Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)


Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!

powered by Surfing Waves

Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

    • CommentAuthorbella
    • CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
    Sorry about contributing to a hijack. Vaccination has nothing to do with Arctic Ice - except that scientific method matters to both. Will stop after this.

    Eddo the only references I recognise (1,4,6,8) in your list were about lack of efficacy not ill effects and fit with inactive vaccine or decline in immunity over time or effects of immuno-deficiency due to other factors (e.g. poor nutrition). Your Mr Classen was new to me. At risk of appearing obvious I note he has a potential financial interest and draws his net very wide.
    • CommentAuthorwookey
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015 edited
    Marktime, agreed. One thread trying to discuss global warming, the philosophy of science (vs mumbo-jumbo), cholesterol in diet and vaccine side-effects, would be completely out of control (and was rapidly heading that way).

    To get back to the subject:

    Tony: "Very interesting to hear such a lot of talk about global warming again. For a long while now the term has hardly been used, "climate change" being the preferred description."

    Both remain in heavy use, although I agree that there has been some trend since 2007 for more usage of CC than GW:

    Note that they are not exactly the same thing: GW causes CC, although many people use them interchangeably.

    Tony: We used to have hockey sticks which I criticised.

    We still have hockey sticks. At least 11 studies have replicated that work. The shape has changed somewhat since Mann et al 1998, but not the substance. Here's a modern hockey-stick:
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    "can't be displayed because it contains errors"
    So much for the hockey stick theory - straight from the machine's mouth!
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Here it is for you
      Hockey Stick.jpg
    • CommentAuthormarktime
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Ah! Tom. Here we have the solution to why you think the way you do, your computer is filtering the information coming to you. My laptop displays the graph perfectly, it's in "science is good" mode, whilst yours is in "advances come through cultural shifts" mode and is saying fiddlesticks to hockey sticks. :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthoratomicbisf
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    People have been claiming for years that there has been some sort of conspiracy to replace 'global warming' with 'climate change'. As usual this has no basis in fact - if one looks at the scientific literature both have been used since the issue emerged. But as usual the politicians and press etc who make these claims carry on despite all evidence because they think it's what some want to hear. It's a zombie claim because it keeps on being trotted out even though it is long dead.

    Now of course global warming and climate change are actually two slightly different but closely linked things. The Earth is undoubtedly warming as a whole (atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere etc) and this is changing the climate, because climate is more than just the Earths heat content.

    I'm glad Tamino's demolition of claims of a 'pause' has been posted because I think it demonstrates the so called pause is just a political/media talking point created by cherry picking rather than anything real. It may play well in the Mail or Telegraph, but it doesn't have any scientific reality.

    • CommentAuthormarktime
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Here's another hockey stick that does not augur well for the near future.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    And here are lots of hockey sticks: different reconstructions of the global temperatures for the last 1000 years or so using multiple data sources:

    Ah, the echo chamber alive and well
    • CommentAuthormarktime
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Note that the line to the extreme right under the blue shading is not an ordinate!
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015 edited
    I think that the problem is that over a human lifespan we see little change. This is especially true in the UK with our variable weather.
    Bill Bryson said this about our weather:
    "Sometimes it rained, but mostly it was just dull, a land without shadows. It was like living inside Tupperware." (Notes from a Small Island, 1995).
    Tacitus, the Roman historian said in 49:
    "The sky is overcast with continual rain and cloud"

    So little change in 1946 years.

    This is why we need to be less subjective and more objective to global temperatures, we cannot rely on our own feelings about weather, let alone climate.
    The British still hark on about 'the summer of 76', 39 years ago.
    But how good was it really.
    Just looking at mean UK temperatures, 1975 was warmer, as was 83, 89, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09. 2010 was colder.
    Looking back in time to 1910, 1911 was warmer, as was 21, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45, 49, 53, 57, 59
    So over this 100 year period (a long lifetime, my Grandmother saw most of it) and using 'the summer of 76' as a base, then in the years between 1910 and 1976, we had 13 hotter years in 66 years, since 1976 we have had 16 hotter years in 34 years.

    What people remember about '76 is the dryness and sunniness, not the temperature. They have confused themselves.
    Moral of this is to not trust opinion, just go look at the data for yourself, it is pretty easy to do.
      UK Temps.jpg
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015 edited
    Posted By: bot de pailleAh, the echo chamber alive and well
    Well, yes, lots of people are saying the same sorts of thing so this is not a terribly astute observation. Maybe you could contribute something useful (or even just interesting) on whether those things are true or not rather than only making oblique snide remarks that don't move the conversation forwards.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Regarding marktime's graph, it's worth noting that the last dip in CO₂ between about 120,000 years ago and 18,000 years ago was the last glaciation (“ice age”). Coming out of that corresponded to an increase in CO₂ from about 190 to 270 ppmv, an increase of 42%. Since then we've gone from 270 to 400 ppmv, another increase of about 48%. Since temperature seems to change in proportion to the log of the concentration it looks like where in for quite a big change in the world even keeping to 400 ppmv (for which we'd have to cease emissions pretty much immediately). As marktime so gently puts it, this doesn't auger well.
    • CommentAuthormarktime
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Posted By: SteamyTeaI think that the problem is that over a human lifespan we see little change.

    I think that may have been true for the past, it may not be true for the future.
    • CommentAuthorSeret
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Posted By: EddoFor example, is light a wave or a particle? It behaves either way depending on the intention of the observer. Does this mean some part of consciousness is creative? In which case we are God, whatever that means?

    Hear this one a lot, and it bugs me. The double slit experiment gets abused a lot by hippies. The only thing the wave-particle duality tells us is that the wave model and the particle model only accurately represent some properties of the real world. Light doesn't change form between waves and particles; in reality it's never a wave and never a particle. They're inaccurate models that we use because they're accurate enough in certain circumstances and are simple to understand.
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015
    Posted By: SeretThey're inaccurate models that we use because they're accurate enough in certain circumstances and are simple to understand.
    Certainly simpler than collapsing a statistical wave function. You either know the position, or the momentum, not both.
    This is not so odd though as any photographer knows about this.:bigsmile:
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2015 edited
    Posted By: marktimeMy laptop displays the graph perfectly, it's in "science is good" mode, whilst yours is in "advances come through cultural shifts" mode and is saying fiddlesticks to hockey sticks.
      contains errors.JPG
    • CommentAuthorwookey
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2015 edited
    Bot still doesn't want to understand it, despite the ever-more-clear evidence, but has run out of actual realistic counter arguments (that don't make him look a complete idiot, and both we and he know he's not a complete idiot), so sniping is all he has left.

    Come on Bot, I know it's hard to give up on an idea you've invested a lot in, but you must see that global warming is real, is controlled largely by atmospheric CO2 levels, is almost entirely anthropogenic, and is corroborated by paleohistory as well as models. What do you gain by ignoring reality? How about trying the University of Queensland's 'MOOC' online course 'Making sense of Climate Denial' https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x

    If you still don't believe a word of it after sitting through that lot then fair enough.

    Richard Alley is very good if you want a neutral summary of the various possible climate control knobs, and what paleo records (rocks, icecores) tell us about which knobs control what and which effects are most significant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g (42 mins for quick run-through of 4.6 billions years). That's from 2009, but is still a very interesting and relevant watch.
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   

© Green Building Press