time, but if you actually want to send for me when I am talking truth, beg you try counter what I say before you try send for me.The "cuz Justin" thing is dead, only ones cussing me in here are the ones who know nothing (like yourself but want to seem black and cool) and the ones who believe in global warming but can't back sh*t up because of these e-mails baiting their belief.

[VENOM]

did anyone know that this copenhagen summit is the first time world leaders will sign an agreement that incorporates the word "WORLD GOVERNMENT" INTO A LEGAL CONTRACT???there is almost very little that can be done to prevent what is going on. everythign that needs to be done to "save" the environment does not need all this world leader signing contracts business.IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO FOSSIL FUELS FOR EVERYTHING? NOare there semi alternatives that can be used? yesare these being used or rigouros research into them being used being implemented? YEScan or should the US, and EU really be able to dictate to china and the rest developing world to stop 'developing'? NOthis is all just bull sh*t Jew world order mantics to get the world to agree to something while slipping in their hidden agenda into it.turn off your lights, buy energy saving bulbs, drive a bit less, dont waste wht u dont needrecycle when you can, and what will be will be. all these sh*t meetings are just smokescreens for legalising world domination.

[Da Luv Doc]

Don't you find it funny that when they take pictures of powerplants they show pictures of the cooling towers that basically have steam (water vapour) coming out of it???Try brainwash people it is fumes and sh*t. LOL

[Da Luv Doc]

LOL This is jokes though, with his f*ck*ng arrogant self:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

[Guest Triple XXX]

also, the best alternative i have seem to fossil ffuels is hydrogen fuel cellsbut why the f*ck aint they pushing this?electric cars are even worse than petrol ones, what u gonna do with the batteries that'll never degrade?i know oil companies run the world, and extracting hydrogen from the air cant be any harder than drillin under the sea bed to get oil n then extract petrol from thatthey could switch up their production to thati jus hate them talkin about all this useless sh*t like its gonna make a f*ckin difference

[Angelo]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

SMHIf you know basic geology you would know it is true.LOL @ you going on like there isn't eruptions going on everyday that poor our much more co2 than man can make.Silly guy.

This is the best retort you have? Seriously?I'm out. Can't argue with stupidity.

[VENOM]

allow extracting hydrogen from the air, then in 30yrs thee will be some hydrogen shortage and we have start buying Hyrdepsi Max in cansif they cant find a way to convert sh*t, sand or piss into a petrol/crude oil alternative then use what we have until we canthis generation just has some utter pricks who always moan about something.the same scientists chatting sh*t about global warming said we were gonna live on venus by 2015 30 years ago.and these scientists making noise are also the MOST USELESS AND UNNEEDED BATCH OF SCIENTISTS IN THE ENTIRE SCIENCE WORLD

[Grafter]

also, the best alternative i have seem to fossil ffuels is hydrogen fuel cellsbut why the f*ck aint they pushing this?electric cars are even worse than petrol ones, what u gonna do with the batteries that'll never degrade?i know oil companies run the world, and extracting hydrogen from the air cant be any harder than drillin under the sea bed to get oil n then extract petrol from thatthey could switch up their production to thati jus hate them talkin about all this useless sh*t like its gonna make a f*ckin difference

they dont extract hydrogen from the air they use reverse electrolysisbut u still need energy to start the process which doesnt make fuel cells immediately sustainable

[Da Luv Doc]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

SMHIf you know basic geology you would know it is true.LOL @ you going on like there isn't eruptions going on everyday that poor our much more co2 than man can make.Silly guy.

This is the best retort you have? Seriously?I'm out. Can't argue with stupidity.

LOL @ your failure.

[Skenghis Khan]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

SMHIf you know basic geology you would know it is true.LOL @ you going on like there isn't eruptions going on everyday that poor our much more co2 than man can make.Silly guy.

This is the best retort you have? Seriously?I'm out. Can't argue with stupidity.

innithe spouts so much gas im holding him personally responsible for global warming.

[Da Luv Doc]

also, the best alternative i have seem to fossil ffuels is hydrogen fuel cellsbut why the f*ck aint they pushing this?electric cars are even worse than petrol ones, what u gonna do with the batteries that'll never degrade?i know oil companies run the world, and extracting hydrogen from the air cant be any harder than drillin under the sea bed to get oil n then extract petrol from thatthey could switch up their production to thati jus hate them talkin about all this useless sh*t like its gonna make a f*ckin difference

they dont extract hydrogen from the air they use reverse electrolysisbut u still need energy to start the process which doesnt make fuel cells immediately sustainable

True.TBH, not all "Green" or "Clean" energy are really "Green" or "Clean."

[Da Luv Doc]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

SMHIf you know basic geology you would know it is true.LOL @ you going on like there isn't eruptions going on everyday that poor our much more co2 than man can make.Silly guy.

This is the best retort you have? Seriously?I'm out. Can't argue with stupidity.

innithe spouts so much gas im holding him personally responsible for global warming.

Explain what "Gas" that I have said.Nothing I have said is gas.

[Guest Triple XXX]

well them im outf*ck all this sh*t i couldnt care less

[Grafter]

Energy Efficiency is the best thing the world can do right nowdeveloping efficient use of energy in all aspects of life is the way forwardusing these big show stopping technologies and policies as the way forward isnt gna help, one government will have a big idea, spend time workin on it, we have a nex government who dont want anything to do with it and have got their own big ideas, same sh*t over and over againwe need simple ideas one step at a time

[Da Luv Doc]

Why do people consider co2 a pollutant???I mean, WTF???

[Bardissimo]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

thus in your opinion i do not know basic geology so explain brudda

[Angelo]

Justin I'm going to entertain you.Find me one credible source that demonstrates the emitting of "greenhouse" gases from volcanoes is more than that emitted by anthropogenic causes.alternatively:Find me climate data which you can adequately interpret and demonstrate to me, in laymans terms, that you think proves the emissions from volcanic activity is significantly higher than that of human activity.The bit in bold and underlined is fundamental. I don't want you spewing out sh*t you've read from Alex Jones. If you know how to interpret data, do it. Chances are you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about, and will take something said by someone anti-establishment as gospel, purely because it goes against the grain.Don't be such a f*ck*ng spanner.

[Angelo]

The rumour of Volcanic Eruptions emitting more "greenhouse gases" than the human population has been around, and debunked, for a while now. If you know basic geology you'll also clock how ridiculous it is.

thus in your opinion i do not know basic geology so explain brudda

Basic being look at every climate graph since records began and you will see despite various volcanic eruptions of a huge scale, the temperature of the earth has not increased outside of it's normal cyclical level. The primary emission from volcanic activity is sulphur dioxide. It's a misnomer to call it a greenhouse gas, because it isn't one.