Thoughts: Lack of oil wont stop increase in motorists

cee

if the worlds greatest climatologists can't agree between them what is happening, who caused what, who sped what up, what can stop what and what can't....

How are we supposed to?

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

As I said, I would love to be proved wrong, but I haven't really seen any evidence out there that global warming isn't happening or that it's not man made.

You just can't get my point. You seem to believe that unless someone employs the same rhetoric, they disagree with you. It is what makes the climate change debate more like a religious following than a discussion relating to science.

As I said in my previous post - what makes you think I disagree with the above premise?


(Incidentally, if you haven't seen any evidence that global warming isn't happening, then you haven't objectively looked at the evidence. It is true to say that there is a preponderance of evidence that it is, but not true to say that there is none that contradicts the notion.)

I think I get what you're saying, you seem to believe in some kind of third way and that it'll be alright at the end of the day? Is that it?

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

Isn't that just the natural progression of the planet though?

Land masses sinking moving etc.

Land mass on the Earth didn't always look the way it does now and it previously changed, long before we could blame ourselves or supposedly do anything to be blamed about.

I think half the fear is bought about because we are aware of changing climates, moving land masses and what could potentially cause it.

I had this debate at work. I just don't see how my recycling and re-using a plastic bag could is going to help stop a Island from sinking. Butterfly's don't cause hurricanes.

Certainly it's the natural progression for the planet, but over millions or billions of years. Not a single generation.... That's just it - it's scary because we CAN see what's happening, these changes should be taking place so slowly that they are imperceptible in a human lifetinme.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

Isn't that just the natural progression of the planet though?

Land masses sinking moving etc.

Land mass on the Earth didn't always look the way it does now and it previously changed, long before we could blame ourselves or supposedly do anything to be blamed about.

I think half the fear is bought about because we are aware of changing climates, moving land masses and what could potentially cause it.

I had this debate at work. I just don't see how my recycling and re-using a plastic bag could is going to help stop a Island from sinking. Butterfly's don't cause hurricanes.

Certainly it's the natural progression for the planet, but over millions or billions of years. Not a single generation.... That's just it - it's scary because we CAN see what's happening, these changes should be taking place so slowly that they are imperceptible in a human lifetinme.

But we don't know that any change this time round will happen in a generation (which is what 20yrs)?

Also, we don't truly know how long or how shot a dramatic change, if any, took to take shape.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

Isn't that just the natural progression of the planet though?

Land masses sinking moving etc.

Land mass on the Earth didn't always look the way it does now and it previously changed, long before we could blame ourselves or supposedly do anything to be blamed about.

I think half the fear is bought about because we are aware of changing climates, moving land masses and what could potentially cause it.

I had this debate at work. I just don't see how my recycling and re-using a plastic bag could is going to help stop a Island from sinking. Butterfly's don't cause hurricanes.

Certainly it's the natural progression for the planet, but over millions or billions of years. Not a single generation.... That's just it - it's scary because we CAN see what's happening, these changes should be taking place so slowly that they are imperceptible in a human lifetinme.

But we don't know that any change this time round will happen in a generation (which is what 20yrs)?

Also, we don't truly know how long or how shot a dramatic change, if any, took to take shape.

Certainly we don't know what the future holds and how extensive climate changes will be, but we can already see the melting of polar ice caps, drought across Africa, extreme monsoon in India, increased quantity of hurricanes off the coast of the USA etc, even increased flooding in our own little island.

Beeblebrox

Blimey, some of you seem very worried. The effects of Climate Change will be a long time in actually making a significant difference to any human population - we'll have time to adapt, build our way out of trouble and hopefully reduce our overall impact on the environment.

We still haven't entirely finished sorting out our local and global environmental impact yet - especially in developing countries... getting overly worried about CO2 is jumping the gun a bit.

Literally no-one on this forum will feel the impact of Climate Change except through tax raises.

always_tyred

Certainly it's the natural progression for the planet, but over millions or billions of years. Not a single generation.... That's just it - it's scary because we CAN see what's happening, these changes should be taking place so slowly that they are imperceptible in a human lifetinme.

Neither of these propositions are correct. The timescales of previous climate change events have varied, but transitions between ice ages and interglacial periods have been across 1000's or tens of thousands of years, and fossil records show occasional far more rapid events over 100's years.

There are even more rapid events than this, which have been attributed to cataclysmic events such as vulcanism or meteor strike, however as I understand it, the explanations for these extremely sudden events are not known.

Even the mini-ice age of the 17th century came and went in about 70 years.

None of which contradicts the notion that there is man made climate change, but I do wonder if your views are coloured by a misunderstanding of how the climate fluctuates anyway.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

I think I get what you're saying, you seem to believe in some kind of third way and that it'll be alright at the end of the day? Is that it?

Nope. It will be sh!t. Lots of people in countries other than the UK will suffer horribly due to heavy rain (and other climatic events) and being unable to build sea walls to fend of sea level rises. In other places, where there is occasional drought, there will be less occasional drought, and so forth.

We in the UK will all be inconvenienced by heavy rainfall events and snow events and whinge about the need to invest in sea walls (which, to be honest is not too bad).

But more extreme interpretations such as a change in the position of the gulf stream or its cessation entirely, or the desertification of most of Africa, or the submersion of half of Europe, will not (in my view) happen.

However best efforts at minimizing the effects should be made, because the effects of the more modest predictions will be bad enough. Hence, no need to invoke hyperbole.

Headhuunter

Beeblebrox wrote:

Blimey, some of you seem very worried. The effects of Climate Change will be a long time in actually making a significant difference to any human population - we'll have time to adapt, build our way out of trouble and hopefully reduce our overall impact on the environment.

We still haven't entirely finished sorting out our local and global environmental impact yet - especially in developing countries... getting overly worried about CO2 is jumping the gun a bit.

Literally no-one on this forum will feel the impact of Climate Change except through tax raises.

See seems to be the view of the average man on the street.... It won't affect me for many years, it may not even affect me at all, so feck it, I'll carry on as before. Wake up! Significant change is already occuring as mentioned earlier in the thread! Many scientists believe we will experience further rapid change within our lifetimes (assuming you're not already 70 years old or something...)

Eau Rouge

DonDaddyD wrote:

I had this debate at work. I just don't see how my recycling and re-using a plastic bag could is going to help stop a Island from sinking. Butterfly's don't cause hurricanes.

Recycling and plastic bags isn't a global warming issue, it just gets hijacked that way. In many ways it's far more important than that. Landfill sites are nothing short of a pain. Nobody wants one anywhere near their part of the world, you can't put them near cities, and of you try and put one in the countryside everyone is up in arms about ruining the natural beauty of the place. Yet we have to have them, and a lot of the ones we have are nearing the end of their lives, new ones will need to be found. It's all an absolute pain.
Recycling custs the waste that goes into landfill, and so can only be a very good thing.

Boring discussion of national infrastructure causes people's eyes to glaze over, and landfills are such bad news nobody involved dare utter the word in public, so that old meaningless mantra "save the world" is hijacked yet again instead.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Certainly it's the natural progression for the planet, but over millions or billions of years. Not a single generation.... That's just it - it's scary because we CAN see what's happening, these changes should be taking place so slowly that they are imperceptible in a human lifetinme.

Neither of these propositions are correct. The timescales of previous climate change events have varied, but transitions between ice ages and interglacial periods have been across 1000's or tens of thousands of years, and fossil records show occasional far more rapid events over 100's years.

There are even more rapid events than this, which have been attributed to cataclysmic events such as vulcanism or meteor strike, however as I understand it, the explanations for these extremely sudden events are not known.

Even the mini-ice age of the 17th century came and went in about 70 years.

None of which contradicts the notion that there is man made climate change, but I do wonder if your views are coloured by a misunderstanding of how the climate fluctuates anyway.

OK, so most climatic changes take place over at least 10s of thousands of years, rather than a generation. Meteor strike and vulanism is irrelevant - I'm not talking about sudden cataclysmic events, I'm talking about manmade emmissions causing rapid climatic change. Certainly there have been events sucgh as "mini ice ages" (the 17th century) and following that heating events (in the 18th century). As you say, this does not change the effect man is having on the climatic environment in a very short space of time to potentially disastrous effect.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I think I get what you're saying, you seem to believe in some kind of third way and that it'll be alright at the end of the day? Is that it?

Nope. It will be sh!t. Lots of people in countries other than the UK will suffer horribly due to heavy rain (and other climatic events) and being unable to build sea walls to fend of sea level rises. In other places, where there is occasional drought, there will be less occasional drought, and so forth.

We in the UK will all be inconvenienced by heavy rainfall events and snow events and whinge about the need to invest in sea walls (which, to be honest is not too bad).

But more extreme interpretations such as a change in the position of the gulf stream or its cessation entirely, or the desertification of most of Africa, or the submersion of half of Europe, will not (in my view) happen.

However best efforts at minimizing the effects should be made, because the effects of the more modest predictions will be bad enough. Hence, no need to invoke hyperbole.

The degree to which climate change affects our lives has yet to be seen. I hope that you're right and I'm wrong. Out of interest, why do you not believe that Africa will not be desert and that large parts of Europe will not be underwater? I mean, what will stop the process in your view?

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

See seems to be the view of the average man on the street.... It won't affect me for many years, it may not even affect me at all, so feck it, I'll carry on as before. Wake up! Significant change is already occuring as mentioned earlier in the thread! Many scientists believe we will experience further rapid change within our lifetimes (assuming you're not already 70 years old or something...)

But we don't know what we should be caring about and that's half the problem.

No can definitively say what is causing climate change and what an truly be done to stop or if it should be stopped at all. For all those that say recycle, greener fuels, there are those that put up counter arguments that these solutions in and of themselves are even more detrimental.

Increase in bio-fuel production for example meant that production in food crops reduced jacking the price in rice (and other such foods) meaning that people in poorer countries went for less. And this is my point give a truly proper better and sustainable solution to the problem and not some immediate halfway house that ultimately when investigated fully does more damage than good.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

OK, so most climatic changes take place over at least 10s of thousands of years, rather than a generation. Meteor strike and vulanism is irrelevant - I'm not talking about sudden cataclysmic events, I'm talking about manmade emmissions causing rapid climatic change. Certainly there have been events sucgh as "mini ice ages" (the 17th century) and following that heating events (in the 18th century). As you say, this does not change the effect man is having on the climatic environment in a very short space of time to potentially disastrous effect.

Most ...... over at least..... ?

Are you a journalist? You should be. My post could be paraphrased as:

Some .... upto....

No, it doesn't change the fact that man is changing the climate, however it does suggest that you are prone to exaggeration. And given that non-man made climate events over a couple of generations, or (locally) 1ish degree have taken place, people are at least entitled to ask whether or not we are, in fact, in another one.

I don't think we are, but the "fact" is that we don't actually know.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

See seems to be the view of the average man on the street.... It won't affect me for many years, it may not even affect me at all, so feck it, I'll carry on as before. Wake up! Significant change is already occuring as mentioned earlier in the thread! Many scientists believe we will experience further rapid change within our lifetimes (assuming you're not already 70 years old or something...)

But we don't know what we should be caring about and that's half the problem.

No can definitively say what is causing climate change and what an truly be done to stop or if it should be stopped at all. For all those that say recycle, greener fuels, there are those that put up counter arguments that these solutions in and of themselves are even more detrimental.

Increase in bio-fuel production for example meant that production in food crops reduced jacking the price in rice (and other such foods) meaning that people in poorer countries went for less. And this is my point give a truly proper better and sustainable solution to the problem and not some immediate halfway house that ultimately when investigated fully does more damage than good.

Eh? I think everyone should care! No one actually tries to argue that climate change isn't happening - It's definitely occuring. The only discussion is the cause (most people and scientists now admit that man made emmissions are to blame) or whether it is a natural process. Either way, mankind is in for a rough ride as we have already seen!

Certainly no one has a definitive solution. As you point out, many eco fulels cause greater problems than they solve. The only temporary solution appears to be is some kind of unilateral agreement on reduction of emmissions through reduction of waste, focus on tdevelopment of more effiicient and cleaner technology etc

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

The degree to which climate change affects our lives has yet to be seen. I hope that you're right and I'm wrong. Out of interest, why do you not believe that Africa will not be desert and that large parts of Europe will not be underwater? I mean, what will stop the process in your view?

Nothing, they just won't happen.

If a "scientist" quotes a temp change of around 1 degree but possibly between 0.5 and 10 degrees, you would interpret that as up to ten degrees, then wind yourself up a bit and assume that its 5 to 10 degrees and then almost certainly nearly 10 degrees.

It doesn't change the estimate itself.

So, you think 10, I think 1 (these are just convenient figures, by the way) and for that reason I don't think the consequences of a 10 degree rise will transpire.

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

OK, so most climatic changes take place over at least 10s of thousands of years, rather than a generation. Meteor strike and vulanism is irrelevant - I'm not talking about sudden cataclysmic events, I'm talking about manmade emmissions causing rapid climatic change. Certainly there have been events sucgh as "mini ice ages" (the 17th century) and following that heating events (in the 18th century). As you say, this does not change the effect man is having on the climatic environment in a very short space of time to potentially disastrous effect.

Most ...... over at least..... ?

Are you a journalist? You should be. My post could be paraphrased as:

Some .... upto....

No, it doesn't change the fact that man is changing the climate, however it does suggest that you are prone to exaggeration. And given that non-man made climate events over a couple of generations, or (locally) 1ish degree have taken place, people are at least entitled to ask whether or not we are, in fact, in another one.

I don't think we are, but the "fact" is that we don't actually know.

The trouble is while we 'cite' the 'mini ice age' what is the tempreture change to indicate an 'ice age'? We can't blame that on anything but nature because they didn't have enough technology to affect the planets climate (unless star gate is real).

As for this supposed climate change surely we won't know if it is real or not until after it has happened if it is happening at all because the effects aren't dramatic enough (yet).

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

OK, so most climatic changes take place over at least 10s of thousands of years, rather than a generation. Meteor strike and vulanism is irrelevant - I'm not talking about sudden cataclysmic events, I'm talking about manmade emmissions causing rapid climatic change. Certainly there have been events sucgh as "mini ice ages" (the 17th century) and following that heating events (in the 18th century). As you say, this does not change the effect man is having on the climatic environment in a very short space of time to potentially disastrous effect.

Most ...... over at least..... ?

Are you a journalist? You should be. My post could be paraphrased as:

Some .... upto....

No, it doesn't change the fact that man is changing the climate, however it does suggest that you are prone to exaggeration. And given that non-man made climate events over a couple of generations, or (locally) 1ish degree have taken place, people are at least entitled to ask whether or not we are, in fact, in another one.

I don't think we are, but the "fact" is that we don't actually know.

I agreed before that we don't know. You believe I am exaggerating the problem, I believe you are underestimating the potential effects. Only time will tell, but wouldn't it be better to be more cautious when it comes to possible knock on global problems and actually do something solid now?

Beeblebrox

Headhuunter wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Blimey, some of you seem very worried. The effects of Climate Change will be a long time in actually making a significant difference to any human population - we'll have time to adapt, build our way out of trouble and hopefully reduce our overall impact on the environment.

We still haven't entirely finished sorting out our local and global environmental impact yet - especially in developing countries... getting overly worried about CO2 is jumping the gun a bit.

Literally no-one on this forum will feel the impact of Climate Change except through tax raises.

See seems to be the view of the average man on the street.... It won't affect me for many years, it may not even affect me at all, so feck it, I'll carry on as before. Wake up! Significant change is already occuring as mentioned earlier in the thread! Many scientists believe we will experience further rapid change within our lifetimes (assuming you're not already 70 years old or something...)

Not really, you cannot point to flooding or drought in any given year and say it's a result of Climate Change. Only over many years will that become evident... until then it's as easily yearly variation than anything more insidious.

Rapid change in terms of climate is hundreds of years instead of thousands... devastating for parts of the natural environment, but the change is still spread out over several generations who should, through construction and migration, deal with it without too much problem.

I'm not a 'denier' of the science, but I don't buy into scaremongering... indeed, in my field of Civil Engineering, it's just another thing to take into account when designing: anticipate flood levels will rise, that energy costs will rise etc.
I mean... some people are more worried about the CO2 released from Chinese power stations instead of the acid rain, which causes more immediate harm to the environment. That seems crazy to me.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

OK, so most climatic changes take place over at least 10s of thousands of years, rather than a generation. Meteor strike and vulanism is irrelevant - I'm not talking about sudden cataclysmic events, I'm talking about manmade emmissions causing rapid climatic change. Certainly there have been events sucgh as "mini ice ages" (the 17th century) and following that heating events (in the 18th century). As you say, this does not change the effect man is having on the climatic environment in a very short space of time to potentially disastrous effect.

Most ...... over at least..... ?

Are you a journalist? You should be. My post could be paraphrased as:

Some .... upto....

No, it doesn't change the fact that man is changing the climate, however it does suggest that you are prone to exaggeration. And given that non-man made climate events over a couple of generations, or (locally) 1ish degree have taken place, people are at least entitled to ask whether or not we are, in fact, in another one.

I don't think we are, but the "fact" is that we don't actually know.

The trouble is while we 'cite' the 'mini ice age' what is the tempreture change to indicate an 'ice age'? We can't blame that on anything but nature because they didn't have enough technology to affect the planets climate (unless star gate is real).

As for this supposed climate change surely we won't know if it is real or not until after it has happened if it is happening at all because the effects aren't dramatic enough (yet).

If you really haven't seen the effects of climate change already, then you need to pay more attention. There's nothing more to say. Denying it's even taking place is ridiculous...

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

Eh? I think everyone should care! No one actually tries to argue that climate change isn't happening - It's definitely occuring. The only discussion is the cause (most people and scientists now admit that man made emmissions are to blame) or whether it is a natural process. Either way, mankind is in for a rough ride as we have already seen!

Out of curiosity - its safe to say that even small changes in climate will be pretty bad news for a few billion people.

If it were to be shown that climate change was natural, but if we developed means of reducing or reversinig it, would you be in favour of reversing natural climate change?

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

If you really haven't seen the effects of climate change already, then you need to pay more attention. There's nothing more to say. Denying it's even taking place is ridiculous...

Tell me a few examples of climate change having happened.

In fairness, I think you'll probably get this one right, but I'm just checking.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

If you really haven't seen the effects of climate change already, then you need to pay more attention. There's nothing more to say. Denying it's even taking place is ridiculous...

I'm not denying it. I'm asking you "how can you be so sure"?

We don't really have anything to compare it to. The changes aren't dramatic enough to scream "won't someone think of the children". It still could all be natural change (if figures are comparable to those recorded previously - accuracy not withstanding) and the only way it can be fully assessed in its entirity is after it has occured.

I'm open to the possiblity of it actually happening and it not actually happening.

Eau Rouge

Headhuunter wrote:

[ The only discussion is the cause (most people and scientists now admit that man made emmissions are to blame) or whether it is a natural process. Either way, mankind is in for a rough ride as we have already seen!

Which was my exact point many pages ago. The discussion should be "how do we deal with the results of the change". Instead we're saddled with CO2 taxes to calm our guilt.