...but again, think of all the things that would result from taking action against global warming. You have nations such as Bangladesh at huge risk seasonally, you have nations such as the Maldives, or Kiribati and other Pacific island nations who face their very EXISTENCE at risk.

 

What would taking action imply? Transferring away from fossil fuels, which are finite and will eventually run out. Going towards more green, more efficient fuels. Safeguarding against energy loss, further preventing inefficiency. Are these at all bad things to be doing? Think of it this way. The evidence is pretty compelling, but if it doesn't turn out to be true, what would we have at all lost by taking action against it? IMO, the risks if the deniers are wrong (and frankly, some of the undercover reports from the denial industry show them to be pretty self-interested on this issue, almost to an extent where it seems like they know they can't be entirely true...) are massive compared to the little we would lose if the global warming scientists are right. Indeed, what would we lose? Fossil fuel industries mainly. Given their infamy for horrific business practices in places such as Nigeria, let me be the first to express what a tragedy losing them would be! :rolleyes:

 

What a load of drivel, the world’s coastlines are in constant flux; flood plains flood and deltas are consumed by rising sea levels. There’s nothing new about these two facts it’s been happening for billions of years. Humans have coped with these occurrences, for thousands of years, by guess what? Moving... <_<

 

What a load of drivel, the world’s coastlines are in constant flux; flood plains flood and deltas are consumed by rising sea levels. There’s nothing new about these two facts it’s been happening for billions of years. Humans have coped with these occurrences, for thousands of years, by guess what? Moving... <_<

Have they ever been in flux to the extent that the sea levels have risen so that these places have gone from being at little risk to being consumed in the space of about twenty years? Oh, thought not.

...but again, think of all the things that would result from taking action against global warming. You have nations such as Bangladesh at huge risk seasonally, you have nations such as the Maldives, or Kiribati and other Pacific island nations who face their very EXISTENCE at risk.

 

What would taking action imply? Transferring away from fossil fuels, which are finite and will eventually run out. Going towards more green, more efficient fuels. Safeguarding against energy loss, further preventing inefficiency. Are these at all bad things to be doing? Think of it this way. The evidence is pretty compelling, but if it doesn't turn out to be true, what would we have at all lost by taking action against it? IMO, the risks if the deniers are wrong (and frankly, some of the undercover reports from the denial industry show them to be pretty self-interested on this issue, almost to an extent where it seems like they know they can't be entirely true...) are massive compared to the little we would lose if the global warming scientists are right. Indeed, what would we lose? Fossil fuel industries mainly. Given their infamy for horrific business practices in places such as Nigeria, let me be the first to express what a tragedy losing them would be! :rolleyes:

 

...all well and good, i fully agree that we should respect the planet far more then we do... but you are still under the impression that we CAN stop warming. if it is a natural phenominon then we cant, and the little island states will get flooded regardless.

 

i wonder in these model predictions, just how much they take into account plant life removing co2 from the atmosphere?... we have had 3 wet summers, = loads more plant growth, = less co2 in the atmosphere... this is just one immeasurable variable that can make current predictions way out. then theres the seas .. the algae which fix co2, theres another HUGE immeasurable vaiable not taken into account..

 

plus the rise in fossil fuel usage does NOT match the rise in the earths temperatures. what caused the warming in the 30's and 40's ? what caused the COOLING 50's - 1980?

 

the figures do not add up.

watching 'the day after tomorrow'... i think some people ought to realise this is utter FICTION and based on sentiment, not science, even i with a very rudimentary knowlege of weather can see the utter bollox in this ridiculous film.

 

it itsnt a documentary, its fiction.

Erm, yes. We know that. Nobody said Day After Tomorrow was an accurate model in here did they? :lol: They did however say that the dilution of the Gulf Stream WOULD lead to cooling. Which isn't synonymous with global freezing.

Erm, yes. We know that. Nobody said Day After Tomorrow was an accurate model in here did they? :lol: They did however say that the dilution of the Gulf Stream WOULD lead to cooling. Which isn't synonymous with global freezing.

 

oh i think that several people have taken it as a real possibility. i myself was grossly disappointed in this ridiculous film.

 

... erm... if the dilution of the sea water caused by warming does lead to the gulf stream being diverted .... then we would cool down here in the northern hemisphere and surely the polar ice caps would re-form thus allowing the gulf stream back?.. isnt it a self regulating phenominon?.. just one other point the doom mongers chose to ignore!

oh i think that several people have taken it as a real possibility. i myself was grossly disappointed in this ridiculous film.

 

... erm... if the dilution of the sea water caused by warming does lead to the gulf stream being diverted .... then we would cool down here in the northern hemisphere and surely the polar ice caps would re-form thus allowing the gulf stream back?.. isnt it a self regulating phenominon?.. just one other point the doom mongers chose to ignore!

No, because the Gulf Stream doesn't affect the entirety of the northern hemisphere :P Its effects are limited mainly to western Europe...and the dilution leads to a weakening of its effects, not a diversion.

watching 'the day after tomorrow'... i think some people ought to realise this is utter FICTION and based on sentiment, not science, even i with a very rudimentary knowlege of weather can see the utter bollox in this ridiculous film.

 

it itsnt a documentary, its fiction.

 

To be fair, I do pity anyone who takes The Day After Tomorrow as scientific fact; it's offends your intelligence on EVERY level.

Although to be honest, my disdain is more because of the totally unnecessary nonsense with the wolves (because clearly the onset of the new Ice Age doesn't provide enough material for a movie script), the rubbish romanticising (oh well as long as JAKE GYLLENHAL survived that's all right then), and the convenient way the ice seemed to stop just at the US/Mexico border (how considerate of the weather).

No, because the Gulf Stream doesn't affect the entirety of the northern hemisphere :P Its effects are limited mainly to western Europe...and the dilution leads to a weakening of its effects, not a diversion.

 

yes it does.... the gulf streams effects on our climate has a knock on effect around the whole northern hemisphere. climate is globally linked, air masses shift, a warmer northern europe doesnt just sit here. it effects the atmosphere from ground right upto space and has a knock on effect.

 

our weathers patterns here in the uk are driven by many factors, from the mjo in the western pacific (tropical convection), to sea surface temps around the world, mountain torque , angular momentum, stratospheric warming/cooling, let alone the gulf stream and jet stream. our weather is determined on a three dimesional basis, not two.

 

but a weakening of its effects will still cool down the north and equal more ice reforming. it IS a self regulating phenomina.

yes it does.... the gulf streams effects on our climate has a knock on effect around the whole northern hemisphere. climate is globally linked, air masses shift, a warmer northern europe doesnt just sit here. it effects the atmosphere from ground right upto space and has a knock on effect.

 

our weathers patterns here in the uk are driven by many factors, from the mjo in the western pacific (tropical convection), to sea surface temps around the world, mountain torque , angular momentum, stratospheric warming/cooling, let alone the gulf stream and jet stream. our weather is determined on a three dimesional basis, not two.

 

but a weakening of its effects will still cool down the north and equal more ice reforming. it IS a self regulating phenomina.

Yes, it has a knock-on effect around the Northern hemisphere but not one that's particularly noticeable - I believe the reference to the Gulf Stream in this thread referred to why things would be getting colder in the UK?

 

And it isn't a self-regulating phenomena if it's getting too bloody hot for the Gulf Stream's weakening to have any effect!

Yes, it has a knock-on effect around the Northern hemisphere but not one that's particularly noticeable - I believe the reference to the Gulf Stream in this thread referred to why things would be getting colder in the UK?

 

And it isn't a self-regulating phenomena if it's getting too bloody hot for the Gulf Stream's weakening to have any effect!

 

oh i reckon a quarter of the northern hemisphere is directly effected by the gulf stream (north atlantic) this does have a strong knock on effect across the globe.

 

the earths atmosphere is like i large three dimensional jelly with warm and cold bits, displace one bit here and it causese the whole entity to adjust displacing bits everywhere.

 

ultimately the uks weather is driven by what happens in the west pacific! and how other factors effect the 'upstream events' before it arrives here.

This national geographic movie is interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LR0iZSI9HI !

.... the statistics show the january was the warmest for 30 years (globally).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that means 30 years ago it was just as warm.....

.... and now it appears that theres not 1 shred of scientific evidence that global warming is shutting down the gulf stream, it has been revealed.

Of course there isn't. Global warming would have to exist to actually have any real effects.

Still, it's good to find greener ways to live :P

Still, it's good to find greener ways to live :P

 

fully agree, but it shouldnt be used as a club to beat us with.

exactly! I'm all for Clean, reliable [and most importantly cheap] public transport [[The Buses in Brisbane had no CO2 emissions, we're on time 95% of the time and we're dirt cheap]]

 

I don't agree with pointing all the blame at the Car, especially when cows are just as bad and no green moron points the finger at them -_- I also think Hybrids are for f***ing idiots and w*n**rs. If you had a shred of common sense you'd buy a diesel engined supermini instead of a bloody Prius. 1] Renault's 1.5 dCi engine is more fuel efficient than the Toyota's Hybrid engine, 2] It throws out about the same amount of CO2, 3] It's about £7k cheaper to buy, 4] It's smaller, therefore uses less sheet metal/plastics etc and therefore uses less CO2 in production.

 

And if you need a car the size of a prius then you can get that same dCi engine in a Megane :magic:

 

 

The none recall prone upthemselves arsehole ridden manufacturers have a range of eco friendly cars, so you can be kinder to the planet without looking like an attention seeking re****.