Flaming June !!!

[devonwoody]

I've been to a country where the shoreline is now over ten miles away from its cliff face, so if that water level returns one day, its going to be a disaster olong the east coast of Australia. etc.etc.

 

[Jonzjob]

A bit closer to home. Sandwich used to be one of the 5 Cinque ports. Now the sea is several miles away :shock:

If it becaame a port again there would be several peed off people there too, but thats the way it is, has been and will be again.

 

[Lons]

I have no technical knowledge to draw on but then neither do 99% of the deniers. Most scientists would have us believe its our fault!!

And the same "experts" conveniently dismiss the correllation between sunspot activity and the earth climate. :roll:
As far as I know, 2012 is a very active year for such activity.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Bob

 

[gus3049]

I have no technical knowledge to draw on but then neither do 99% of the deniers. Most scientists would have us believe its our fault!!

And the same "experts" conveniently dismiss the correllation between sunspot activity and the earth climate. :roll:
As far as I know, 2012 is a very active year for such activity.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Bob

And then again......
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.ht

There is a huge amount of nonsense passed off as 'science'. I repeat, there is no way for any 'person in the street' to know the truth. To me, the majority make sense and the deniers are taking a 'position'.

I don't know any more than you do but it feels right to me so thats all I can go on. Having said that, unlike some, I am unable to take such a vehement stance given my lack of real knowledge.

 

[Lons]

Hi Gordon

That link is broken unfortunately!

Mine isn't intended to be a "vehement stance" btw I take s similar view to yours in that as a layman I am not sufficiently informed to make a positive decision given the huge amount of conflicting opinions (and that is surely all most of them are), eminating from the "experts". Whilst being open to persuasion, I remain highly sceptical and certainly am not willing to go with any view, even if the majority without powerful evidence.

Almost every argument put forward seems to be countered by an opposite and equally plausible opinion. :roll: and I absolutely agree with your comment : -

There is a huge amount of nonsense passed off as 'science'. I repeat, there is no way for any 'person in the street' to know the truth

When you look at some of the squabbles on here relating to relatively straightforward woodworking issues there's little chance of anything better from a science which is more theory than fact :lol:


Bob

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Nobody knows how the climate works, though many honourable people (and possibly a few charlatans) are gathering and analysing data, positing theories, testing data against theories and generally scratching their heads thoughtfully. Unfortunately, there seems to be an awful lot of scaremongering based on incomplete analyses, vested interests and people with agendas plugging their own line.

Climate's been changing, one way or another, for several billion years. It ain't going to stop changing just because mankind has started studying it.

As far as I understand, we know from the historical and archeological record that the climate was a bit warmer than it is now during the Roman occupation (they had vineyards in Northumberland, for example - no idea how good the wine was), then it cooled during the Dark Ages, warmed again during the Early Medieval, cooled again in the middle of the last millenium (ice-fairs on the Thames quite frequent in the 1600's), then started to warm up again. If it follows that pattern (if....) then it'll warm up for a couple of centuries, level off, and cool down again by about the middle of this millenium.

As to mankind causing it by releasing carbon dioxide using fossil fuels, the seems to be conflicting evidence as I understand. Certainly no firm conclusion either way.

Just to add to the fun, I've got a theory about atmospheric carbon dioxide. We know that the world's population is expanding, and we know they'll all have to be fed. That means lots of plants (either we'll eat the plants or the animals we eat will). Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. We know that plants grow faster in atmospheres richer in carbon dioxide - that technique is used in some commercial glasshouses. So it could be that a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide actually benefits mankind in the next century or two.

Right or wrong? I've no idea - but to me it's as plausible a theory as all the others floating around.

 

[gus3049]

Hi Gordon

That link is broken unfortunately!
When you look at some of the squabbles on here relating to relatively straightforward woodworking issues there's little chance of anything better from a science which is more theory than fact :lol:
Bob

Link again as its a straightforward site that seems to talk sense to me. But we are all left as we were in reality. Just have to get on with it and do what we think is right for us.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Wot, woodworkers disagree - as if.....

 

[Jonzjob]

"Wot, woodworkers disagree - as if....."

Wel! I disagree with that Gordon!!! :roll: :roll:

 

[nev]

I blame that pesky little critter with the acorn !

 

[promhandicam]

This seems to be rather appropriate despite having been written well over 50 years ago. It would seem that the weather hasn't changed all that much after all!