ForumGarden

jimbo;1106207 wrote: for pete's sake can you send me some before i start growing ice skates :-5:-5

when they said it would warm up on the weather forecast did they mean from minus 7 to minus 6 :-5:-5



whats it like where you are


Poor Jimbo!

I tell you what ... I wouldn't like to be on a boat today. It's really cold and windy in my little corner of the globe :-5

Its bloody freezing!!! very frosty,, my legs were hardly working by the time i finished walking sheila this morning they were so numb!:-5

Woke up to a thick frost everywhere this morning. What a change from yesterday!! It's just starting to merge with the atmosphere now. The air is sharp with the cold.



Hiya, Pinkchick. Good to see you on here again.:-6

OpenMind;1106243 wrote: Woke up to a thick frost everywhere this morning. What a change from yesterday!! It's just starting to merge with the atmosphere now. The air is sharp with the cold.



Hiya, Pinkchick. Good to see you on here again.:-6

Hi OM It's nice to be back

freezing here to, -18C or -4F!:-5:-5:-5



but this is our winter and this is Canada!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Odie;1106296 wrote: freezing here to, -18C or -4F!:-5:-5:-5





but this is our winter and this is Canada!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl




Wow girl....it is cold there, isn't it! It's about 30F here at the beach, and I think that's freezing. I want the sun and warmth. That's why I'm obsessed with Florida now.

Jester;1106473 wrote: It's a sunny crisp 56.9F here...



:-6



I'm in the yard smoking hams...






So what time should we be there for dinner. I love spuds....mashed with lots of gravey with my ham. I'll bring some port:-6Odie will bring dessert:p

kathy ellen;1106469 wrote: wow girl....it is cold there, isn't it! It's about 30f here at the beach, and i think that's freezing. I want the sun and warmth. That's why i'm obsessed with florida now.


[shaddap]:d

Kathy Ellen;1106469 wrote: Wow girl....it is cold there, isn't it! It's about 30F here at the beach, and I think that's freezing. I want the sun and warmth. That's why I'm obsessed with Florida now.


ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

30F is below freezing!!

OpenMind;1106603 wrote: 30F is below freezing!!


come here, its -4F!:-5:-5:-5

I'm inside my igloo!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Odie;1106617 wrote: come here, its -4F!:-5:-5:-5



I'm inside my igloo!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


Is that an offer?!!thinking::-3:-4:sneaky::p:guitarist:-6:D:sneaky:

OpenMind;1106639 wrote: Is that an offer?!!thinking::-3:-4:sneaky::p:guitarist:-6:D:sneaky:


c'mon in, the fire's on!:sneaky::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Its anything between minus 5 c and min 18 c depending on where you are in the country but it means BIG FUN all the shops are sold out of ice skates and just about everyone who can walk is out on the ice. Babies learn to skate on dubble edged skates while pushing a kitchen chair its great to watch. There are old couples in their 70's skating sedately past and young lads on hockey skates stopping sharply sending showers of ice onto the watching girls.

people here know how to make the best of whats available !!

Victoria;1106863 wrote: Its anything between minus 5 c and min 18 c depending on where you are in the country but it means BIG FUN all the shops are sold out of ice skates and just about everyone who can walk is out on the ice. Babies learn to skate on dubble edged skates while pushing a kitchen chair its great to watch. There are old couples in their 70's skating sedately past and young lads on hockey skates stopping sharply sending showers of ice onto the watching girls.

people here know how to make the best of whats available !!


yup, here to, tons of winter sports!

Odie;1106296 wrote: freezing here to, -18C or -4F!:-5:-5:-5



but this is our winter and this is Canada!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


bout the same out west here too... :wah:

Welcome back pinkchicky

jimbo;1106207 wrote: for pete's sake can you send me some before i start growing ice skates :-5:-5

when they said it would warm up on the weather forecast did they mean from minus 7 to minus 6 :-5:-5



whats it like where you are


That's certainly warmer than the minus nineteen to minus twenty it used to reach thirty years ago :wah:

eh it's all bogus to me... years ago they were saying we were going to freeze to death... now we are going to burn to death... who knows anymore. maybe next we'll go crazy with warm weather?

Omni_Skittles;1107110 wrote: eh it's all bogus to me... years ago they were saying we were going to freeze to death... now we are going to burn to death... who knows anymore. maybe next we'll go crazy with warm weather?


not in your lifetime they've not - all of the predictions made since you were born have come to pass.

I can't find the link now but there was some crazy idea's in The Mail from various scientists who had come up with idea's to prevent the heating up of the planet.

The most sensible sounded like the scientist who is talking of aircraft sucking up salt water from the ocean and spraying it into clouds.

The daftest was a scientist who talked of strapping rockets to massive asteroids that would orbit earth pushing our planet further away from the sun.

Do we pay these people?

oscar;1107138 wrote: I can't find the link now but there was some crazy idea's in The Mail from various scientists who had come up with idea's to prevent the heating up of the planet.

The most sensible sounded like the scientist who is talking of aircraft sucking up salt water from the ocean and spraying it into clouds.

The daftest was a scientist who talked of strapping rockets to massive asteroids that would orbit earth pushing our planet further away from the sun.

Do we pay these people?


The easiest idea is to send a large reflector up to the Lagrange L1 point to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. It should be relatively easy to counteract the pressure of the solar wind with an ion drive powered by the incident light and being at the L1 point will hold the reflector in line. Being so far inside Earth orbit would make the size of the reflector required to achieve a 5% reduction in incoming radiation achievable using existing technology.

Bryn Mawr;1107161 wrote: The easiest idea is to send a large reflector up to the Lagrange L1 point to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. It should be relatively easy to counteract the pressure of the solar wind with an ion drive powered by the incident light and being at the L1 point will hold the reflector in line. Being so far inside Earth orbit would make the size of the reflector required to achieve a 5% reduction in incoming radiation achievable using existing technology.
Are they working on this at the moment?

I am still trying to find a link to 'Gloabal dimming' i was talking of in another thread. I saw a documentary about how carbon emissions had actually created a smog in the atmosphere and it was that which was stopping the full penetration of the sun's rays by 'bouncing' back an amount of UV into space. It was just a theory until America had a no-fly zone for three days after 9/11. Scientists claimed that America heated up by 3 degree's during that three days. I shall continue to search for it.

Haha, i found something.

Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon

oscar;1107168 wrote: Are they working on this at the moment?

I am still trying to find a link to 'Gloabal dimming' i was talking of in another thread. I saw a documentary about how carbon emissions had actually created a smog in the atmosphere and it was that which was stopping the full penetration of the sun's rays by 'bouncing' back an amount of UV into space. It was just a theory until America had a no-fly zone for three days after 9/11. Scientists claimed that America heated up by 3 degree's during that three days. I shall continue to search for it.


Look up a guy called J. E. Lovelock. He gives good evidence that, were it not for the global dimming caused by the particulate matter we are introducing into the atmosphere, the global warming would be far worse and that if we just cut all emissions to zero overnight the short term result would be a disaster.

He also gives a lot of good evidence for the how and why of global warming and the best ways to pull back from the brink we've reached.

Bryn Mawr;1107176 wrote: Look up a guy called J. E. Lovelock. He gives good evidence that, were it not for the global dimming caused by the particulate matter we are introducing into the atmosphere, the global warming would be far worse and that if we just cut all emissions to zero overnight the short term result would be a disaster.

He also gives a lot of good evidence for the how and why of global warming and the best ways to pull back from the brink we've reached.


It's very late, I'm tired and probably not thinking properly. Is global Dimming actually helping global warming?

If not for global dimming, the reverse is happening. It's the matter that is saving us from heating up further? So Scientists are correct in this theory?

oscar;1107180 wrote: It's very late, I'm tired and probably not thinking properly. Is global Dimming actually helping global warming?

If not for global dimming, the reverse is happening. It's the matter that is saving us from heating up further? So Scientists are correct in this theory?


In the same way as mass volcanic eruption or a big atom bomb going off can cause a nuclear winter through the introduction of particulates into the atmosphere so the amount of pollution we're pumping out has a cooling effect that is counteracting the warming effect of the CO2 and Methane emissions we're generating.

It does not mean that global warming is not there - just that some of it is being masked.

Bryn Mawr;1107182 wrote: In the same way as mass volcanic eruption or a big atom bomb going off can cause a nuclear winter through the introduction of particulates into the atmosphere so the amount of pollution we're pumping out has a cooling effect that is counteracting the warming effect of the CO2 and Methane emissions we're generating.

It does not mean that global warming is not there - just that some of it is being masked.


Does that not mean that global warming was inevitable regardless of what we pump into the atmosphere?

Should we cut emisions to zero, the planet will indeed heat up by 3 or 4 degree's as scientist's predict. If so, why do we want to cut emisions?

Bryn Mawr;1107131 wrote: not in your lifetime they've not - all of the predictions made since you were born have come to pass.I still don't believe in Global Warming. It's cold here... in houston texas it's cold... global warming doesn't excist to me

oscar;1107184 wrote: Does that not mean that global warming was inevitable regardless of what we pump into the atmosphere?

Should we cut emisions to zero, the planet will indeed heat up by 3 or 4 degree's as scientist's predict. If so, why do we want to cut emisions?


Cut the CO2 emissions before you cut the particulate emissions - different types have different effects.

Omni_Skittles;1107333 wrote: I still don't believe in Global Warming. It's cold here... in houston texas it's cold... global warming doesn't excist to me


It is global warming after all - not Houston warming.

Whenever you disturb a steady state system the result will be patchy. Whilst the trend will be in a given direction at a given rate there will be local effects within that trend. Globally, the trend is clear and upwards but certainly, for short periods of time in some regions, local areas can cool instead of warming.

Jester;1107336 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

sorry to laugh but let me get this straight- the co2/methane emitted from us, is warming the earth and the pollution we are emitting is cooling the earth, right?



heres my theory- all the heat generated by the 'most brilliant' minds trying to figure out why were warming is the cause of the warming and mean while the earth just goes through its normal cycles... which right now happens to be a cooling trend.




What do you find funny about that Jester?

If you pollute a field with mixed organics some of those pollutants might be nitrogenous or phosphate based and stimulate plant growth whilst other pollutants will certainly reduce plant growth. In the same way we are putting out many types of atmospheric pollution which have mixed effects but the warming effects outweigh the cooling effects. Neither situation is funny and the result will be catastrophic.

And no, the overall trend is still a warming one and accelerating - we are in big trouble for all your scoffing.

Jester;1108067 wrote: I scoff because I don't believe the catastrophic component of any of it, the move towards 'greenism' is bogus, its a scare tactic used to fuel a false and pretentous component of the world movement toward so called world unification.

No sooner than we warm in one are we will cool in another, no sooner than we clean up an over polluted area we will pollute another- happens all the time and it will continue to happen, but the earth heals when ya clean stuff up.

I agree there are areas we should clean up, but for the most part is in isolated areas, there is NO global effect on temperatures, only different but normal variations in weater patterns.

Sorry, but I laugh because it is so foolish to hear the sky is falling when there is no evidence that it is falling.


The evidence exists and is perfectly clear. If you wish to close your eyes to it then I cannot help you.

Jester;1108335 wrote: Its not the facts I dispute so much as the partnering of supposed evidence and then the catastrophic conlusions that sponsors draw then the astronomical upcharge the media puts on it to sensationalize the catastrophic component of it all...

Remember we're all gonna die in 2012! (doomsayers conspiricy whackos)

Or-

We'll know by 2013 how catastrophic the weather changes will be- and It's too late now, nothign we will do can stop the eventual warming trends...

I paraphrase of course, but thats the jest of what gets to the typical american.:rolleyes:


You're paraphrasing so heavily that I do not recognise the content.

There is a sufficient body of data from reputable, peer reviewed, journals to discuss without picking out sensationalist garbage and saying that it proves it's all a lie. That is what I mean about closing your eyes to that which you refuse to see.

Jester;1108823 wrote: Actually, I believe it was Galbally that said we'll know by 2013, and that it may be too late to make any changes already.



And when those reputable peer reviewed articles come out and say difinitive statements intead of use terms like "MAY" and "POSSIBLY" then I'll pay more attention to them, but of course with I'll take what they are syaing with a grain of salt based on who sponsors the studies and who butters the scientific agencies bread.

Im sorry to say Bryn but most of these agencies shoot themslves in the foot by releasing data before it sproven, most of them end up changing opinion and then later down playing what the media reports.

Its not trustworthy anymore.


No scientific paper worth reading will *ever* say that it is totally proven that - it is always phrased in terms of probability. Beyond proving that we exist, everything is subject to observational inaccuracy and interpretation.

It was Spot who said that the Arctic ice cap would have totally melted by summer 2013 - Galbally suggested that it was possible that the effects we currently see were irreversible. What do you find in either of those statements to prove that global warming is a load of bunkum?

Read what is written without the blinkers. The evidence is overwhelming.

oscar;1107168 wrote: Are they working on this at the moment?

I am still trying to find a link to 'Gloabal dimming' i was talking of in another thread. I saw a documentary about how carbon emissions had actually created a smog in the atmosphere and it was that which was stopping the full penetration of the sun's rays by 'bouncing' back an amount of UV into space. It was just a theory until America had a no-fly zone for three days after 9/11. Scientists claimed that America heated up by 3 degree's during that three days. I shall continue to search for it.


You know, a 3% light increase might make sense there though I don't believe it but three degrees certainly doesn't.

If you can point me to "Scientists claimed" I'd be interested to read it.

spot;1109028 wrote: You know, a 3% light increase might make sense there though I don't believe it but three degrees certainly doesn't.

If you can point me to "Scientists claimed" I'd be interested to read it.


I did say that scientists had 'claimed' on that one Spot. I did find a link to global dimming and posed it some posts back.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon

I found the documentary i saw and my apologies as it says 1 degree after 9/11.

The rest is interesting reading though.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon

I'm rather startled by the 1 degree bit. If that's what he measured then that's what he measured.

I'm also surprised at the suggestion most of the effluent up there is from aircraft. When I commented on it two years ago I ascribed it to road traffic.

spot;1109047 wrote: I'm rather startled by the 1 degree bit. If that's what he measured then that's what he measured.

I'm also surprised at the suggestion most of the effluent up there is from aircraft. When I commented on it two years ago I ascribed it to road traffic.


The documentry was a fascinating insight to these theorie's. I do hope they will repeat it on TV one day.

He attributed the effluent to be from aircraft from the increase during the no-fly period after 9/11. Planes were grounded but road traffic was not and that helped his findings.

What i find more alarming is the research into sunlight in Israel by Dr Gerald Stanhill over the last 40 years... This has shown a 22% reduction attributed now to 'Global Dimming'.