Join for free
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Tpin's Avatar
Tpin
Chatterbox
Tpin is offline
UK
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 16,130
Tpin is male  Tpin has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
18-01-2017, 10:09 PM
11

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by swimfeeders ->
Hi

In spite of all this you drive a massive polluting Ute.
everybody should....maybe we'd have better summers
Longdogs's Avatar
Longdogs
Chatterbox
Longdogs is offline
SW England
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 43,957
Longdogs is male  Longdogs has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
18-01-2017, 10:09 PM
12

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by Tpin ->
The average worldvtemperature has risen 0.5degrees and 2 icebergs melted since I started reading it.
Shadowman
Senior Member
Shadowman is offline
Wisconsin, USA
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 196
Shadowman is male  Shadowman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 02:08 AM
13

Re: Climate Change

It is cause and effect and you literally have to deny cause and effect to deny human accelerated climate change. The evidence has been building for a long time and has not been scientifically contradicted. This is from over 100 years ago.


Attached Thumbnails (Click to enlarge)
Click image for larger version

Name:	ClimateChange1912.jpg
Views:	97
Size:	47.2 KB
ID:	2582  
OldGreyFox's Avatar
OldGreyFox
Chatterbox
OldGreyFox is offline
South Yorkshire
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 21,202
OldGreyFox is male  OldGreyFox has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 11:01 AM
14

Re: Climate Change

Ah Yes, there was a bloke with a sandwich board roaming around London in the nineteenth century proclaiming the world would end tomorrow.....He was wrong also. I think that now we have an updated version and someone has taken his place, a bit more Hi Tech though.....
Longdogs's Avatar
Longdogs
Chatterbox
Longdogs is offline
SW England
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 43,957
Longdogs is male  Longdogs has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 11:07 AM
15

Re: Climate Change

There's no doubt that Man has damaged the planet with all our meddling but what gets me is that I am expected to drive around in a Noddy car when there are Countries still pumping high amounts of crap into the atmosphere and still testing testing nuclear weapons.
Realist
Chatterbox
Realist is offline
UK
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 9,184
Realist is male  Realist has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 01:06 PM
16

Re: Climate Change

The other problem or issue with the Climate Change graph and associated theories is the cause.

On the one hand there is a plethora of media pressure trying to tell us that yes, the planet is warming up.

On the other hand the same media content doesn't present much of a debate on the cause. It takes it as a given that the cause is burning fossil fuels.

So of those 2 serious issues, it is the first that gets all the attention. Since they don't want us to actually "THINK" they concentrate on simply convincing us that climate change IS occurring and do so in a way that makes us simply accept defacto that industry and fossil fuels are the cause.

Could there be other reasons for planetary warming?

We all know that the US dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan during the war. We also all know that prior to that they would have done a test or 2 of those weapons.

What would happen if nuclear bombs were going off regularly? Wouldn't we expect the mass of earth and debris that is kicked up into the atmosphere to have an impact?
Yes of course we would.

But nuclear bombs haven't been going off all the time . . . have they?

Well, actually . . . yes they have!

http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/

"Between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992 the United States of America conducted (by official count) 1054 nuclear tests, and two nuclear attacks. The number of actual nuclear devices (aka "bombs") tested, and nuclear explosions is larger than this, but harder to establish precisely."

The US repeatedly bombed the South Pacific islands year after year for some 12 years. They effectively murdered a generation of native islanders, destroyed their homes and habitats. Many were evacuated, relocated and then moved back on to the bombed islands way way before it was safe to do so. The islands were the most radioactive contaminated place on earth. The islanders suffered leukaemia's and all manner of illnesses. They were effectively used as guinea pigs. These atrocities aside, isn't it remotely possible, indeed likely, that the detonation of over 1000 nuclear bombs in the past 60+ years is likely to have been a serious contributor to global warming?
Tpin's Avatar
Tpin
Chatterbox
Tpin is offline
UK
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 16,130
Tpin is male  Tpin has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 04:04 PM
17

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by Realist ->
The other problem or issue with the Climate Change graph and associated theories is the cause.

On the one hand there is a plethora of media pressure trying to tell us that yes, the planet is warming up.

On the other hand the same media content doesn't present much of a debate on the cause. It takes it as a given that the cause is burning fossil fuels.

So of those 2 serious issues, it is the first that gets all the attention. Since they don't want us to actually "THINK" they concentrate on simply convincing us that climate change IS occurring and do so in a way that makes us simply accept defacto that industry and fossil fuels are the cause.

Could there be other reasons for planetary warming?

We all know that the US dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan during the war. We also all know that prior to that they would have done a test or 2 of those weapons.

What would happen if nuclear bombs were going off regularly? Wouldn't we expect the mass of earth and debris that is kicked up into the atmosphere to have an impact?
Yes of course we would.

But nuclear bombs haven't been going off all the time . . . have they?

Well, actually . . . yes they have!

http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/

"Between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992 the United States of America conducted (by official count) 1054 nuclear tests, and two nuclear attacks. The number of actual nuclear devices (aka "bombs") tested, and nuclear explosions is larger than this, but harder to establish precisely."

The US repeatedly bombed the South Pacific islands year after year for some 12 years. They effectively murdered a generation of native islanders, destroyed their homes and habitats. Many were evacuated, relocated and then moved back on to the bombed islands way way before it was safe to do so. The islands were the most radioactive contaminated place on earth. The islanders suffered leukaemia's and all manner of illnesses. They were effectively used as guinea pigs. These atrocities aside, isn't it remotely possible, indeed likely, that the detonation of over 1000 nuclear bombs in the past 60+ years is likely to have been a serious contributor to global warming?
That is a wild guestimate imho.

Atomic detonations are measured in energy.....the sun pours the equivalent of 2300(estimated)Hiroshima bombs on our upper atmosphere every second.
Pumicestone's Avatar
Pumicestone
Senior Member
Pumicestone is offline
Australia
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 4,392
Pumicestone is male  Pumicestone has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 04:52 PM
18

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by Realist ->
..... The US repeatedly bombed the South Pacific islands year after year for some 12 years.
They effectively murdered a generation of native islanders, destroyed their homes and habitats.......
Whilst none of us is a nuclear scientist, Realist, I suspect that Tpin might be right in assuming that testing has had little impact compared to a heap of other human activities.


That said, I'd do a bit of research into Britain's atomic record in and around Australia before castigating the Yanks too strongly.
It is only a question of degree.

In 1952, the UK tested its first nuclear weapon off the coast of Western Australia.
The first nuclear test on the Australian mainland occurred in South Australia.
British tests then occurred between 1956 and 1963 about 800 kilometres north-west of Adelaide.

An initial clean-up of the contaminated site was attempted in 1967.
In 1985 significant radiation hazards still existed.
Another cleanup was completed in 2000 at a cost of $108 million.
Debate continued over the safety of the site and the long-term health effects on the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land and former personnel.
In 1994, the Australian Government paid compensation amounting to $13.5 million to the local Maralinga Tjarutja people.

In June 1993, New Scientist journalist Ian Anderson wrote an article titled "Britain's dirty deeds at Maralinga"


The British government has admitted that troops had been ordered to run, walk and crawl across contaminated areas days after the detonations.
Australian servicemen were ordered to repeatedly fly through the mushroom clouds without protection and to march into ground zero immediately after bomb detonation.
30 per cent of involved veterans had died, mostly in their fifties, from cancer.

The resettlement and denial of aboriginal access to their homelands contributed significantly to the social disintegration which characterises the community to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...s_at_Maralinga
Shadowman
Senior Member
Shadowman is offline
Wisconsin, USA
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 196
Shadowman is male  Shadowman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 04:53 PM
19

Re: Climate Change

The debate that continues is largely political with various special, corporate, and industrial interests with much to gain by sowing continued doubt. Scientific peer review has taken into account all the objects posted here, and then some:

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


Attached Thumbnails (Click to enlarge)
Click image for larger version

Name:	GlobalWarming.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	58.8 KB
ID:	2583  
OldGreyFox's Avatar
OldGreyFox
Chatterbox
OldGreyFox is offline
South Yorkshire
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 21,202
OldGreyFox is male  OldGreyFox has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-01-2017, 09:32 PM
20

Re: Climate Change

Originally Posted by Pumicestone ->
Whilst none of us is a nuclear scientist, Realist, I suspect that Tpin might be right in assuming that testing has had little impact compared to a heap of other human activities.


That said, I'd do a bit of research into Britain's atomic record in and around Australia before castigating the Yanks too strongly.
It is only a question of degree.

In 1952, the UK tested its first nuclear weapon off the coast of Western Australia.
The first nuclear test on the Australian mainland occurred in South Australia.
British tests then occurred between 1956 and 1963 about 800 kilometres north-west of Adelaide.

An initial clean-up of the contaminated site was attempted in 1967.
In 1985 significant radiation hazards still existed.
Another cleanup was completed in 2000 at a cost of $108 million.
Debate continued over the safety of the site and the long-term health effects on the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land and former personnel.
In 1994, the Australian Government paid compensation amounting to $13.5 million to the local Maralinga Tjarutja people.

In June 1993, New Scientist journalist Ian Anderson wrote an article titled "Britain's dirty deeds at Maralinga"


The British government has admitted that troops had been ordered to run, walk and crawl across contaminated areas days after the detonations.
Australian servicemen were ordered to repeatedly fly through the mushroom clouds without protection and to march into ground zero immediately after bomb detonation.
30 per cent of involved veterans had died, mostly in their fifties, from cancer.

The resettlement and denial of aboriginal access to their homelands contributed significantly to the social disintegration which characterises the community to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...s_at_Maralinga
I don't think the intentions of this thread is to prove just how beastly the nasty Brits have been to the Aussies or the indigenous population Pummie, but every opportunity to diss the Brits is leaped upon with relish by our Antipodean cousins.......

The point Realist is making is that over 1000 nuclear tests [that can easily be registered by sensitive seismic equipment that presently cover most of the world surface] and are infinitely more polluting and for longer than anything industry has produced ever since there has been industry. Couple this with the release of toxic gases [including CO2] that constant volcanic activity produces somewhere in the world every minute of the day, and Man's contribution would not even feature on the scale.
 
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 > Last »

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.