Global Warming?

Rouge Penguin

Says who......

Message sent from my lounger in the garden, 27c October 3rd.

verylonglegs

July and August were cold. Go figure.

Cleat Eastwood

ha ha because global warming doesnt exist, its the jet stream moving south and when the cat was out of the bag the story was dropped from the news like cav on a 2% hill.

Anonymous

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

ha ha because global warming doesnt exist, its the jet stream moving south and when the cat was out of the bag the story was dropped from the news like cav on a 2% hill.

I'm actually warming to you Cleat, I'm liking your last posts over the last few subjects, whats happening ?

Blacktemplar

It's Wiggle's fault.......

daviesee

Rouge Penguin wrote:

Says who......

Message sent from my lounger in the garden, 27c October 3rd.

No one 400 miles north that's for sure.
Max 14 degrees today

OffTheBackAdam

Weather, blocking high.
Just remember last winter, more of the same to come!

meanredspider

Yes - you can't use "Global Warming" anymore but "Climate Change" instead

Ben6899

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - you can't use "Global Warming" anymore but "Climate Change" instead

Because that's a more accurate description, to be fair.

Gizmodo

I'm confused about "climate change". Hasn't our climate changed in the past - like the ice age for example? How come this time round it's our fault, but back then it was just a natural phenomenon?

Sorry, I'll go back to the "Girls in Lycra Shorts" thread.

verylonglegs

They don't know it's our fault, it is just a guess.

ddraver

Gizmodo wrote:

I'm confused about "climate change". Hasn't our climate changed in the past - like the ice age for example? How come this time round it's our fault, but back then it was just a natural phenomenon?

Sorry, I'll go back to the "Girls in Lycra Shorts" thread.

Last time it took thousands of years - this time it's taken tens

Ben6899

verylonglegs wrote:

They don't know it's our fault, it is just a guess.

Evidence (science) points to it being our fault and also evidence (historical trends) points to it being completely independent of human influences. Either way, I'm sure we all can agree we should he striving to live in a sustainable manner no matter the facts. Right?

Alain Quay

Evidence (science) points to it being our fault

RIGHT

and also evidence (historical trends) points to it being completely independent of human influences.

WRONG. The last 100 years show massive build up in C02, key ingredient in greenhouse gases. 10 of last 12 years were hottest on record, 97% of climate scientists say change is man made. I wish it were otherwise but whenever I drill down into climate sceptic 'science' I see the hand of Exxon, BP, or right wing lobby groups and shock jocks. No scientific body supports the 'natural causes stance. Sorry to rant but right now Aussies are being told a pack of lies by Murdoch-dominated media and it will delay any action.

Either way, I'm sure we all can agree we should he striving to live in a sustainable manner no matter the facts. Right?

RIGHT

TheStone

Alain Quay wrote:

97% of climate scientists say change is man made.

I'm not arguing climate change either way, but this statement concerns me.

Why are there so many 'climate change' scientists? What happens to their job/funding if it isn't man made?
How long have we been accurately measuring co2 and temperatures (I'm not sure ice cores count) and how much have they actually increased? In the case of temperature, I don't think it's much.

finchy

TheStone wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

97% of climate scientists say change is man made.

I'm not arguing climate change either way, but this statement concerns me.

Why are there so many 'climate change' scientists? What happens to their job/funding if it isn't man made?
How long have we been accurately measuring co2 and temperatures (I'm not sure ice cores count) and how much have they actually increased? In the case of temperature, I don't think it's much.

How much is too much and how much is acceptable?

ddraver

TheStone wrote:

What happens to their job/funding if it isn't man made?

They take all their mathematical modelling knowledge and get a job in a bank to make some real money. Anyone who thinks researchers are in it for the money has never been to a University...

TheStone wrote:

(I'm not sure ice cores count)

Why?

TheStone wrote:

and how much have they actually increased? In the case of temperature, I don't think it's much.

Average Global temperature does not need to increase much in order to change global climate (1 or 2 deg). Far less than any of us could actually feel

finchy

ddraver wrote:

TheStone wrote:

What happens to their job/funding if it isn't man made?

They take all their mathematical modelling knowledge and get a job in a bank to make some real money. Anyone who thinks researchers are in it for the money has never been to a University...

Even if it isn't man-made, climate scientists would still have to study the trends because whatever the cause we will need to work out future trends for use in water supply, agriculture, energy, etc.

Alain Quay

Why are there so many 'climate change' scientists? What happens to their job/funding if it isn't man made?

They move on to other areas. There are few jobs for Anatomists these days, it's all known. 'Peer review' remains pretty robust, so there are checks and balances against fraud.

By contrast, Google '400 climate deniers debunked'.

So why the confusion still? Because the media is powerful and many scientists don't feel the need to repeat findings day after day. Also, genuine change will be painful, so lobby groups and others are spinning the message.

TheStone

Again, I'm not saying that it's not happening, or that it could be man made.
But I don't think it's as conclusive as is being made out.

- the warming is tiny (about 0.5C in 100 years?)
- humans produce a very small amount of the total co2 (2-4%?).
- none of the scientist's predictions have come true (there was suppose to be a feedback loop by now which would send temps soaring. What happened to GW refugees?)

At best, I'd describe it as being like an early evolution theory. Seems plausible, but there's very little proof so far. The proof may come .... but it might not.

I'm not for a second suggesting scientists would be in this for the money, but it can often happen where, without meaning to, the community move towards proving something. At some stage they move more towards disproving it (I think this happened with the symmetry/attractiveness thing).

Also. Always beware of governments. They have a habit of grabbing onto whatever can put a bit more taxable fear into the public.
(acid rain, ozone, global cooling, mad cow, aids, nuclear, terrorism.......).

verylonglegs

Ben6899 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

They don't know it's our fault, it is just a guess.

Evidence (science) points to it being our fault and also evidence (historical trends) points to it being completely independent of human influences. Either way, I'm sure we all can agree we should he striving to live in a sustainable manner no matter the facts. Right?

Careful use of limited resources is entirely sensible yes I agree. Maybe my language was a bit naughty when using 'guess' but as you correctly phrase it, the evidence points to, which is what I was really driving at, it can't be proven absolute and I object to some stating it as fact. They may well be right but then they may not, I don't know.

If it really is true however then I feel the changes needed simply won't be stomached by the majority anyway, they'd be too great. Low energy lightbulbs and getting people to use carrier bags more than once is urinating into a gale.

TheStone

Are plastic bags really that bad?

It annoys me. I don't have a car, so do shopping ad-hoc. I'm not gonna carry old plastic bags around all week, whereas someone driving a 4x4 can leave the bags in back. It seems to be concentrating on the wrong thing .... or maybe encouraging worse?

Is the plastic in these bags scarce? or just a by product of extracting the fuel for the 4x4s?
If we bury in land fill, do we necessarily want them to decompose quickly?

ddraver

TheStone wrote:

Again, I'm not saying that it's not happening, or that it could be man made.
But I don't think it's as conclusive as is being made out.

- the warming is tiny (about 0.5C in 100 years?)
- humans produce a very small amount of the total co2 (2-4%?).
- none of the scientist's predictions have come true (there was suppose to be a feedback loop by now which would send temps soaring. What happened to GW refugees?)

Stone I don't believe you really are this simple, try and think about it a bit! We are talking about rises in Global average temperatures, these do not have to be that big. We are not going to be able to "notice" the effects of Global Warming by suddenly realising we are wearing T-shirts more often.

A well defined rise of 0.5deg in 100 years is extremely fast compared to any previous changes in global climate change which are in the order of 0.5deg over thousands of years - think geological time.

The predictions have nt come true YET! That does nto mean that they are wrong, it means that things are very complicated and take seveal years to measure conclusively. This is how science works. Science does not work to a pace demanded by the Daily Mail (how ever much the DM would like it to). Witness the total rubbish spouted by that publication about cancer daily!

I don't mean to pick on you, but your posts are symptomatic of a wider mismatch between journalism and scientists. The evidence can only be evaluated by reading complicated scientific journals, not quickly summarised by an english graduate for a 100 word article. Unfortunately, because scientist don't much care about their media image, their accurate message can be easily shouted down by quacks who are good at being media friendly...

finchy

TheStone - the problem is that science is never that black and white. Climate change has been completely polarised by our cretinous media into warmists vs. sceptics.

Nobody is denying that the global mean surface temperature has risen over the last 150 years or so, that's accepted fact.

Nobody denies that humans have had some effect - if we change land use and the chemical composition of the atmosphere then of course we will have some effect.

Nobody denies natural variation. Climate change has of course happened for billions of years.

So we're left with the issue of how much of the current warming trend is due to humans, and how much is natural? What implications does this have for the future? That is what climate science is trying to understand.

Slapshot

A very very very close :roll: friend of mine posted this elsewhere, he doesn't mind me posting it

Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change call it what you will is simply goverments way of taxing people and calling it Green Taxes. Chop through the media hype and the state sponsored IPCC nonsense things are far more natural than anyone will tell you. Some numbers...

Total %ge of Anthrpogenic Greenhouse Gas contributions adds up to around 0.28% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect.

In terms of CO2 man has contributed 3.225% of the current levels
In terms of Water Vapour man has contributed 0.001% of the current levels
In terms of Methane man has contributed about 18.4% of the current global levels.

The most important Greenhouse Gas is water vapour yet no-one talks about it, water is not as scary as Co2, it can't be hyped. Natural fluctautions in climate make the changes we see and we have a small impact on that, we should still be caring for the planet and trying to reduce emissions and impacts on the atmosphere but take time to look through the hype and question why.

We don't understand the planet well enough to forecast what is going to happen with any real accuracy, a couple of thousand years of basic science and maybe 50 years of serious scientific study to understand a planet 4 billion years old........

What the AGW advocates fail to tell anyone is the most likely scenario of the ice caps melting is; they won't tell you that they are a precursor to the next ice age. The thermohaline currents that warm the oceans rely on the salinity our oceans have to hold the heat they do, as that salinity drops the ability to hold the heat dissipates and our oceans cool. As the warm water block across the seas between Greenland/Iceland/European mainland falls away our northern oceans will cool significantly leading to a rapid decline in temperature and a drop towards new ice ages. Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour our Global average surface temperature would be around -15°C (4°F), instead of slightly more bearable 16°C (62°F).

“Global cooling is the dominant force controlling Earth’s climate change. Whenever the global cooling dynamo slows down, global warming occurs naturally.”

Headhuunter

ddraver wrote:

TheStone wrote:

Again, I'm not saying that it's not happening, or that it could be man made.
But I don't think it's as conclusive as is being made out.

- the warming is tiny (about 0.5C in 100 years?)
- humans produce a very small amount of the total co2 (2-4%?).
- none of the scientist's predictions have come true (there was suppose to be a feedback loop by now which would send temps soaring. What happened to GW refugees?)

Stone I don't believe you really are this simple, try and think about it a bit! We are talking about rises in Global average temperatures, these do not have to be that big. We are not going to be able to "notice" the effects of Global Warming by suddenly realising we are wearing T-shirts more often.

A well defined rise of 0.5deg in 100 years is extremely fast compared to any previous changes in global climate change which are in the order of 0.5deg over thousands of years - think geological time.

The predictions have nt come true YET! That does nto mean that they are wrong, it means that things are very complicated and take seveal years to measure conclusively. This is how science works. Science does not work to a pace demanded by the Daily Mail (how ever much the DM would like it to). Witness the total rubbish spouted by that publication about cancer daily!

I don't mean to pick on you, but your posts are symptomatic of a wider mismatch between journalism and scientists. The evidence can only be evaluated by reading complicated scientific journals, not quickly summarised by an english graduate for a 100 word article. Unfortunately, because scientist don't much care about their media image, their accurate message can be easily shouted down by quacks who are good at being media friendly...

Good explanation, I still can't believe that some actually deny that climate change is occurring! As you say this appears to be largely down to some bloke on a forum somewhere having read some article in the Daily Mail rather than actually reading the facts. As you say, climate change is occurring and is perhaps the biggest threat to humankind over the next few decades/100 years or so. Whether it's man made or not has yet to be definitively proven, however I think the vast majority of those in the know (and not funded by oil multinationals or right wing industrialists) have come round to the opinion that it is...

Peddle Up!

No problem. Just apply lots of TAX and get Goldman Sachs to help out and all will be well.




For some people...

MountainMonster

Climate change predictions are exactly that, just predictions. Just like predicting trends in marketing, or predicting any other thing for that matter. While the change in numbers does not sound drastic, the amount of Co2 being released by humanity is causing a change. We won't notice thing change in periods measured by months or years, but rather by decades. A 0.5c change in temperature shifts climates drastically, and speeds up natural processes which otherwise would be coming in a very very long time. These processes could be devastating to humanity, and that is fear. Do what we can now to stop these changes being so drastic, give enough time to maybe even provent it, and maybe things will go well.

Remember, everything is just predictions.

ddraver

Slapshot wrote:

A very very very close :roll: friend of mine posted this elsewhere, he doesn't mind me posting it

Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change call it what you will is simply goverments way of taxing people and calling it Green Taxes. Chop through the media hype and the state sponsored IPCC nonsense things are far more natural than anyone will tell you. Some numbers...

Total %ge of Anthrpogenic Greenhouse Gas contributions adds up to around 0.28% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect.

In terms of CO2 man has contributed 3.225% of the current levels
In terms of Water Vapour man has contributed 0.001% of the current levels
In terms of Methane man has contributed about 18.4% of the current global levels.

The most important Greenhouse Gas is water vapour yet no-one talks about it, water is not as scary as Co2, it can't be hyped. Natural fluctautions in climate make the changes we see and we have a small impact on that, we should still be caring for the planet and trying to reduce emissions and impacts on the atmosphere but take time to look through the hype and question why.

We don't understand the planet well enough to forecast what is going to happen with any real accuracy, a couple of thousand years of basic science and maybe 50 years of serious scientific study to understand a planet 4 billion years old........

What the AGW advocates fail to tell anyone is the most likely scenario of the ice caps melting is; they won't tell you that they are a precursor to the next ice age. The thermohaline currents that warm the oceans rely on the salinity our oceans have to hold the heat they do, as that salinity drops the ability to hold the heat dissipates and our oceans cool. As the warm water block across the seas between Greenland/Iceland/European mainland falls away our northern oceans will cool significantly leading to a rapid decline in temperature and a drop towards new ice ages. Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour our Global average surface temperature would be around -15°C (4°F), instead of slightly more bearable 16°C (62°F).

“Global cooling is the dominant force controlling Earth’s climate change. Whenever the global cooling dynamo slows down, global warming occurs naturally.”

Excellent - Can you give us the one with the truth about 9/11, JFK, the moon landings and the Aliens at Roswell too?

gilesjuk

TheStone wrote:

Are plastic bags really that bad?

They're made of oil derivatives and therefore waste oil which is a scarce resource.

gilesjuk

MountainMonster wrote:

Climate change predictions are exactly that, just predictions. Just like predicting trends in marketing, or predicting any other thing for that matter.

Except there are very complex models for climate, yet there aren't such complex models for financial services.

Some of the fastest supercomputers on the planet and working 24/7 improving the predictions and data.

Why do you have cause to doubt these scientists? science is why you're writing posts on a computer, science is why you have electricity to power it.

Climate change is inconvenient as it clashes with capitalism, that's why there's so many people being funded by big business (oil companies mainly) to try to discredit the science, but they're just a few trolls amongst a huge number of scientists who have peer reviewed the data and models.