My temp gauge says a balmy +31C @ 6.30 in the evening - this in Oz's coldest mainland capital, mind you - so I could be a bit amienable right now to some of that lovely Finnish weather
My temp gauge says a balmy +31C @ 6.30 in the evening - this in Oz's coldest mainland capital, mind you - so I could be a bit amienable right now to some of that lovely Finnish weather
I appreciate the fact that you try to present both opposing opinions on the topic, but I have to disagree with one of them.Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
I'm not a scientist or anything, but common sense makes me think that, if all the weather changes were a balancing act, then it wouldn't happen so dranatically fast.
I remember that 5 years ago, none of these took place (even if some f it did, it was really mild weather changes on some parts of the world). These weather changes, if it was a balancing act, would happen in centuries or millenia.
Ice ages did not happen overnight. (lightweight, 2005)
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
Indeed they don't - Global warming does not happen "Day after tomorrow" style. so why are they saying it's increasing in speed and veracity? it just smacks of scare tactic and is the worst form of environmental blackmail i've yet seen.Originally Posted by lightweight
There is evidence out there which suggests the earth followed a similar pattern of heating and cooling for a very long time. while i agree the supposed veracity has increased, it's still cycling.
10 years ago these weather phenomena were blamed on El Nino. this time it's global warming. what will it be in 10 years time?
<cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>
The El Nino is (was) a part of the weather-system, so you can't exclude it from the phenomena that are happening now.Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
The El Nino and the weather extremes that we frequently hear on the news are just different versions of the same problem: Human activity affecting climate balance
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
El Nino was apparantly around long before humans - so that argument is null and void.
I accept Humans have had an effect on the world and that the status quo is no longer sustainable. but i don't think Global warming is the issue. global warming is just one giant umbrella under which many regional issues are grouped under. and has become a Media scare word.
"be careful when you sleep children....or global warming might make your room into an Igloo!"
<cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>
I was under the impression that El Nino was an adverse effect of global warming, but after googling it, I revisedOriginally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
My bad
I agree that it has become a scare word, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
This means that journalists, in order to create a buzz, use the stereotype phrase: "Global warming this..", "Global warming that"...
But, to add some more data on the future policy of the EU concerning the Auto industry (remember? that was the original post ), let me contribute the following:
So, biofuels it is for the immediate future (the next 15 years). This means again that the cost of motoring increases (low mpg for biofuel vehicles) but at least the carbon emissions fall.Originally Posted by http://www.just-auto.com/proactive/pdf/1a2ss34sw/lotus-newsletter-issue-18.pdf
Another upside of this proposal (it's only a EU proposal, not a done deal) is that no significant investment will be made to current technology. Existing motors, with low-cost modifications can be used as biofuel motors.
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
Another clue on the CO2 emissions debate.
Five to 10 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions come, not from automobiles or forest fires, but from manufacturing cement. The global warming gas is released when limestone and clays are crushed and heated to high temperatures.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/0...19-502-ak-0000
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
But does it matter?Originally Posted by lightweightThe major natural greenhouse gases is water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth
The auto manufacturers are lobbying heavily against the EU proposal concerning CO2 emission reduction.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would "never agree" to any proposal that penalised makers of big cars.
In the light of Ms Merkel's uncompromising stance, an approach which sets a target for the industry as a whole - and spreads the burden across all Europe's manufacturers - will probably be needed.
So a proposed solution would be to measure the 120 g/km for the whole industry not for every manufacturer. This is a big help for companies that manufacture small quantities of big-engined cars. It would be unfair for Maybach, with its 6.0 V12 (they will bore and stroke it to 8 or 9 liters by 2012) to try and achieve a 120 g/km, when Fiat has a maximum engine capacity of 2,5 liters and 95% of its cars are less than 2 liters
Last edited by lightweight; 02-07-2007 at 02:00 PM. Reason: adding pic
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
Given that:Originally Posted by The_Canuck
1. Recent scientific reports reach the conclusion that global warming is a human caused phenomenon
2. You can't stop water evaporating
Then:
It's better to concentrate on the sources of CO2 emissions that are human related and can be reduced with technological advances
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
That can be regarded as fair, but I still think Maybach should try its best to reduce the emissions on their cars. then again another option could be to achieve the 120g/km target by Groups of manuafacturers. I mean Daimler-Chrysler as whole has to achieve the target, the Fiat Group (including Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Maserati and Ferrari) has to achieve the target, and so on...Originally Posted by lightweight
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?Originally Posted by lightweight
Mabye it's because they disregard water vapour?1. Recent scientific reports reach the conclusion that global warming is a human caused phenomenon
Last edited by The_Canuck; 02-07-2007 at 01:53 PM.
You don't understand anything.Originally Posted by The_Canuck
I wouldn't say anything, possibly climate change though.
Also Egg Nog, your entire argument so far is that lots of Scientists believe it to be true...
There are also thousands who don't.
Last edited by The_Canuck; 02-07-2007 at 02:24 PM.
Come on Canuck! Don't try to prove something that can't be proven. It's good to have an open mind of things and try to judge what is being discussed, but being too open minded can lead to false conclusionsOriginally Posted by The_Canuck
Minimising losses can maximise net gains
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)