Global Warming?
Comments
-
gilesjuk wrote: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.
FYI, i'm in the environmental field, managing an environmental consultancy as well as being a fellow with the E3 foundation, among a few other companies I am working on.I am by far not doubting them, i'm just stating to the people who seem to think that the change will happoen overnight that it is a long process, and that the predictions are just predictions, so if one word is wrong in it, it does not make the whole thing wrong.0 -
gilesjuk wrote:TheStone wrote:Are plastic bags really that bad?
They're made of oil derivatives and therefore waste oil which is a scarce resource.
I think their re-use is such a hollow gesture when they are being filled at the checkout with grapes and other products flown half way round the world to reach the shelves.0 -
MountainMonster wrote: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.
I agree that climate warming processes could be devastating for humanity and that we don't know for sure what will happen, but I don't think predictions made are "just" predictions... Millions if not billions has been spent by everyone from governments to businesses to work out what will happen and how it will affect markets, political stability etc.
Businesses particularly need to know how climate change will affect their bottom line. A while ago banks started trading "weather derivatives", I don't know much about the specific mechanics on how they work but I'm assuming that they would mean business would be able to take out a future or option or whatever on whether a shipment of cargo would be sunk or delayed by a hurricane or tropical storm... Or whether the polar ice cap would melt in 30 years and open up shipping routes over the north pole speeding up deliveries to Asia etc...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
gilesjuk wrote:TheStone wrote:Are plastic bags really that bad?
They're made of oil derivatives and therefore waste oil which is a scarce resource.
They also consume valuable natural resources (other than oil) in production and transportation all over the country/world and of course make up quite a large percentage of landfill space....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:gilesjuk wrote:TheStone wrote:Are plastic bags really that bad?
They're made of oil derivatives and therefore waste oil which is a scarce resource.
They also consume valuable natural resources (other than oil) in production and transportation all over the country/world and of course make up quite a large percentage of landfill space....
Plus many of those that end up in the sea for any reason often end up clogging the guts of poor old leatherback turtles
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
These are still very early theories, with few consistent predictions being correct. (Of course, predictions are difficult because it's very complex .... but that's also a reason why it's almost certainly not fully understood yet). People talk as if anyone that doesn't accept this is akin to being a flat earther or a creationist, but I don't think it's anywhere near that kind level yet.
For what it's worth, I think mankind does have an effect and I think it's obvious not to waste resources or destroy plantlife.
My problem is that it's now nearly impossible to question or contradict the theory. People talks about the evil capitalist oil companies, but they're small fry compared to the government machine (which in my mind is just as evil). The amount of business now building up on the back of GW is huge.
Be careful. The next step could be to try to reverse the theoretical man-made change. And that really could be catastrophic!
0 -
ddraver wrote:Slapshot wrote:A very very very close :roll: friend of mine posted this elsewhere, he doesn't mind me posting itAnthropogenic 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?
Why what have you heard about them......not suggesting some conspiracy theory in there are you????
"The evidence can only be evaluated by reading complicated scientific journals, not quickly summarised by an english graduate for a 100 word article" - You said this earlier in the thread but by instant dismisal of my post as nonsense you fail to look at it properly . Each of the elements of those few paragraphs come from these "complex scientific journals", that it's my misfortune to read professionally on a regular basis.
There is evidence to suggest that Global Warming is happening, there is other evidence that suggests the cooling engine is going through a slow down period, when this happens we naturally warm.
Everything that the Media, governments and the oil producers have hyped is hypothesis, exactly the same as the hypothesis as the skeptics put forward that gets slammed by the IPCC/AGW groupies.
We don't know what's happening and until we get categoric evidence of the changes we won't know whose hypothesis is accurate and who has been talking bolloxs. As a scientist I keep an open mind and will continue to ask questions.
One thing is certain the recent weather in the UK has sod all to do with climate change and everything to do with the polar Jetstream and it's natural fluctuations, these high temperatures in October have happened before. Don't get caught up in the differences between Meteororlogy and Climatology.0 -
There is evidence to suggest that Global Warming is happening, there is other evidence that suggests the cooling engine is going through a slow down period, when this happens we naturally warm.
Yes but one is suppoorted by a wealth of peer reviewed evidence from well dessigned, well executed experiments and one is not, can you guess which one is which?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I love it how there are so many climate scientists around these parts!
Basically if you don’t agree with the theory that man made climate change is genuine, and requires a change in human behaviour, you are saying that this is all a conspiracy.
Without this conspiracy there would be no global consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists, leading to a global response by various governments to tackle the rate we produce CO2.
Why would a conspiracy like this exist, who would it benefit and who would have the power/capital for it to have the continued influence is does?
On the other hand it is very clear to imagine who has the power and capital to benefit from debunking the science, and creating a conspiracy about a nonexistent conspiracy!Mañana0 -
ddraver wrote:There is evidence to suggest that Global Warming is happening, there is other evidence that suggests the cooling engine is going through a slow down period, when this happens we naturally warm.
Yes but one is suppoorted by a wealth of peer reviewed evidence from well dessigned, well executed experiments and one is not, can you guess which one is which?
No, both are supported by peer reviewed evidence well designed well executed experiments. It comes down to perspective which of theses peer you want to believe. Why do you think there was such a stramash over the leaked University of East Anglia emails - answer, because their contents and findings put doubts into some of the basic theories of AGW.
I've two recent publications on my desk to read about it all, the conclusions that both will give when I get that far through them is "that further physical evidence is required before we can conclusivley say which models give the indications of accuracy", just the same as many many others have said before.
Climate Change modelling is in it's infancy and the modellers and scientists are a long way from finding the right path, everything is hypothesis and conjecture and unless you are willing to accept that both sides of the arguement could be right or that they could both be wrong then these debates never come to an amicable solution.0 -
pb21 wrote:Basically if you don’t agree with the theory that man made climate change is genuine, and requires a change in human behaviour, you are saying that this is all a conspiracy.
Not even slightly.
Even within the CC science there's plenty of disagreement. It is an evolving theory. It has some evidence and a lot of support. But it will change further and the effects and feedback theories will change even more.0 -
TheStone wrote:pb21 wrote:Basically if you don’t agree with the theory that man made climate change is genuine, and requires a change in human behaviour, you are saying that this is all a conspiracy.
Not even slightly.
Even within the CC science there's plenty of disagreement. It is an evolving theory. It has some evidence and a lot of support. But it will change further and the effects and feedback theories will change even more.
Why are the vast majority of scientists and governments saying and doing what they are then? Why are they telling us to change?
The level of support the theory has and the effects that support creates are too great to discount.
You are right too that it is an evolving theory, it is evolving in a way that suggests it is a worse situation than previously thought.Mañana0 -
"Climate Change modelling is in it's infancy and the modellers and scientists are a long way from finding the right path,"
It's not just about modelling, although it is pretty sophisticated and multifaceted. It can be proven that that there is a build up of CO2, and that CO2 causes global warming, and that it is man made. There is also years of monitoring of natural phenomena around the world, decades of climate records, polar excavations, etc.
As for East Anglia, various investigations found it was a freedom of information problem - they were too busy to answer all enquiries. There was no fraud. 'Lord' Moncton and co.
have spun a lot of nonsense about that.
When peope say there is strong evidence for 'no climate change', ok fine,
but which university of scientific institution is it coming from, has it been peer reviewed
and are the findings accepted internationally? The answer tends to be none, no and no.
It must come from credible scientific bodies - not journalists, politicians, tabloid hacks or DJs.0 -
PS: perhaps the clinate change deniers could paste in a link or two to research papers that have informed their views.0
-
Can you not just google 'Old Moore's Almanack' yourself, Alan, and save them the trouble?Alain Quay wrote:PS: perhaps the clinate change deniers could paste in a link or two to research papers that have informed their views.
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Alain Quay wrote:PS: perhaps the clinate change deniers could paste in a link or two to research papers that have informed their views.
http://www.express.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
That ought to do it. The only time either newspaper really has anything positive to say about scientific research is when the next big miracle cure for something or other pops up. :roll:
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
-
I don't get the logic of deniers.
Most vaguely rational deniers seem to say 'the scientists can't prove that climate change is happening'.
But the cost if the deniers is pretty enormous.
Surely just for a let's-save-humanity-just-in-case perspective, you'd want to address it.
You know, just in case there is climate-geddon.0 -
i quite like these warm autumns though.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
If you really are convinced the change is man-made then the solution is to renounce your lifestyle. Entirely. Let's face it, no-one is prepared to do that though are they.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:I don't get the logic of deniers.
Most vaguely rational deniers seem to say 'the scientists can't prove that climate change is happening'.
But the cost if the deniers is pretty enormous.
Surely just for a let's-save-humanity-just-in-case perspective, you'd want to address it.
You know, just in case there is climate-geddon.
I guess denying it is happening is quite comforting, and fundamentally, it's a (potential) problem that is too big to comprehend and the fact that we as consumers can do little to help.
Looking at what needs to be done (according to the worst climate change predictions) and looking at what is being done is just depressing.
The solution isn't to renounce individual lifestyles, but to embrace nuclear power, CHP and start looking at a larger pan european grid, which would make renewables more credible.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
As ever there are two questions that need to be addressed.
What are you prepared to do?
and
What difference will it make?
The answers in theory are "a lot" and "some".
The answers in practice are "very little" and "none".None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
ddraver wrote: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
And a small average increase in temperature means greater energy is being put into the weather systems (simple physics). Increase the energy input and its pretty simple to understand that this means more energy is put out - more extreme weather of all sorts.
Those who say the climate changes all the time across the ages are quite right - but the evidence suggests that the change has been at an accelerated rate - hence what the general concensus suggests0 -
pb21 wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change
Doesn't make for positive reading...
Have this lot made predictions before? Were they correct?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I don't get the logic of deniers.
Most vaguely rational deniers seem to say 'the scientists can't prove that climate change is happening'.
But the cost if the deniers is pretty enormous.
Surely just for a let's-save-humanity-just-in-case perspective, you'd want to address it.
You know, just in case there is climate-geddon.
To an extent I agree and right or wrong, plenty of the things that will come from climate change movement will be good for our future.
However, I feel it's important not to drown out alternative theories at such an early stage of such a complex subject. The word 'denier' is deliberately used to do this.
Scientists, on mass, with plenty of peer review are often wrong. They mentioned on the radio some study into the most peer reviewed theories and over half of them were later shown to be incorrect ...0 -
TheStone wrote:However, I feel it's important not to drown out alternative theories at such an early stage of such a complex subject. The word 'denier' is deliberately used to do this.
Have you read the article?
Predictions of the increase in temperature have largely been correct so far. Anyway what alternative theories are you suggesting?Mañana0
