Global warming for Motorhomers. The truth.

[Guest bil h]

This is not copyright and may be propagated with an acknowledgement.

 

You’ll need a pencil and paper and a 12-inch ruler.

Work from left to right at all times.

Note the word degree(s) is replaced by *

 

1. Draw a horizontal line 10 ins long

2. Mark each end ‘A’ and ‘B’

3. From point ‘A’ draw a straight line at an angle of 30* ending at

the same distance as ‘B’.

4. Call the end of the 30* line ‘C’

5. Draw a vertical line from ‘B’ to ‘C’, you now have a triangle

6. Place the ruler on the base line. Make a mark at 3ins ……...5ins

and…... 7ins

7. Draw three vertical lines from line ‘A’-‘B’ to meet the 30* angled

line

8. Mark on line ‘A’ – ‘C’ the three connecting points as ‘3’-----‘5’----- and ‘7’

9. At point 3 where the vertical line meets the 30* angle.

10. Draw a line ‘parallel’ to the base line until it meets the next

vertical line.

11. This junction will be about 1/3 distance down the vertical line

from point 5

12. From this junction, draw a line upwards at about 45* to meet

point 7

13. Remove the 30* line between point 3 and 7. Also the top of line

5

14. You now have a triangle where the 30* line has a flat then

steep 45* incline, returning to the 30* line ‘A’ to ‘C’

15. Mark this modified top line ‘A’ - ‘C’ in ink or marker pen

…………………………………………………………….……………..

 

The diagram is complete, so what does it represent.

 

The modified top line ‘A - ‘C’ represents the Planet Earth and temperature increases from the ice age until the year 2100 (app)

 

The parallel line between 3 and 5 is the period 1945 to 1995 (50 years)

 

The 45* angled line between 5 and 7 represents the years 1990 to 2020 (and includes us now)

 

Every one agrees there has been a steady increase since the ice age, however

 

During the years 1945 – 1980 There was a dramatic change in the atmosphere !!!

 

On July 16th 1945 Robert Openheimer activated the first atomic bomb, this was followed by a large number of similar devices. Following that the atmosphere was filled with negative dust particles. These particles collected moisture up to 100 times their own size.

 

NOTE THIS SECTION

 

So disturbed was the atmosphere that the original climate temperature increase was halted and almost reversed. Remaining almost static until very recently in time.

 

You may be aware that many persons have tried to replicate this unsettled wet weather by dropping charged particles into clouds but it hardly ever worked because you needed billions of them not a bucket full.

 

Anyone who lived through this atomic activity period may remember the weather was always unsettled, dull and mostly unpleasant. That’s why as I’ve said previously, that only those of us alive now and in our 70’s, who lived in the 1930’s have any idea what this climate change issue is about.

 

There were always comments from the elderly at that time (around the 1950’s) that summer’s in the old days (1920’s-1930’s) were always much warmer and better.

 

NO MORE ATOMIC ACTIVITY

 

1990 – 2020

With the atmosphere now becoming cleaner the temperature (according to the planets’ original trend) has now to get back on track as it was in the 1920-1930’s

 

In order for this to happen there now has to be a short and more intense period of increased global temperature until it equal out around 2020, then slowing down to become 'normal' again by 2100.

 

No amount of adjustments by us regarding carbon emissions will ever make any difference. As someone said recently. Southern England has been both tropical and frozen. Its simply called weather!

 

I expect queries and corrections and you'll never offend me.

 

There's one final comment to those of you much younger.

 

Around 2020 you'll all be told how wonderful you are in holding down the climate change.

 

The object is to make the populace unsettled. They buy more goods

 

Have fun

 

Bill Haylor

Copthorne

Sussex

 

[michele]

Bill h.

 

Looks like i,m the first

 

After reading digesting and asking my husband what his thoughts were .

I am with you. my husband think's you are talking complete sense.

In the light of me not knowing any difference and knowing what the govnerment is capable of ie, taking money on Air miles putting it in their pockets not building windfarms and the like . But allowing another 1000 polish /kurdistan / what ever race, none in particular into the country.

your last line makes even more sense...

well done Billh... something to think about

 

[colin]

We where discusing climate at work last week, we where all kids around 50s/60s, we all remember that every summer was hot, every autumn was wet, every winter was cold and every spring was mild.

[olley]

Bilh said:

These particles collected moisture up to 100 times their own size.

 

So disturbed was the atmosphere that the original climate temperature increase was halted and almost reversed. Remaining almost static until very recently in time.

 

Hi billh, If the water content of the atmosphere was increased surely the temperature would have risen not decreased? due to the increased green house effect.

 

Olley

[Bill]

Just posted this lot on the old thread as hadn't seen that there was a new one. Here it is again:

 

First off, most of the scare stories about “Global Warming” are presented by journalists, who have degrees in Meeja Studies and wouldn't know a scientific method unless one bit them. And even then, they wouldn't let it get in the way of a good story.

 

They always try to fit the facts to their hypothesis, rather than the other way round.

 

Point out that the Romans had vineyards against Hadrian's Wall, and that it is now too cold for grapes, and they will say Hadrian must have had a hardier strain of grapes.

 

A few scientists get in on the act. But, scratch the surface and there is a sub-text along the lines of “We don't really know, so more study is needed to make sure. Bung me a few million of the taxpayers' money and I'll do it for you”.

 

Much of this GW drivel comes from computer simulations. As a professional computer programmer, one of the first acronyms I was taught was GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. These simulations all assume that the heat of the Sun is a constant, which is garbage, so it is no great surprise that the output is garbage too.

 

[As an aside it is shameful how little we know of the sun. The Space Age will be 50 years old this October, and to date there has been exactly one probe (SOHO) dedicated to solar research.]

 

The one thing we do know about the Sun is that there is an 11-year sunspot cycle, and its output fluctuates with that. It may well fluctuate in all sorts of other ways too. Nasa has detected rising temperatures on a number of other bodies in the solar system – if those measurements are accurate they presumably amount to circumstantial evidence that the sun is getting hotter.

 

Now consider the measurements which “prove” global warming. First off, you need to measure over at least a century to get a meaningful reading. Instruments 100 years ago were not as accurate as they are today, and the tiny differences could just as easily be instrument error.

 

Much more important, you need to make the measurements at the same place(s), to ensure you are not comparing apples and oranges. But, a century ago, motor vehicles and their radiators were virtually non-existent; today they exist in their thousands. So those roadside measuring stations are being locally heated by passing traffic, and you can't move them away from the roads else you get back into the apples and oranges issue.

 

GW is becoming a sort of latter-day religion, and that is where the real danger lies. My father used to say that if the Bible was true, then all the fanatical devotion of Middle Ages Christians was totally justified – but if it was not true then it was the biggest con job in history. Much the same is true of GW.

 

The people who tried to bring down capitalism in favour of “the vastly superior system in the Soviet Union”, are still trying to bring it down, only now they have latched onto GW. As with the earlier attempt, they are aided by what Karl Marx called “useful idiots”. The anti-GW campaign merges seamlessly with the anti-globalism campaign, the tax-the-airlines campaign, and sundry other Luddite tendencies.

 

I am grimly amused that the Meeja Studies crowd have failed utterly to pick up on what, from their GW standpoint, is the most important story of the decade. The USAF has successfully converted one of its B-52 bombers to run on liquid methane; given that the engines don't know whether they are powering a bomber or an airliner, it follows that it is possible to convert airliners too. Possibly the Meeja Studies lot don't understand enough physics and chemistry to appreciate what this means – methane is a much smaller member of the paraffin family than kerosene, and consequently contains a much lower percentage of carbon, and therefore produces much less (around 75% less) CO2.

 

They are so busy disparaging George Bush that they also have failed to notice how this ties in with his recent State of the Union message. The USAF has not suddenly got worried about GW. They are actively seeking energy sources which do not come mainly from Muslim and other unfriendly sources.

 

 

 

 

 

[breakaleg]

they also say that the midlands were once a dessert, and been buried under a mile and a half of snow.

the victorians, used to hold fun fairs and light bonfires on the thames.

if you go to the roman palace at fairborne near chichester, the sea used to lap the walls of the villa, and visiting statesmen used to step of the boat and into the villa, the sea is around 4 miles away now, and the land covered in houses.

i feel its just an excuse for raising revenue, if they were serious, the raised revenue, would be paying for solar panels for all our homes.

pete

[Dancer]

Most talk about global warming is just hot air.

 

I think Bill is correct - mostly - Just lie back and think of England.

 

Enjoy.

[Guest starspirit]

Well done Bilh that is certainly very interesting and bears out what I have always thought, which is we are now being conned by an even bigger con that the other one you mentioned.

 

All in the name of raising tax to pay for other things which the nation would not otherwise support it were given truthful information about what the government is really doing with our money.

[Guest bil h]

I started work at Gatwick during WWII with some very old and very ordinary men.

 

Three comments they made then still ring true today

 

1 They're after your money boy

 

2 This related to girls which I'm not going to repeat.

 

3 The more complicated you make a subject the more confusuing it gets

 

bil h

[Basil]

It's nice to know that I am not alone in this endless sea of blindness being guided to where others want us to be for their own ends. It's hard when you are being continuously shouted down for being out of step with the gang!

 

Bas

[olley]

So the answer is???????

 

I think I will stick my head in the sand, someone said your bum will be in the air, but not if you dig it deep enough, and I have a big shovel. :-D

 

Olley

[michele]

I,m wif Olley on this one ! Which is where bums to the sun?. ;-) See you there Olley.... France prefrably.

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

As I understand it, Planet Earth was originally a barren rock surrounded by what we call greenhouse gasses. Then trees came along, sucked up all the nasty gasses, and buried them underground. So we can blame trees for the state of our atmosphere. OK, maybe we wouldn't like the atmosphere as it was originally, but what right have humans, or any animals, to decide what the atmosphere should be?

 

So I consider it my bounden duty to undo all the damage done by trees, and return the atmoshere to what it was intended. The easiest way seems to be by burning petrol. :-D

 

602

[olley]

hi michelle, no its Italy this year going after some history and Sun. mind you I think we are going through France to get there. :-D

 

Olley

[Brian Kirby]

If anyone really wants to know a bit more about this subject, Google "global warming" and follow the Wikipedia links.  There is a huge amount of information available, many of the above minority alternative views are discussed: most are debunked.

If anyone really wants to see just how poorly qualified to comment on climate change are the scientists subscribing to the CO2 theory, try this link, then have a look around the rest of the site.  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

The link is to an amazingly comprehensive looking bibliography on the subject and science of climate change.  It is laid out chronologically, from which you can see not only how many scientific publications on this subject there have been, but also for how long it has been under debate.  It is a revelation - at least it was to me! 

The hosting organisation is the American Institute of Physics, who seem a reasonably independent institute with, so far as I could see, no government funding.

This will take you to the heart of the scientific establishment, but will also give an insight into just how many of the easily influenced, numbskulled, government lackey scientists there are who are persuaded by the present argument, and how many are not.

It is important to remember that there are few, if any facts, in true science.  All you get are theories which, if no one can knock them down, become accepted.  The longer a theory survives, and the more it can be verified by experiment, the more it becomes accepted as reliable.  However, even the "standards" of relativity, Newton's laws of motion, gravity etc are not facts,  They are just scientific theories no one has yet disproved.  So with climate change: there are no absolute facts, it is, and can only be, a theory.  However, it is the best theory we have at present, it points to a serious coming problem, and we have to decide whether to accept that, or ignore it.

The question to ask yourself in all this, is what happens in either case?  If the theory is wrong, and we act to stave off its forecasts, what is the worst that can happen?  Similarly, if the theory is correct, and we ignore it, what is the worst that can happen?  Honest answers, mind!

[messerschmitt owner]

Hey, I'm with you lot!

 

I actually studied climatology for a small while at Uni (well, my degree is in geography) - and what I learned between that and my year of geology and two years of archaeology is that the climate of the Earth has fluctuated from hot to cold and so on ad infinitum since the dawn of time - and it will continue to do so, just as the poles have flipped as the Earth's magnetic field has changed too.

 

We may be helping to speed the process up but at some point it'll all start getting cold again.

 

I'm all for using less of the world's resources but I also know that if one looks at the whole life of a vehicle that some of those supposedly environmentally friendly vehicles are not what they seem. Some, like the Toyota Prius take so much energy to manufacture and dispose of that mile for mile, they are often less energy efficient than those 4x4s that everyone supposedly thinks are bad for the environment. Basically, a car capable of doing 25mpg for 300,000 miles is often more energy efficient than a car that can do 50mpg but only does 70,000 miles before reaching the end of its life. It's all to do with looking at the total sum of energy involved in manufacture, use and disposal.

 

I like old cars simply for that reason - as the most energy involved in a car's life is in manufacture and disposal, the longer it can be kept running, the better the world will be. At least it stops me buying another new car and starting the cycle again.

 

Now, I'm not a 4X4 owner (the one and only 4X4 I have owned was a 1969 Land Rover Dormobile), but I do know when we're being fed bollox propaganda.

 

Campbell

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest starspirit]

So perhaps we should carry on as we are with the Yanks continually offending the entire world and then when someone drops several H bombs on us all the world's climate problems will go away?

 

Sounds good to me but can I have another 20 years or so first please to enjoy the increased warmth in my old age?

 

Thanks

[mom]

Brian Kirby - 2007-02-06 7:13 PM

The question to ask yourself in all this, is what happens in either case?  If the theory is wrong, and we act to stave off its forecasts, what is the worst that can happen?  Similarly, if the theory is correct, and we ignore it, what is the worst that can happen?  Honest answers, mind!

If the theory is right and we ignore it, water and crop wars, a significant loss of habitable land, huge disruptions to current shipping, rail and land distributions, GB being brought in line with the weather of Russia and Canada (warming will kill off the gulf stream), even bigger wedge between the haves and have nots.  All this and more will result in the biggest (preventable) loss of human and non-human life we have ever witnessed.  And no indication when it will stop.  Once we start to change the profile of the earth, it may become harder to develop the very technologies we need to save ourselves.

If the theory is wrong yet we act to correct it, massive advances in new energy and mechanical technologies, the evolution of new green industries, reduction in the rate of animal and plant extinction, significant reduction in polution and its associated health problems, improved timescale for fossil fuel availability.  And tons more, I'm sure.

You see, what many people fail to understand is that we should be doing this anyway.  But people are so protective of their lifestyle that they create specious arguments to justify what has to be the worst and most disgraceful abuse of resources in history.  Future generations, should they be around to say it, will consider our generation as an embarassment, barbaric, paranoid and lacking individual courage to change.  Whether or not we have global warming catastrophes.

But the worst thing?... If we had each taken personal responsibility and made moves to "significantly" reduce our personal consumption and effect, we would have improved the world and saved a "lot" of money for ourselves.  But only some of us have.  The vast majority, sitting at home trying to reason up more arguments as to why it "shouldn't" be done, and saying "it's not my problem, it's the government's", have just handed the governments of the world the gift of the century.  The governments of the world have now been given a global mandate, reduce the use of carbon producing technologies.  The only bat any government wields is taxation.  They will levy taxes on everything, even areas not directly related.  So now, we will still have to reduce our consumption, but we won't save a penny.  I see lots of words in this and other threads about conspiracy and governments taking advantage, and we just handed them the permission to do so, on a platter.

And before someone jumps in and says that we as indivduals can't help, that is completely wrong.  Each of should get our own house in order, and then through the internet, voting at elections, public campaigns and showing example, make the governments follow suit. But that's all in the past now anyway.

We have squandered our opportunity.  Life is about to get much harder.

[Dave Newell]

Mom, in my opinion that is quite possibly the most sense anybody has posted on this entire forum, EVER!

 

D.

[messerschmitt owner]

But let's all not believe every bit of propoganda the government, the EU and lots of quangos spouts about it.

 

My point about cars is still valid - changing your vehicle every few years for a brand new one is bad for the environment - full stop.

 

If you really want to help save this ever-changing planet, stop being a consumer of everything! Don't demand out of season food like strawberries in January, don't go away on long holidays in your camper van - stay at home instead. Shop local, not global! Don't buy goods that could be manufactured in the UK or EU from places such as China or India. Use more fuel efficient vehicles, convert to bio fuels (yeah, some of us already do this), and so on. Recycle the things that make sense to recycle. Don't wash the car or camper so often, don't make unnecessary journeys, move next to work and avoid any form of travelling, get your shopping delivered, walk the kids to school, don't fly unless you have to (and certainly not for domestic flights), do get solar panels, cavity wall insulation, your loft insulated, more efficent heating (cos you just might need it), plant a few trees, don't run the tap when brushing your teeth, pop a brick in the cistern, switch the telly off instead of popping it on standby, stop wasting electricity and resources sitting all day on forums like this.....

 

 

Some of us already do many of these things - however, how many do you do?

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

Just one instance.

 

The nearest amenity centre is 17 miles away. The nearest amenity centre that I am allowed to use is 25 miles away.

 

Is it worth the planets while me taking bottles to the dump?

 

OK, I lie, they now collect bottles, paper, compost, from my front gate, but that is fairly recent development. And they will now collect heavy items free of charge.

 

Try disposing of an old tyre. The nearest tip will accept them, my council tip will not. I try to act responsibly, but many don't. And the amount of junk mail that comes through my door..........

 

602

[Brian Kirby]

Bill

Re your drawings and diagrams.  The flaw in the ointment, as I see it, is the underlying assumption that the trend must revert to its straight line path.  Who say it must?  It nEver has previously.  The trend over extended time is more proximate to a sine curve, with peaks and troughs.  Whether the natural trend post 1990 would tend to the pattern you posit, or whether it would be steeper or shallower, is just one of the unknowns.  The periods you are representing are too short generally, but the timeline is inconsistent.  Point A to point '3' represents 100,000 years approx, point '3' to point '5' only 50 years, and point '5' to point '7' only 30 years, yet the distances of 3", 5", and 7" are not proportionate to those timescales.  I suggest you re-draw using a consistent linear time scale and not a (approximately) logarithmentic one.  However, even if you do, I still think the underlying assumption of a straight line progression is ill founded, or at least not borne out by the record.

[Brian Kirby]

Michael

Gold star!  I agree with Dave. 

The thing that really interests me about this debate is that to some extent it is irrelevant what line of argument is taken, because there are two other, parallel, and at least equally compelling, arguments that lead to the same broad conclusion.

The first is that the resources we are seeking to conserve are finite.  If we do what we can to reduce the build up of CO2, we shall also be conserving the supplies of coal, oil and natural gas, which will safeguard these for future generations.

The second is that we are now dependent on others for our supplies.  Our coal is largely worked out (at least so far as the easily extracted coal is concerned), our oil is now depleting, so we become increasingly dependent upon imports for supply, and our natural gas is similarly depleting with the same result as for oil.  If you look at the parts of the world from which we now have to import coal, oil and gas, just ask yourselves whether becoming totally dependant upon them for our future economic and social survival is wise.  If we can scale back our consumption of all three (and a few other finite resources as well) we stand a much better chance of being able to maintain our social and economic foundations whatever happens elsewhere in the world.

Whether to save the planet, conserve dwindling reserves of finite energy sources, or maintain our freedon from diplomatic coersion, we have, as a matter of urgency to cut back our consumption of coal, oil, gas and a number of metals.  To that extent, the debate about the possible causes of, or veracity of, climate change, are sterile.

Let's, for goodness sakes, stop bickering and just get on with it!

[olley]

Hi Brian I don't believe it can be done, all the power companies are privately owned and their only interest is to buy as cheaply as possible and to sell for as much as possible. And they are hardly likely to want us to reduce consumption.

 

long term stratigic planning to reduce our energy use and dependance on other counties by the use of alternatives, is in the hands of the government, and in my experiance thats something that governments don't do.

 

Olley

 

 

[David Dwight]

An article in the press today.

 

Sea levels have not risen.The Eastern side of the Arctic ,ie Pacific the Ice has receeded. The Western side, Atlantic the Ice is growing especialy around Greenland.

The Antarctic Ice is getting thicker rather than less.

 

Nature will take care of its self...

 

 

David