It caught fire so many times it was basically normal, and it is one of the things the city is known for.Was this something exceptional due to a spillage or just normal pollution level?
Not sure why you need a safety helmet, but anyway.Puts on safety helmet.
Zebra, have you heard of the Hockey Stick ?
If so, do you believe in the logic behind it ?
If not, why not ?
Well, it's been completely discredited and the way the University of East Anglia climate 'scientists' sexed it up doesn't make me trust any of their conclusions.Mythopoekia,
..Wasn't there a controversy about that?..
Indeed, still is.
But I am interested in Zebra's interpretation of the subject.
(And yours if you care to post it)
Pic below:I realise there may be some contention over the accuracy of the fossil record, but it is certainly useful (and interesting) to see temperature vs CO2 plotted for the prehistoric era:
If you look across this vast timescale, you can see that there isn't any clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. In fact, the only part where there does appear to be a correlation is in the most recent era (in the Quaternary).
CO2 levels are actually pretty low right now - 394.45 ppmv (0.039445%).
Levels of CO2 in previous geological eras have been much, much higher.
Current climate change models only take about 60 years of data into consideration.
I think it's simply not enough data from which to extrapolate long-term temperature trends.
In fact, the 60 years of data we are using may well be statistically insignificant.
But... what do I know, I am not a scientist or statistician.
Well, depends. Part of my cynicism regarding experts in pseudo-scientific subjects is a lifetime of encountering experts in my own field who can spout a mind-boggling amount of jargon but don't actually know how anything works. Hence the endless sequence of disastrously-failing computer projects (although that's not the sole explanation).It might however be best practice to ask climate scientists about climate science. Rather than say...astrophysicists?
After all, if you need heart surgery you generally go see a heart consultant, not a garage mechanic, even though the consultant has a vested interest in giving you the heart operation required.
Pfft....experts eh? Tossers.
Yes, if anything, it's methane that may be worse than CO2. But it's only recently that anybody's started to point at that and say 'that's the bad boy'.Well, depends. Part of my cynicism regarding experts in pseudo-scientific subjects is a lifetime of encountering experts in my own field who can spout a mind-boggling amount of jargon but don't actually know how anything works. Hence the endless sequence of disastrously-failing computer projects (although that's not the sole explanation).
And because climate 'science' , in the absence of being able to experiment on the entire Earth, is reliant on statistics and computer models, both of which I know a fair bit about, I am sceptical of their results too. But I decided to leave that debate alone years ago.
As for the chart Myth has provided, if anything it shows a reduction in CO2 causes warming, not the other way round. More fairly it might be said to show a very weak correlation if any. Which I believe was the scientists' conclusion as well.
Has been kebabbed.The point of the hockey stick is that it ...
First up, in terms of what is the sole cause of climate change, you are correct, but only up to a point. It is true that there are methane pockets that slowly release gas into the atmosphere that help warm the planet, and indeed living creatures that fart also contribute to methane buildup, BUT... their contribution in megalitres of emissions is utterly negligible in comparison to what human based transport, agriculture and industry produce. Note that I consider farmed animals like cattle to be a part of the human emission as they are integrated into the human economy and exist because we allow them to.I didn't say that humans were incapable of causing environmental changes - I think it's pretty obvious that humans pollute the planet. But I don't think they are the sole cause of climate change. As someone upthread mentioned (sorry, not sure who it was) it's more likely that the climate was heading that way anyway, and we've possibly accelerated it. Or that it was heading that way anyway, and nothing we can do will stop it.
And I will re-iterate what I said previously: no amount of tax increases will fix it.
And also the Industrial Revolution has been going on for at least 250 years, including the Victorian cold period.The point of the hockey stick is that it shows an increase that is related to the last one hundred and fifty years.
The period of industrial revolution. Until that period started we were not pushing out all the pollution in it's various forms.
Other side tend to point to volcanoes etc. Which is fair enough if you are prepared to ignore the current situation.
Yes we were. Coal in particular.So, Maximus otter, we can go on burning the millions of barrels of oil a day and the thousands of tones of Coal etc that we have mined since the revolution with no ill effect to our atmosphere ?
Something we were not doing a hundred and fifty years ago.
Yes Steam Locomotives were phased out and replaced with Diesel and electric ones, the first burns a fuel extracted from fossil fuels, the second relies on power stations that relies on fossil fuels.But in the sixties there was a massive move away from coal, particularly in the UK.
steam locomotives were phased out and the clean air act stopped most of the pollution from factories. Also, many factories that had used steam for power were by then going all electric.
Also locally produced town gas derived from coal was replaced by natural gas.
There are very few homes burning coal these days.
I burn coal.Smells great.Yes Steam Locomotives were phased out and replaced with Diesel and electric ones, the first burns a fuel extracted from fossil fuels, the second relies on power stations that relies on fossil fuels.
and while not many houses burn coal anymore, allot burn gas and also relies on fossil fuel burning power stations for electricity...........