Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Warwick-Watcher

Global Dimming

Recommended Posts

Oh my goodness. Sunspot activity reduced leading to lower global temperatures.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/

Will houses be able to be built from ice and will this reduce the average house price?

:lol:

We had a thread on this yesterday :) . The last time this happened, there was no summer and the thames froze for months, and the country had a couple of feet of permafrost. Global warming my ****... As for housing I'm not sure how we have enough gas and are houses have holes in them...

Edited by moosetea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

By the way Global Dimming is the effect that particulates like soot or exhaust emissions have on the amount of sunshine energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Sunspots and Global Dimming are two different issues.

There is our solution -- beat global warming by polluting a lot more.

It is also my opinion that beans should be banned to prevent vegetarians from producing so much methane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sh1t we had better get producing more CO2 then if we are entering a period of cooling.

'Can someone turn those windmills off please............'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole MMGW movement is a politically motivated scam IMO

Notice how they have stopped calling it 'Global Warming' and started calling it 'Climate Change' now global temperatures have started falling.

The climate has always and will always change.

The only reason America is continuing with this is because they have realised they need to wean the population off cheap oil for reasons of national security.

America has now decided it needs to be energy independent and this will be achieved IMO.

Which will be bad news for the rest of the World when the Middle East implodes and the US leave them to get on with it.

The habitual, knee jerk US bashers should be very careful what they wish for IMO.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

By the way Global Dimming is the effect that particulates like soot or exhaust emissions have on the amount of sunshine energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Sunspots and Global Dimming are two different issues.

Really sorry I missed yesterday's thread.

I meant dimming in the generic sense as in lights dimming, I hadn't realised there was a specific meaning for this phrase. Just shows how educational this website is.

Didn't we stop emitting soot to clean up the air? If we hadn't then would global warming possibly have been worse due to the albedo effect?

It seems white paint is going to be the next bubble commodity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just type global cooling into google.

Falling Global Temperatures (blue line)

158d4bf145162edb0e67.jpeg

Yes, but these climate change soothsayers will argue we should reduce CO2 just in case it is linked to AGW or AGR or whatever acronym they give it now.

Perhaps we should burn them all in case they are witches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Godley & Cinnaman

Yes, its an irony that particulate pollution has partly masked the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

You guys kill me :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global warming alarmists have the argument both ways in anycase. If we can scate on the Thames again in a few years time they will only point to the fact that this is one of the results of climate change because the gulf stream is slowing down as a result of ice melt or some such nonsense.

These sunspots are just an 'incovenient truth'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but these climate change soothsayers will argue we should reduce CO2 just in case it is linked to AGW or AGR or whatever acronym they give it now.

Perhaps we should burn them all in case they are witches?

That would actually have a net benefit for reducing CO2, maybe they should give their lives over to the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my goodness. Sunspot activity reduced leading to lower global temperatures.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/

Will houses be able to be built from ice and will this reduce the average house price?

:lol:

Yesterday the authorities suggested everyone should paint their roofs white to reflect heat and cut down on global warming.

I suppose everyone will have to get their ladders out again and paint them black now.

What about the planning authorities. Apparently they're already overwhelmed with planning applications for the change to white but it's all been a total waste of paper endangering the rain forests because planning isn't required.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...roof-white.html

People are cancelling their dental whitening appontments because of this you know.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would actually have a net benefit for reducing CO2, maybe they should give their lives over to the cause.

And burning them would also cause lots of beneficial soot to enter the atmosphere!

(Tho, all this pollution will make a mess of the newly white washed planet...)

However, beans should still be banned, methane is a poison and second hand inhalation is a menace! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Notice how they have stopped calling it 'Global Warming' and started calling it 'Climate Change' now global temperatures have started falling.

And when was that little invention of yours supposed to have occurred?

The climate has always and will always change.

That's like me saying property prices have always and always will change. Nothing to do with cheap credit.

Something changes climate always. Usually natural, like solar activity (measured by sunspot numbers) but for the last few decades increasing CO2 keeping more heat in. The current low solar activity will mask the underlying rise but it will still be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Game_Over @ May 28 2009, 01:43 PM)

Notice how they have stopped calling it 'Global Warming' and started calling it 'Climate Change' now global temperatures have started falling.

The switch to climate change instead of the more alarming global warming was suggested by US Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who often appears on Newsnight.

His reasoning was that it sounded less alarming and would therefore reduce political pressure for action on the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And when was that little invention of yours supposed to have occurred?

That's like me saying property prices have always and always will change. Nothing to do with cheap credit.

Something changes climate always. Usually natural, like solar activity (measured by sunspot numbers) but for the last few decades increasing CO2 keeping more heat in. The current low solar activity will mask the underlying rise but it will still be there.

That doesn't sound right to me.

The earth is either in balance or on its way to being in balance (in terms of heat in and heat out).

If the primary source of heat reduces in output, then the balanced temperature is going to be lower, isn't it?

Take the extreme scenario of the sun going out completely.

Over time the heat will leak into space and we will become cold and desolate. No amount of CO2 is going to prevent that.

Now, you can argue that the higher CO2 content will mean that the earth will heat up quicker once the sun recovers, but that is not what you said (or at least my interpretation of what you said).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The switch to climate change instead of the more alarming global warming was suggested by US Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who often appears on Newsnight.

His reasoning was that it sounded less alarming and would therefore reduce political pressure for action on the environment.

Must have been the bean consumption...

Look, the only way you've going to stop the planet from changing it's climate is to kill the entire atmosphere outright -- and it's very doubtful that even a total nuclear war would achieve that.

So, the entire idea doesn't sound less alarming, it just sounds more stupid than it ever was in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The switch to climate change instead of the more alarming global warming was suggested by US Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who often appears on Newsnight.

His reasoning was that it sounded less alarming and would therefore reduce political pressure for action on the environment.

Interesting, but I wonder why it is now common usage by people who believe that AGW is a serious threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, but I wonder why it is now common usage by people who believe that AGW is a serious threat.

It's repetition of the language used in politics. Luntz was successful. Remember 1984.

I use global warming in discussion. Climate change is an airy fairy term IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's repetition of the language used in politics. Luntz was successful. Remember 1984.

I use global warming in discussion. Climate change is an airy fairy term IMO.

but if CC is warmer and fuzzier than GW, and the main thrust of, for instance, the environmental movement, is to convince people that there is something to worry seriously about, why do they in the main use CC?

It justs seems to be playing into the skeptics' hands who point out the coincidence that the terms changed roundabout the time that the warming stopped/slowed down.

The IPCC itself was formed in 1988.

Does Luntz pre-date that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.