Climate change, time for a change?
Comments
-
I've said it before.For the Earth's atmosphere not to warm as carbon dioxide concentrations increase would defy the laws of physics. That's why Venus has a higher average surface temperature than Mercury, despite being further away from the Sun.
Nobody's literally saying that the oceans will boil and nobody sensible is saying that all life will be doomed, but a rate of change of 2-3 degrees celsius is absolutely enormous and could severely damage many ecosystems as well as severely disrupting weather patterns, agriculture etc.
I'm glad you don't want to take the risk, but there is so much scientific evidence out there now that humans are causing the current warming trend and that it could well be disastrous if we don't take action soon that as a species, we just can't afford to delay any longer.
If you want to save the planet then eliminate humans.
Maybe nature is just fed up waiting.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
For the Earth's atmosphere not to warm as carbon dioxide concentrations increase would defy the laws of physics. That's why Venus has a higher average surface temperature than Mercury, despite being further away from the Sun.
Nobody's literally saying that the oceans will boil and nobody sensible is saying that all life will be doomed, but a rate of change of 2-3 degrees celsius is absolutely enormous and could severely damage many ecosystems as well as severely disrupting weather patterns, agriculture etc.
I'm glad you don't want to take the risk, but there is so much scientific evidence out there now that humans are causing the current warming trend and that it could well be disastrous if we don't take action soon that as a species, we just can't afford to delay any longer.
The atmosphere of Venus is 96% C02 with an atmospheric pressure of 90 times our own. That means about 90 times the quantity of gas. Even if the C02 level here rose to 4000ppm that is still only .4%. And by comparison Mars also has an atmosphere that is about 96% C02 and it has an average surface temperature of -55^C.0 -
For the Earth's atmosphere not to warm as carbon dioxide concentrations increase would defy the laws of physics. That's why Venus has a higher average surface temperature than Mercury, despite being further away from the Sun.
Nobody's literally saying that the oceans will boil and nobody sensible is saying that all life will be doomed, but a rate of change of 2-3 degrees celsius is absolutely enormous and could severely damage many ecosystems as well as severely disrupting weather patterns, agriculture etc.
I'm glad you don't want to take the risk, but there is so much scientific evidence out there now that humans are causing the current warming trend and that it could well be disastrous if we don't take action soon that as a species, we just can't afford to delay any longer.
The atmosphere of Venus is 96% C02 with an atmospheric pressure of 90 times our own. That means about 90 times the quantity of gas. Even if the C02 level here rose to 4000ppm that is still only .4%. And by comparison Mars also has an atmosphere that is about 96% C02 and it has an average surface temperature of -55^C.
I mentioned Venus merely as an illustration of the properties of CO2. What alternative physical mechanism do you propose for the warming that the Earth has experienced over the last century?0 -
I didn't realise until tonight that Jeremy Corbyn's brother is a climate change sceptic - he's just been on the TV arguing CO2 is irrelevant and that there is no man made climate change.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
I didn't realise until tonight that Jeremy Corbyn's brother is a climate change sceptic - he's just been on the TV arguing CO2 is irrelevant and that there is no man made climate change.
Piers Corbyn's been saying the same thing for years, but has never actually done the science to prove it. I wonder what he knows that all the other scientists don't and that he's keeping hidden from the public.0 -
When Mount St Helens erupted in 1980 it threw up more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind had done in its entire history.
Increased taxes for all countries with volcanos!Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
When Mount St Helens erupted in 1980 it threw up more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind had done in its entire history.
Increased taxes for all countries with volcanos!
Is that correct? from my understanding, Volcanic activity per year is in the low 100s of million of tonnes of co2 and from mankind about 29giga tonnes and that on a curve of co2 emmissions MH and any other large volcano didnt even register a blip on a curve of global co2 emmisions, our co2 contribution tips the balance in what the planet can and cannot absorb.
of course my source, from Karolinska might be wrong and there is a debate on whether co2 is the sole cause of GW or not.0 -
When Mount St Helens erupted in 1980 it threw up more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind had done in its entire history.
Increased taxes for all countries with volcanos!
Is that correct?
No, it isn't correct.0 -
We got £27k worth of funding from the Climate Challenge Fund 5 years ago so my next statement initially might seem hypocritical.
I am not convinced by the climate change argument but we should err on the side of caution and do everything we can just in case it is.
Whilst the scientific community and media have monopolised Climate Change as the biggest threat to mankind, we are no longer talking about pollution like we used to, the spotlight has been shifted.
Is there any research to suggest that greater CO2 in the atmosphere will be absorbed because it is more conducive to more photosynthesis? Is it just me or am I cutting my lawns more often?
One of the frightening side effects is that the extra Carbon coupled with pollution is causing acidification of the seas. Once we start compromising the food chain (as mentioned by Finchy) it's squeaky bum time.
Nice idea Blakey and the world ould be a stunning, pristine orb without humans but ironically, there would be no one here to enjoy it.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
For the Earth's atmosphere not to warm as carbon dioxide concentrations increase would defy the laws of physics. That's why Venus has a higher average surface temperature than Mercury, despite being further away from the Sun.
Nobody's literally saying that the oceans will boil and nobody sensible is saying that all life will be doomed, but a rate of change of 2-3 degrees celsius is absolutely enormous and could severely damage many ecosystems as well as severely disrupting weather patterns, agriculture etc.
I'm glad you don't want to take the risk, but there is so much scientific evidence out there now that humans are causing the current warming trend and that it could well be disastrous if we don't take action soon that as a species, we just can't afford to delay any longer.
The atmosphere of Venus is 96% C02 with an atmospheric pressure of 90 times our own. That means about 90 times the quantity of gas. Even if the C02 level here rose to 4000ppm that is still only .4%. And by comparison Mars also has an atmosphere that is about 96% C02 and it has an average surface temperature of -55^C.
I mentioned Venus merely as an illustration of the properties of CO2. What alternative physical mechanism do you propose for the warming that the Earth has experienced over the last century?
Perhaps the same mechanism that caused it to start warming about 20000 years ago. Whatever makes people think that stopped?
I could also point out that while there may have been a reduction in arctic ice (but even that is inconclusive) the antarctic ice cap has been growing. So that points to axial tilt. But there are many causes of climate change - so many that I cannot imagine why the climate would ever stay the same. It has never stayed the same. The last change in trend was to increase temperature and whatever started that was not due to people burning fossil fuels because people in the ice age were not burning significant fossil fuels if any.
Even the climate change theorists will say the ice caps reflect solar radiation and as they melt that radiation is not reflected so instead it warms the surface. Ok so the ice started to melt 20000 years ago so that process started and tell me what stopped it?0 -
Perhaps the same mechanism that caused it to start warming about 20000 years ago. Whatever makes people think that stopped?
Because the causes have been extensively studied and nobody has been able to find a convincing physical reason for the Earth to have heated up to such an extent in such a short period of time. I'm busy at the moment and don't have time to run through all the evidence for humans causing global warming, but if you genuinely are interested, go and have a look at how the IPCC reports - they summarise the evidence quite nicely, as does http://www.skepticalscience.com
If you don't want to go and look at the actual science, consider that the only scientific body in the world to ever reject the theory that humans are causing global warming was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. They changed from rejecting climate change to accepting under pressure from their own members. If even the people who are paid to extract fossil fuels from the ground don't want to be associated with a body that denies that humans are causing climate change, is that enough to convince you?I could also point out that while there may have been a reduction in arctic ice (but even that is inconclusive) the antarctic ice cap has been growing. So that points to axial tilt. But there are many causes of climate change - so many that I cannot imagine why the climate would ever stay the same. It has never stayed the same. The last change in trend was to increase temperature and whatever started that was not due to people burning fossil fuels because people in the ice age were not burning significant fossil fuels if any.
It certainly is not inconclusive that Arctic ice has reduced. Where do you get the idea that it's inconclusive?
As for Antarctic ice (I assume you're talking about the recent land ice study), most studies show that the Antarctic was losing land ice. One study has shown that it was gaining land ice (but at a decreasing rate) up until 2008. Guess which study got the attention of the right-wing press? Even if that study were correct (and we don't know if it is yet), other studies including more recent data from the CryoSat-2 satellite have shown overall land ice loss on Antarctica. BTW, the authors of the paper to which I assume you were referring said that their study is actually quite worrying, because if the Antarctic is still gaining land ice, then that means that other sources must be contributing more to rising sea levels than was previously thought.
And are you seriously saying that the Earth's axial tilt has changed enough to cause such massive changes over the last 30 years or so and nobody's noticed?!?!
Nobody has ever said that the climate would never change without humans. Just that the change wouldn't be so rapid.Even the climate change theorists will say the ice caps reflect solar radiation and as they melt that radiation is not reflected so instead it warms the surface. Ok so the ice started to melt 20000 years ago so that process started and tell me what stopped it?
What stopped it was that the Earth entered into a new steady state. Again, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the Earth's climate warmed rapidly before entering into a relatively stable period (in terms of global mean surface temperature) - sea-level changes, oxygen-16/oxygen-18 isotope records, dust records in ice cores, loess deposits, ice rafting events, phytoplankton distribution in the oceans...
Anyway, I'll get off the Internet now. I'll save a tiny amount of CO2 like that.0 -
We could all argue, or deny if you like, climate change and who or what caused it. I think the scientists can gain a good living for many years on that one.
But, and this is a serious question, and one raised by comments above re this is mother earth killing off a particular parasite ie humans.
Why should I, of for that matter anyone, care? I am all for saving resources, mainly because it saves me money, but seriously, why should I care about the planet? I do not have kids, but for the sake of this argument, assume I have two (one of each and both as good looking as their mom
) Ecrasez l’infame0 -
In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P0 -
In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P
I just look in the mirror. I also saw that one coming.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P
'Cos she never managed to escape from the cellar long enough to meet any other men.
0 -
Don't you keep your sister in the cellar?In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P
'Cos she never managed to escape from the cellar long enough to meet any other men.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P
'Cos she never managed to escape from the cellar long enough to meet any other men.
What do you mean 'long enough'?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The beer geek has raised a point I was tempted to make a while back, what's the obsession that the human species must survive? If it all goes south then that's just the way it is, is it not? After all, when you are gone you aren't going to know about it anyway.
The subject of climate change usually reminds me of a leaflet from a local councillor prior to election time a few years back. The first couple of paragraphs were his history of education and employment and then it was about his kids and grandchildren..rather numerous in fact. Politically it then said how he'd be opposing various road schemes and housing developments and how he was concerned about climate change. The silly arse obviously couldn't make the connection between his own reproduction and what he was campaigning against.0 -
In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P
'Cos she never managed to escape from the cellar long enough to meet any other men.
What do you mean 'long enough'?
Well, it takes Scottish people approximately 2 hours of wandering around the moors to find a mating partner, then about 20 seconds for the act of impregnation.
I'm sure you managed to catch her in good time.0 -
Due to the fact i'm not Scottish, it took me 30 seconds.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19755511#p19755511]BelgianBeerGeek[/url] wrote:
Don't you keep your sister in the cellar?In a quick break of the arguments of the evidence, isn't it slightly hedonistic/ironic that we spend billions on medicinal research to save humans when we are wrecking the very thing that supports us?
BTW BBG, I have 2 kids and I despair. They're both as good looking as mum.
How do you know they don't look like their dad? :P
'Cos she never managed to escape from the cellar long enough to meet any other men.
No, I said that if I had a sister I'd try to sell her.0 -
Due to the fact i'm not Scottish, it took me 30 seconds.
Still fairly efficient though. Women like that in a man, so I hear.0 -
FTFY.Due to the fact i'm not Scottish, it took me 30 seconds.
Still fairly efficient though. Women like that in a man, so I'm told.
Women can be flattering too.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
finchy wrote:And are you seriously saying that the Earth's axial tilt has changed enough to cause such massive changes over the last 30 years or so and nobody's noticed?!?!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 75611.html
I'm not convinced that the proposed cause is not the effect but apparently someone has noticed. The Inuits have been suggesting this as well because they still navigate by the stars and have noticed the stars have shifted in relation to landmarks.0 -
So, global warming is causing the tilt?earth wrote:finchy wrote:And are you seriously saying that the Earth's axial tilt has changed enough to cause such massive changes over the last 30 years or so and nobody's noticed?!?!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 75611.html
I'm not convinced that the proposed cause is not the effect but apparently someone has noticed. The Inuits have been suggesting this as well because they still navigate by the stars and have noticed the stars have shifted in relation to landmarks.
Would it not be more reasonable that the tilting is causing the melting?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How do you know which way is East when you're at the North Pole?0
-
Trick question.Veronese68 wrote:How do you know which way is East when you're at the North Pole?
Every direction is SouthThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
earth wrote:finchy wrote:And are you seriously saying that the Earth's axial tilt has changed enough to cause such massive changes over the last 30 years or so and nobody's noticed?!?!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 75611.html
I'm not convinced that the proposed cause is not the effect but apparently someone has noticed. The Inuits have been suggesting this as well because they still navigate by the stars and have noticed the stars have shifted in relation to landmarks.
I don't know if the double negative is intentional or not, but the researchers are saying that the melting is causing the tilting, not the other way round. The change is tiny. You aren't going to get global warming from that.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Trick question.Veronese68 wrote:How do you know which way is East when you're at the North Pole?
Every direction is South
Unless you're at the magnetic North Pole looking for axial East or vice-versa.0
