Climate Change, real or codswallop?

always_tyred

Rich158 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Is global warming/cooling cyclical in some way? Why is the global warming now different to that which presumably occurred after the last Ice Age?

Absolutely, it always has been and that fact is at the centre of the heretics arguments. What is known is that there is a direct correlation between the rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. The global temperature usually fluctuates by something like 1 degree Celsius if records are to be believed. This is projected to rise by something like 2-4 degrees over the next 100 years if the projections are correct. In the same period CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are set to double. Is there a correlation between the two? Most scientists seem to think there is, and in a delicate system like the global atmosphere a 4 degree rise could be disasterous.

Global temperatture fluctuates by far more than 1degC. However, the point is, over what time scale? As I understand things, the current temperature rises have taken place at a rate which us unmatched.

Wooliferkins

Wallace1492 wrote:

We will be Easter Island gone large.

I'm not learning to sculpt! Shan't, Can't, Won't, Make Me!

Christophe3967

cjcp wrote:

I'm not very up on the CC/GW arguments, I'm afraid :oops: , but could someone explain to me:

1. whether the increase in the world's population is a bigger problem, or a big part of it? If you put more and more people in a pub during an evening (more festive than saying "a room" ), the temperature inside the room goes up, doesn't it? If so, why doesn't the same apply to the world because there's more people breathing out CO2? Or is the activites which the increased number of people are engaging in e.g. factories etc?

2. as Wallace says, we're perfectly capable of destroying ourselves. Noam Chomsky pointed out that each of the dominant species on this planet has had a particular life span. While there are no set time-frames, he thought that we were pretty much at the end of ours and that this had to do with the foreign policy of certain govts (ok, the US), than GW/CC. If this is right, aren't there bigger issues than CC/GW to deal with and whether we drive around in SUVs, and that CC/GW is just a sideshow for governments' failings to deal with bigger problems e.g. nuclear bombs? *

3. finally, a bit OT, but why do we need summits? Am I right in thinking that resource consumption can probably be reduced significantly by national legislation; it doesn't need everyone and his dog to gather for a summit and look as if they're doing something (see the "sideshow" point above).

*This is not to detract from the argument that we can all resources more economically.

1. Population growth is surely the biggest challenge the world faces. Food and water will become scarcer with asian countries facing particular challenges feeding themselves as they become wealthier and move away from their current diet to a western diet, which uses far more resource.

2. Populations have always waxed and waned. Often there is a connection with climate. This time it might well be linked with the upcoming lack of food and water. I would agree that the AGW "debate" is a side-show. Rather than spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist we could be using the money to increase gene research, or improve fresh water provision in Africa for example.

3. The carbon footprint at the Copenhagen Summit has been calculated to be equivalent to that of Morocco's annual emissions. 150 private jets, 1200 limos, 5 electric cars. They ran out of room for the private jets at the airport and they had to drive limos from Germany and Sweden as there weren't enough in Denmark. Meanwhile the Queen went to Sandringham on the train, whilst her son flew to Copenhagen by private jet to lecture the world about reducing pollution. Had they been really concerned about the planet they could have had a tele-conference. The conference accomplished nothing towards binding emissions targets to replace the expiring provisions in the existing Kyoto Protocol, which is hardly suprising, given that the WTO Doha round has still to be agreed 9 years after it opened. But at least the policticians had a love in with themselves, so that's OK :roll:

greg66_tri_v2.0

Wallace1492 wrote:

Let's face it, we do not dererve to survive. We have destroyed each other and the face of the planet in a way that is so unimaginable, it beggars belief.

Woah, neddy. Easy on the guilt trip. You'll never get anything useful done if one hand is spent flagellating yourself (gnurk).

The thing is though that humans have the ability to control their environment. Beyond simply finding shelter from the rain (ie a cave, or a big leaf), we build artificial structures in which we live.

A change in the earth's climate might make some areas less habitable (although there are plenty that are already uninhabitable, even excluding places like Deptford and Grays). But I don't buy for a second that every place on earth would suffer a downgrade in its habitability. Populations would have to migrate, that's all there is to it. One could say that the migration is in fact more reflective of historical human nature than the fixed settlements we now have (although I'm quite prepared to accept that the cessation of migratory behaviour in favour of fixed settlements opened the door to pre-industrial and industrial development).

Even something like mass depletion of the ozone layer to the extent that it would become toxic to wander around outdoors wouldn't be a show stopper. We would just have to build structures large enough to allow large populations to live indoors. There's no point pretending that we couldn't, or wouldn't. If the choice were that or extinction, there's no choice.

Leaving aside the whole is it/isn't it happening, and the what's the cause arguments, I find it odd that given we have evolved in a dynamic environment, we now want to freeze (no pun) it so as to preserve our marvellous cities, countries, infrastructures, and so on.

deptfordmarmoset

(although there are plenty that are already uninhabitable, even excluding places like Deptford and Grays)

Deptfordist!

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Let's face it, we do not dererve to survive. We have destroyed each other and the face of the planet in a way that is so unimaginable, it beggars belief.

Woah, neddy. Easy on the guilt trip. You'll never get anything useful done if one hand is spent flagellating yourself (gnurk).

The thing is though that humans have the ability to control their environment. Beyond simply finding shelter from the rain (ie a cave, or a big leaf), we build artificial structures in which we live.

A change in the earth's climate might make some areas less habitable (although there are plenty that are already uninhabitable, even excluding places like Deptford and Grays). But I don't buy for a second that every place on earth would suffer a downgrade in its habitability. Populations would have to migrate, that's all there is to it. One could say that the migration is in fact more reflective of historical human nature than the fixed settlements we now have (although I'm quite prepared to accept that the cessation of migratory behaviour in favour of fixed settlements opened the door to pre-industrial and industrial development).

Even something like mass depletion of the ozone layer to the extent that it would become toxic to wander around outdoors wouldn't be a show stopper. We would just have to build structures large enough to allow large populations to live indoors. There's no point pretending that we couldn't, or wouldn't. If the choice were that or extinction, there's no choice.

Leaving aside the whole is it/isn't it happening, and the what's the cause arguments, I find it odd that given we have evolved in a dynamic environment, we now want to freeze (no pun) it so as to preserve our marvellous cities, countries, infrastructures, and so on.

Are you possibly missing a point that we, as a human population, don't all live in marvellous cities and countries with infrastructures.

I don't know if Climate Change is real or imagined, man made or natural, however I know one thing as a absolute certainty.

The impact of any climate change won't be equal, those least able to cope will suffer most, any by many accounts already are.

Those in the Western world will have to adapt their lifestyles to cope with any change, those in the developing world may not be able.

Christophe3967

Il Principe wrote:

Meanwhile I shall keep trapping all the carbon I can afford, in bike form.

Outed - a denialist with a carbon fetish. We have ways of dealing with your type.

Wallace1492

Greg66 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Let's face it, we do not dererve to survive. We have destroyed each other and the face of the planet in a way that is so unimaginable, it beggars belief.

Woah, neddy. Easy on the guilt trip. You'll never get anything useful done if one hand is spent flagellating yourself (gnurk).

The thing is though that humans have the ability to control their environment. Beyond simply finding shelter from the rain (ie a cave, or a big leaf), we build artificial structures in which we live.

A change in the earth's climate might make some areas less habitable (although there are plenty that are already uninhabitable, even excluding places like Deptford and Grays). But I don't buy for a second that every place on earth would suffer a downgrade in its habitability. Populations would have to migrate, that's all there is to it. One could say that the migration is in fact more reflective of historical human nature than the fixed settlements we now have (although I'm quite prepared to accept that the cessation of migratory behaviour in favour of fixed settlements opened the door to pre-industrial and industrial development).

Even something like mass depletion of the ozone layer to the extent that it would become toxic to wander around outdoors wouldn't be a show stopper. We would just have to build structures large enough to allow large populations to live indoors. There's no point pretending that we couldn't, or wouldn't. If the choice were that or extinction, there's no choice.

Leaving aside the whole is it/isn't it happening, and the what's the cause arguments, I find it odd that given we have evolved in a dynamic environment, we now want to freeze (no pun) it so as to preserve our marvellous cities, countries, infrastructures, and so on.

I am not guilty about it in any way. I speak only the truth. No other species has destroyed itself and the planet in the way we have. There is no question of it.

We have the ability to control the environment, just like we have the ability to be at peace and not kill each other. Get real!!

Building indoor environments? Yeah right..... and just how many will fit in them? Millions? Hundreds of thousands? No chance. If that was done, would be no more than lifeboats and would be unsustainable.

I am very open minded, but my long term view is that we will destroy ourselves. Will have been top dog for a good while, and I honestly believe that will change in the future, some other species will take over.

It is evelution, there is nothing we can do to stop it....

always_tyred

cjcp wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Slightly dubious as I am about CO2 being the be-all and (particularly the) end-all with global warming, I do believe it's a useful, albiet blunt instrument to get people to use less fossil fuels. "We'll run out someday", just doesn't work worldwide.

Actually, following on my point 1 above, and UE's point, I don't see how putting plants in the pub keeps the temp down if more and more people enter the room. I know that sounds flippant, but I was no scientist at school and een less of one now, so if someone could explain the CO2 point, or how I've misunderstood it, that would also be good.

Plants keep the surroundings cold due to surface respiration. Evaporation, basically. Same effect as descending a long hill when sweaty. (Did you like how I worked a cycling analogy in there?)

CO2 absorbs electromagnetic (light) radiation from the sun. Energy that is diffracted or reflected back out of the atmosphere in the absence of CO2 is absorbed, stored and transmitted back into the atmosphere by "greenhouse gasses" as heat. i.e. a molecule absorbs light energy, becomes excited and moves around a bit faster, which means it hotter.

Its really very similar to the selective absorption of microwaves by water molecules. For example, the water molecules in the bit of your brain near the ear you hold your mobile phone up to.

Christophe3967

Wallace1492 wrote:

I am very open minded, but my long term view is that we will destroy ourselves. Will have been top dog for a good while, and I honestly believe that will change in the future, some other species will take over.

It is evelution, there is nothing we can do to stop it....

lost_in_thought

Wallace1492 wrote:

I am not guilty about it in any way. I speak only the truth. No other species has destroyed itself and the planet in the way we have. There is no question of it.

We have the ability to control the environment, just like we have the ability to be at peace and not kill each other. Get real!!

<snip>

I am very open minded, but my long term view is that we will destroy ourselves. Will have been top dog for a good while, and I honestly believe that will change in the future, some other species will take over.

It is evelution, there is nothing we can do to stop it....

Hang on a mo there... 'I speak the truth'?

For all we know, us lot are just a blip on the grand evolutionary scale of things, and sure in a fair old while we may well all be gone, or evolved away or something. Being top dog doesn't mean we're doomed. Have you been watching too much sci-fi?

Also, I can't help but think that there may well be a vast spinning rock that remains long after we're gone, even if I do continue to fly to Australia on a yearly basis and run 3 cars.

Lastly, I'm afraid I don't believe we have the ability to be at peace and not kill each other, it's part of the human condition, dude.

Wallace1492

lost_in_thought wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I am not guilty about it in any way. I speak only the truth. No other species has destroyed itself and the planet in the way we have. There is no question of it.

We have the ability to control the environment, just like we have the ability to be at peace and not kill each other. Get real!!

<snip>

I am very open minded, but my long term view is that we will destroy ourselves. Will have been top dog for a good while, and I honestly believe that will change in the future, some other species will take over.

It is evelution, there is nothing we can do to stop it....

Hang on a mo there... 'I speak the truth'?

For all we know, us lot are just a blip on the grand evolutionary scale of things, and sure in a fair old while we may well all be gone, or evolved away or something. Being top dog doesn't mean we're doomed. Have you been watching too much sci-fi?

Also, I can't help but think that there may well be a vast spinning rock that remains long after we're gone, even if I do continue to fly to Australia on a yearly basis and run 3 cars.

Lastly, I'm afraid I don't believe we have the ability to be at peace and not kill each other, it's part of the human condition, dude.

The bit about being at peace was irony, as in we will never be at peace, and we will never get concensus to control the environment.

I agree that we are a blip on the evolutionary scale, but this blip has destroyed itself more than any other species. And I believe destroyed others more than any other species in the history of the planet. If it was Sci Fi, there would be a happy ending..... I don't think there will be for humans.

However, the rock will be there long after we go, unless we collapse into the sun, or a gigantic meteor, pulverises into debris, or the sun stops shining....... hold on didn't I read that in OMNI?

And yer, I like my long haul too!!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Wallace1492 wrote:

hold on didn't I read that in OMNI?

Ooohhh! OMNI!

Good call! A real blast from the past.

lost_in_thought

Wallace1492 wrote:

The bit about being at peace was irony, as in we will never be at peace, and we will never get concensus to control the environment.

I agree that we are a blip on the evolutionary scale, but this blip has destroyed itself more than any other species. And I believe destroyed others more than any other species in the history of the planet. If it was Sci Fi, there would be a happy ending..... I don't think there will be for humans.

However, the rock will be there long after we go, unless we collapse into the sun, or a gigantic meteor, pulverises into debris, or the sun stops shining....... hold on didn't I read that in OMNI?

And yer, I like my long haul too!!

Ooooh I think us humans have actually done rather a lot to further ourselves. Did dinosaurs have cars? Houses? Did triceratops have soda-streams? I don't think so, girlfriend.

And they totally ate other dinosaurs. I've got proof. We're like totally om nom nom nom domesticated animals, but they ate each other, the b@stards. They're worse. And they're all dead, so yeah, I think we're doing a bit better than them.

Sucked in, dinosaurs. We rule.

Christophe3967

You just need to read your bibles to see what's going to happen to us.

“Blessed are the meerkats: for they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5

Then again, you can't rule out elves. They could take us all by surprise.

Wallace1492

lost_in_thought wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

The bit about being at peace was irony, as in we will never be at peace, and we will never get concensus to control the environment.

I agree that we are a blip on the evolutionary scale, but this blip has destroyed itself more than any other species. And I believe destroyed others more than any other species in the history of the planet. If it was Sci Fi, there would be a happy ending..... I don't think there will be for humans.

However, the rock will be there long after we go, unless we collapse into the sun, or a gigantic meteor, pulverises into debris, or the sun stops shining....... hold on didn't I read that in OMNI?

And yer, I like my long haul too!!

Ooooh I think us humans have actually done rather a lot to further ourselves. Did dinosaurs have cars? Houses? Did triceratops have soda-streams? I don't think so, girlfriend.

And they totally ate other dinosaurs. I've got proof. We're like totally om nom nom nom domesticated animals, but they ate each other, the b@stards. They're worse. And they're all dead, so yeah, I think we're doing a bit better than them.

Sucked in, dinosaurs. We rule.

Did dinosaurs have machine guns, did they have atomic bombs, aircraft carriers, topedoes or Lada's?

We are mamals, we eat other mamals, by the bucketload, but not only that, we crush some species and feed them to vegetarian species, we make cows eat pigs and chicken.... makes for a more interesting sunday roast mind you!

Th dino's only ate what they needed, we do more. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to be alive here at what is possibly the zenith of human existance. But can't help feeling the downhill rollercoaster will start rolling quite soon.

tailwindhome

Wallace1492 wrote:

Did dinosaurs have machine guns.

No

But wouldn't it have been awesome

Wallace1492

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Did dinosaurs have machine guns.

No

But wouldn't it have been awesome

Nice thought!!

magicrhodes

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Did dinosaurs have machine guns.

No

But wouldn't it have been awesome

T-Rexes would have been rubbish with those stubby little arms.... unless they came out like (warning flash of brilliance occuring) ZOIDS!

magicrhodes

Now thats heavy weaponry!

lost_in_thought

Wallace1492 wrote:

Did dinosaurs have machine guns, did they have atomic bombs, aircraft carriers, topedoes or Lada's?

We are mamals, we eat other mamals, by the bucketload, but not only that, we crush some species and feed them to vegetarian species, we make cows eat pigs and chicken.... makes for a more interesting sunday roast mind you!

Th dino's only ate what they needed, we do more. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to be alive here at what is possibly the zenith of human existance. But can't help feeling the downhill rollercoaster will start rolling quite soon.

Exactly! See, even more proof that we RULE. I'm so glad you agree. If dinosaurs had missiles they'd totally have blasted that meteor that possibly caused their extinction out of the sky, man.

Oh and it serves the other species right for being vegetarians. And they're the ones that eat it. Lastly, how do you know the dinosaurs only ate what they needed? Hmmmmmmm?

Wallace1492

How the dinosuars really died out:

cee

dinosaurs with machine guns? thats ridiculous....everyone knows that the trex flies an f14



Is the climate changing.....Yes
Has it happened before....Yes
Have we accelerated the process.....hmmmm probably, but how much damage to a system that is millions of years old really be done by an industrial revolution that in reality has only been going for a couple of hundred years?

Wallace1492

cee wrote:

dinosaurs with machine guns? thats ridiculous....everyone knows that the trex flies an f14



Is the climate changing.....Yes
Has it happened before....Yes
Have we accelerated the process.....hmmmm probably, but how much damage to a system that is millions of years old really be done by an industrial revolution that in reality has only been going for a couple of hundred years?

Nice one, but as you should know, the F14, like the dinosaur is now extinct.

Time is relative. We can destroy in a few seconds what it took millions of years to create. We already have the power of life and death over all life on this planet. Yet we as a species can be incredibly destructive and unreliably.

We are the Gods of our domain, yet with out the humility, compassion and understabnding that should go with it. We have the ability to do so much good, but also the nature to do such despicable evil.

Sewinman

The answer to the poll is that it does not matter if its codswallop - governments (particularly the EU) are applying the 'precautionary principle'.

cee

Sewinman wrote:

The answer to the poll is that it does not matter if its codswallop - governments (particularly the EU) are applying the 'precautionary principle'.

you dont mean.......launch the t-rex f14's.....

cee

Wallace1492 wrote:

Nice one, but as you should know, the F14, like the dinosaur is now extinct.

pah..as you should know....it must be true its in colour and everything!

cee

Wallace1492 wrote:

Nice one, but as you should know, the F14, like the dinosaur is now extinct.

pah..as you should know....it must be true its in colour and everything!

DonDaddyD

I reckon our next evolutionary step is to have powers that will allow us to control the weather, water molecules, infra-red and the like. That way we can save the planet and be superheroes.

In fact, I'm just going to inject myself with something radioactive and hope for the best....

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

I reckon our next evolutionary step is to have powers that will allow us to control the weather, water molecules, infra-red and the like. That way we can save the planet and be superheroes.

In fact, I'm just going to inject myself with something radioactive and hope for the beast....

Fixed that for you!!