Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
If you really want to be sceptical then you have to look at both sides of the argument equally critically. You're obviously familiar with the deniers side of the story, so give the scientists a chance.

 

The best place to start is here. The skeptical science site lists all the denier arguments alongside links to pages putting the scientists side of the story. Take a couple of days and work your way through them if you dare. Challenge yourself. You never know, you might learn something.

 

Hmm, I see that the scientists are now saying that extreme weather events are not caused by climate change after all. Wonder when skeptical science will be updating their pages?

 

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I see that the scientists are now saying that extreme weather events are not caused by climate change after all. Wonder when skeptical science will be updating their pages?

 

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.

Hmmm, no source for your IPCC quote. Could it be from the 2007 report? That's getting a little outdated now.

 

Here's some up-to-date stuff:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-game-with-loaded-dice_Postdam-Instittue.html

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Storm-Century-Decade_MIT.html

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Summary-of-Hansen-Nov-2011.html

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Events-Increase-With-Global-Warming.html

 

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/doping-atmosphere

 

Some questions don’t have easy answers, but people search for them anyway. We can’t help you with romance or child rearing, but when up to 10% of the trees in your state are dead or dying (as was the case in Texas by the end of 2011), or when your city gets more than twice as much rain in 24 hours as it’s measured on any other day (which happened in Binghamton, New York, last summer), it’s only natural to ask: Was that natural variability or global warming?

 

Until the last few years, scientists lacked the tools to respond in a satisfying way. But that’s starting to change. Researchers can now estimate how likely several kinds of extreme events would be, with and without human influence. With that information in hand, they can then calculate the probability that a given extreme was made more, or less, likely by our century-plus of fossil-fuel burning.

 

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/extreme-weather-forensics

 

Even US Republicans are starting to catch on:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/29/454476/a-message-from-a-republican-meteorologist-on-climate-change/

 

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/28/454281/global-warming-sharply-increases-likelihood-of-outlandish-heat-waves/

 

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/27/451545/connecting-dots-climate-extreme-weather-pbs-story-texas-drought/

 

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120131/texas-heat-and-drought-caused-global-warming-climate-change-james-hansen-nasa-science-skeptics-oklahoma-moscow

 

So, what was that you were saying about scientists saying extreme weather is not due to global warming? :shock: :roll:

 

(Perhaps you need to spend some time on Skeptical Science.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, no source for your IPCC quote. Could it be from the 2007 report? That's getting a little outdated now.

 

No, it is from the IPCC Special Report on Extremes (SREX) published last week. Not surprised you haven't heard about it because for some reason it is being widely ignored by the media. Read it here:

 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

 

“The SREX provides an unprecedented level of detail regarding observed and expected changes in weather and climate extremes, based on a comprehensive assessment of over 1,000 scientific publications,â€

So, what was that you were saying about scientists saying extreme weather is not due to global warming? :shock: :roll:

 

Well, obviously there are a few scientists who believe extreme weather is connected to global warming, but that is not the current consensus view reported by the IPCC. I see skeptical science have still not updated their site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, obviously there are a few scientists who believe extreme weather is connected to global warming, but that is not the current consensus view reported by the IPCC. I see skeptical science have still not updated their site.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to summarise the conclusions of that report if I were you. It is a cherry-pickers dream. You can find stuff in there to support any conclusion you want, positive or negative.

 

I mean, have you actually tried to read it?

 

There does seem to be one part which is relatively straight forward, a table in chapter 3 (table 3-1), on pages 119 & 120, which lists each aspect of the climate and summarises the "Attribution of Observed Changes" in column 2.

 

These are as follows:

 

Temperature - Likely anthropogenic influence on trends in warm/cold days/nights at the global scale. No attribution of trends at a regional scale with a few exceptions.

 

Precipitation - Medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale.

 

Winds - Low confidence in the causes of trends due to insufficient evidence.

 

Monsoons - Low confidence due to insufficient evidence.

 

El Niño and other Modes of Variability - Likely anthropogenic influence on identified trends in SAM (Southern Annular Mode). Anthropogenic influence on trends in North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are about as likely as not. No attribution of changes in ENSO.

 

Tropical Cyclones - Low confidence in attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences (due to uncertainties in historical tropical cyclones record, incomplete understanding of physical mechanisms, and degree of tropical cyclone variability).

 

Extratropical Cyclones - Medium confidence in an anthropogenic influence on poleward shift.

 

Droughts - Medium confidence that anthropogenic influence has contributed to some observed changes in drought patterns. Low confidence in attribution of changes in drought at the level of single regions due to inconsistent or insufficient evidence.

 

Floods - Low confidence that anthropogenic warming has affected the magnitude or frequency of floods at a global scale. Medium confidence to high confidence in anthropogenic influence on changes in some components of the water cycle (precipitation, snowmelt) affecting floods.

 

Extreme Sea Level and Coastal Impacts - Likely anthropogenic influence via mean sea level contributions.

 

Other Physical Impacts - Likely anthropogenic influence on thawing of permafrost. Low confidence of other anthropogenic influences because of insufficient evidence for trends in other physical impacts in cold

regions.

 

So, the conclusions seem to range from likely to probably to possibly to "we just don't know", depending on which aspect you're interested in and whether you are looking at global or regional and the "don't know" answers all cite lack of evidence rather than evidence of lack. I do notice that nowhere is the conclusion: "No it doesn't".

 

Also, that quote of yours talks about "losses", not effects:

 

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.

 

Losses is talking about money, not weather. That quote is referring to actual financial damage due to extreme weather events, not about whether the events themselves are or are not due to AGW.

 

That is a critical difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks AT its good to know that from all the confusion you are the only one able to pick out the relevent info to support hour cause. :wink:

 

A true Friend of the Earth...

 

Ooops edit,

 

Dratsy, you do support Friends of the Earth, don't you? I wonder how you can support the oil industry and also try to rubbish Climate Change yet sign one of their petitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, have you actually tried to read it?

Not only have I tried, I have succeeded.

 

So, the conclusions seem to range from likely to probably to possibly to "we just don't know", depending on which aspect you're interested in and whether you are looking at global or regional and the "don't know" answers all cite lack of evidence rather than evidence of lack. I do notice that nowhere is the conclusion: "No it doesn't".

 

That is how the IPCC do it. It is a summary of the latest theories, and a best guess at the probabilities. However, you seem to be happy to shout that something is proved beyond doubt when the balance of probability is reported in your favour.

 

Also, that quote of yours talks about "losses", not effects:

 

That is because they are trying to use insurance claims to investigate whether extreme weather events are related to climate change. If climate change is causing more extreme weather events, you would expect that as time passes and the climate changes, more money will be paid out due to losses from cyclones, floods etc. But they did not find that to be the case. Fair enough if you don't want to accept it, but I think it is a valid investigative method. Do you think temperature proxies from tree rings are reliable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of people want David Cameron to end the energy bill rip-off and force the Big Six to invest in clean power from our wind, waves and sun.

 

Friends of the Earth's Final Demand Campaign showed that energy bills will keep rocketing while the Big Six keep us hooked on imported fossil fuels.

 

A recent poll revealed there's massive support for clean British energy:

 

70% of people want the Government to force the energy companies to invest in power from the UK's wind, sun, waves and tides.

 

In context

 

http://www.foe.co.uk/news/final_demand_handover_35319.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of people want David Cameron to end the energy bill rip-off and force the Big Six to invest in clean power from our wind, waves and sun.

 

Friends of the Earth's Final Demand Campaign showed that energy bills will keep rocketing while the Big Six keep us hooked on imported fossil fuels.

 

A recent poll revealed there's massive support for clean British energy:

 

70% of people want the Government to force the energy companies to invest in power from the UK's wind, sun, waves and tides.

 

In context

 

http://www.foe.co.uk/news/final_demand_handover_35319.html

 

Well, that's one definitely unbiased source, innit.... :roll:

 

Energy bills would be much more palatable if the government stopped adding a tax to pay for fanciful and pointless wndmills and lines of cranked barrels, neither of which will ever make a tangible difference to making anything "greener". Its like a YOP scheme for grown ups.... paying people to do needless pointless "jobs" just to keep them out of trouble.

 

Start talking seriously about harnessing the tide and I'll listen, its constant, reliable and predicable. Wind and wave, where all the moola is ending up, is fickle, and is nothing but an exercise in throwing money around to shut certain people up, and keep the rest of the great unwashed bouncing off walls in a low level of fear and panic to keep them controlled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it will be biased, but it is what some folk believe. What will be the source of funding to develop such serious tide and wave machines if there were not a tax? The tax, I can see only increasing with the push to go off shore with generation and increasing the installation and maintenance costs by quite a bit.

 

Perhaps another bit of biased polling is the fact that Billy Fox did not get elected, if sentiment were so high, perhaps he would have done.

 

The democratic decision is that there can be a wind generation era in Shetland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...