Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


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

 

Sorry for the long post, but I find that it's always best to be thorough when cleaning up crap.

 

Hmmm, well as I said we'll soon see wont we since the peak of Solar Cycle 24 is only 5 years away (2012) and then the fun begins. Incidentally heres a little further reading for you:

 

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html

 

Theres more where that came from! Oh and one other thing, if we could keep it to proper debate and not resort to pathetic, childish ad-hominems that would be good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.   Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocaly

This guy went to Princeton University and Harvard Law School for goodness sake! Please tell me he knew the Paris Climate Agreement was named after the location the meeting took place and had nothing t

Anyone else getting a little fed up with being told that we have to "cut this, and cut that" when in truth, the one thing that we MUST cut is the global population.  Anything else is just "fiddling wh

Just finished reading Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning by George Monbiot (monbiot.com) and Six Degrees by Mark Lynas (marklynas.org), which looks at what we can expect to happen with each degree of warming over the coming century.

Sorry, Malachy, but I personally don't like this kind of riding on a commercial wave as does Mr Monbiot.

 

... generally spoken ... not regarding some details ...

 

But if his scenario would happen, we would have reapening grapes to commercial standards here in the north of Hamburg ... nothing else than we actually had in the midth of the 17th century when Brow farm (Dunrossness) was "blowin to Berrene".

 

... and to some extend I am sure that no-one has read the last IPCC report properly: it was for the first time an indication that the tropical forest areas of central Africa might be cooling down with the potential of higher impacts than any warming up in our beloved areas.

 

I am not a fatalist, I am not saying that we should not do what we can do to save energy and to save our natural resources ... but we should not allow that the now quotable media hysteria and folks like Al Gore, an US renewable energy lobbyist gain control of our critical behaviour ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not a fatalist, I am not saying that we should not do what we can do to save energy and to save our natural resources ... but we should not allow that the now quotable media hysteria and folks like Al Gore, an US renewable energy lobbyist gain control of our critical behaviour ...

 

Quite so. There are many good reasons why we should be divesting ourselves of our reliance on fossil fuels and making more efficient use of our energy, besides the GW argument. I have no problem with this.

 

What I do have a problem with is this idea that all of the current warming phase we are going through right now is our fault and that we could prevent it if we only tried. To assume that we, the human race, have far more impact upon global climate than something as powerful as our own star smacks of typical human arrogance to me. This planet has had warming phases before, some more aggressive than the one we are in now, where planetary temperatures and global sea levels were much higher and all of this without a drop of human influence, there is abundant evidence of this in the ice cores. So if we weren't here to drive it with our production of CO2 what did. Big orange shiny thingy in the sky would be a good possibility methinks!

 

Currently, we are at the fag-end of a high-point in solar activity which is about to end. Furthermore we are also at the end of a 35-year El Nino cycle and are about to go into a 35-year La Nina cycle. What does this have to do with us since this phenomenon affects the Pacific? El Nino/La Nina has a profound affect on the weather in our part of the world. It can affect the position and amplitude of the Jet Stream for one. Notice this year that all the Low Pressure systems seem to be travelling much further south than normal. Its why all the rain has been dumped on central/northern England. Its because the Jet Stream is much further south this year which in turn is a knock-on effect of going from El Nino to La Nina conditions. El Nino/La Nina also has an affect on the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation). It tends to be +ve (positive phase) during El Nino and -ve (negative phase) during La Nina, in other words El Nino tends to mean warm winters and La Nina cold. Mark my words, things are about to get a lot cooler in coming years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally heres a little further reading for you:

 

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html

 

Theres more where that came from!

 

That article seems to be just a summary of some of the research I mentioned in my post. In fact it says exactly what I said, that the scientists who do believe in this theory think it is not particularly relevant to our current climate crisis. Here, indeed, is a quote from the article:

 

None of this means that we can stop worrying about global warming caused by emissions into the atmosphere. "The temperature of the Earth in the past few decades does not correlate with solar activity at all," Solanki says. He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won't do anything to get rid of them.

 

So, the scientist who is responsible for the claims that you have made here believes "solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970." And yet, in your last post, Bitter Truth, you state that

To assume that we, the human race, have far more impact upon global climate than something as powerful as our own star smacks of typical human arrogance to me.

 

Which leaves me a bit confused. If solar activity is responsible for 30 per cent at most, and greenhouse gases for less, where's the rest coming from? Unless of course you are contradicting the claims of the scientist. Is that it?

 

Also in your last post you ask

So if we weren't here to drive it [planetary temperatures] with our production of CO2 what did? Big orange shiny thingy in the sky would be a good possibility methinks

 

Well this just shows you haven't really done your homework on this subject, because if you had you would know the answer. There have, as you point out, been many temperature variations during the history of the planet. Some, like the little ice age, have been quite minor, while others, like the end-Permian, which I mentioned before, have been huge (6 degrees warming) and have had catastrophic effects, wiping out most of the life on the planet.

 

There have been two major reasons for the temperature variations. One is planetary tilt - tiny variations in the orbit of the earth, bringing it further from or nearer to the sun - and the other is, yes you guessed it (or maybe you didn't), CO2.

 

CO2 has always effected our climate, and the stable climate we have enjoyed over the past 10,000 years or so has been due in large part to CO2 levels remaining within certain limits. When CO2 has been released into the atmoshpere in larger than usual quantities, such as during major volcanic eruptions, it can have the long term effect of warming (though it can also have a shorter term 'nuclear winter' cooling effect).

 

Geological evidence suggests that volcanic activity has been responsible for some of the climatic changes in the planets history. But the problem with the way the planet stabilises CO2 levels (and climate) is that it doesn't take much to knock it out of balance. Once temperatures rise a little bit (for instance, after a super-volcanic eruption) other 'positive feedback' effects start to take place. There are immense quantities of CO2 and Methane at the bottom of the world's oceans. In certain conditions (and at certain temperatures) these gases begin to rise to the surface, so continuing the warming process. This is what happened (over 10,000 years) at the end-Permian, which, as I said before, is the most significant warming the world has previously seen. The current rate of warming exceeds anything that has ever happened on this planet before.

 

What worries me is that there is scientific consensus on this issue. All but a very few scientists agree about it. Greenhouse gases increase warming (that was established more than a century ago). We produce far too many greenhouse gases. The world is getting warmer very very quickly. And yet people refuse to believe what they are being told. They just ignore the evidence in front of them and shake their heads in denial. It is sickening and frightening to watch it happen. People are in a state of utter denial. Denial of evidence and denial of responsibility. Or else they accept it's happening but talk about it as if it won't affect their lives. As I have already repeated - six degrees of warming previously wiped out 95% of species on the planet. The scientists believe we will see up to six degrees of warming this century! If you don't take that warning seriously then I'm not really sure what else can be said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a fatalist, I am not saying that we should not do what we can do to save energy and to save our natural resources ... but we should not allow that the now quotable media hysteria and folks like Al Gore, an US renewable energy lobbyist gain control of our critical behaviour ...

I found it amusing that, during the recent Live Earth show when everyone and his dog was talking about the need for action, a band sang a song they said was appropriate - Que Sera Sera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me is that there is scientific consensus on this issue.

 

Really? You might be interested in this then:

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

 

Can I ask that you read all the links contained in the article as well. It will take you a wee while (they're the ones in blue about half-way down the article) then let me know if you still think there is a consensus and also if you think the case for AGW is as hard and fast as you think it is.

 

One of the problems I have with the AGW crusade is that it has both political and religious overtones, neither of which are good for unbiased, considered debate or indeed science. AGW has become todays "cause celebre" and many of those who favour the AGW argument extol it to the point of almost religious fervour. It gets to be so its like "AGW is the only belief in town, all else is the devils work" which is comparable in attitude to the Jehovas Witnesses. But anyway, I digress. Lots to keep you interested there and as I say, I think you'll find theres not such a scientific consensus as you seem to think there is. One final point, I was always lead to believe that one of the fundamental concepts of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" was the right to question orthodoxy, to question what seems to be "soup-of-the-day" or "received wisdom" particularly because "received wisdom" often turns out to be not so wise. Once upon a time received wisdom was "the earth was flat" which, of course, turned out to be a complete load of cobblers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made a start at reading the pieces you suggested, and will try and work my way through them. So far I have particularly enjoyed the article in which this columnist had to offer an official apology for labelling a scientist a climate change denier. It must have been embarrasing for him to have to begin his column with this sentence:

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend

He then goes on to repeat his previous claim about Dr Weiss in the column, and in the next one. From a quick online search I also discovered that the paper had to issue a full apology for Mr Solomon's behaviour later.

 

It is worth remembering also that Lawrence Solomon is not a scientist. And the information he relies on is not hard science either. From the half dozen I've read so far I can find no reference to any peer reviewed papers to support his view. Which is unsurprising, because as far as I'm aware there aren't any. (I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can find any.)

 

The National Post in Canada (Solomon's newspaper) is well known for it's anti-climate science stance (in the same way the Daily Mail is in this country). The Canadian media, and Canada in general, has been seen as the front line in the fight against climate science. There is an interesting article about why here - http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/

Another more general article from the Guardian here - http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

It is information like this which has cause the BBC to recently change their stance on global warming. They had previously always tried to offer both sides of the 'debate': interviewing climate change deniers as well as mainstream climate scientists. But they have now claimed that they have been 'duped'. The 'debate', they have realised, is not a debate at all. The vast majority of climate change denying organisations in this country and in North America, are small organisations funded, and in quite a few cases set up, by ExxonMobil. Their job, for which they receive this funding, is to propogate the notion that there is a debate, and that the science is inconclusive. And of course it works. People are only too willing to believe it.

 

(On this note, Njugle mentioned something earlier about global warming happening on Mars, which has been used as 'evidence' for this sunspots theory. This is one of those instances of serious misinformation. The temperature on Mars has only been recorded for 25 years - hardly enough to base any serious measurements on. But more importantly, the scientists involved in the research have made no such claims about the recorded warming. Here is some information by a real scientist rather than a columnist: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 . If you look lower down at the comments he also explains why the claims about Tritan and Pluto are also false).

 

There have been numerous comments about the 'religious' tone of climate change 'believers' (if you will). The tone of the debate I think can be easily explained. If you choose to believe the scientists and accept the consensus view on the issue, the effect is best described as one of mild panic. Most scientists believe we have about a decade, perhaps 15 years, to make a serious dent (60 - 90% cut) in our CO2 emissions in order to avoid environmental catastrophe. Now forgive me if I sound a little frantic or preachy when people start talking about sunspots. The fact is we either do something right now or we just shrug our shoulders and wait and see (or we can keep talking about it until it's too late). My own preference is the first option. But it seems I am in a serious minority. Never mind eh. No harm done. :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of interesting snippets:

 

The first one is about sub-zero temperatures in Argentina and the first snow for 89 years!!

 

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=60868

 

This next one is the result of some recent scientific investigation that shows Greenland was considerably warmer and, more importantly I think, that the Greenland Ice Sheet may be more resistant to climate change than at first thought.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6276576.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take issue with a couple of points Malachy if I may.

 

Your comments regarding the source that I pointed you to (National Post) or indeed the funding of anti-global warming research by oil companies may be true but its not relevant. They are logical fallacies of the argumentum ad hominem kind. Just because you dont like the source of information or who funds what does not necessarily mean that the information itself is false. I could make the same argument about a great number of pro-GW scientists, who rely on Governments/environmental/lobby groups etc for their grants/funding. I could argue that any scientist who wants to see his funding continue is not going to say that GW is a load of codswallop when those who fund him/her are funding him to find just the opposite, indeed that accusation has already been made elsewhere.

 

I wouldn't attach too much credence to the "peer review" process either. This process is becoming increasingly subject to criticism for several reasons, not least of which is that it "suppresses dissent of mainsteam theories" an accusation with which I would whole-heartedly agree. Furthermore the process can be controlled by scientific "elites." The process has spectacularly failed on a number of occasions, including a 1997 article in the magazine "Science" about the Dodo and seed germination and another in 1993 by Jean-Baptiste Van Helmont in "Bioscience", which contained a number of factual errors and no references for supposed "facts." Indeed there have been several instances of the process completely missing outright fraud including 15 papers submitted by Jan Hendrik Schon to the journals "Nature" and "Science" all of which passed the peer review process. Some branches of science, notably Astronomy, no longer use peer-review, instead using "preprints" posted on electronic servers.

 

I would also point out that at no point have I suggested a "do nothing" policy, indeed if you look back at my posts you will find that I clearly stated that there were numerous good reasons for cutting down on our wasteful use of energy and reliance on fossil fuels, it is somewhat disingenious of you to suggest otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple of interesting snippets:

 

The first one is about sub-zero temperatures in Argentina and the first snow for 89 years!!

 

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=60868

 

This next one is the result of some recent scientific investigation that shows Greenland was considerably warmer and, more importantly I think, that the Greenland Ice Sheet may be more resistant to climate change than at first thought.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6276576.stm

 

You were quicker ... ;-)

But in fact it looks like that at least some scientists did a bit of basical readings in systems theory of geosciences before they started: glaciologist of Bern University came up with according information from Antarctica last weekend ... stating that Antarcica was about 5.5 °C warmer than today some 130,000 years ago but has been 10°C cooler than today some 20,000 years ago ... ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garlic 'may cut cow flatulence'

Scientists in Wales tackling the impact flatulent cows and sheep have on global warming may have an answer - putting garlic in their food.

 

Experts claim cows are responsible for about 3% of Britain's greenhouse gases.

 

But initial results from the start of the three-year study show that feed containing garlic could cut the amount of gas produced by up to 50%.

 

The Aberystwyth research team is testing if this taints milk or meat - and gives the animals bad breath.

 

The study is being led by scientists at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, alongside colleagues at Bangor and Reading universities.

 

In Aberystwyth, researchers are measuring the amount of methane and nitrogen produced by sheep by housing them in a plastic portable tent.

 

Project leader Professor Jamie Newbold said new types of feed from plant extracts, and grass with a higher sugar content, were being developed to help

 

 

Now are they going to ban beans

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Garlic 'may cut verbal flatulence in politicians'

Scientists in Wales tackling the impact verbally flatulent politicians have on global warming may have an answer - putting garlic in their brandy.

 

Experts claim politicians are responsible for about 50% of Britain's greenhouse gases.

 

But initial results from the start of the three-year study show that brandy containing garlic could cut the amount of gas produced by up to 75%.

 

The Aberystwyth research team is carrying out tests to see if this improves policies or productivity - and cures the politicians of verbal diarrhoea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
^Garlic 'may cut verbal flatulence in politicians'

Scientists in Wales tackling the impact verbally flatulent politicians have on global warming may have an answer - putting garlic in their brandy. And verbal diarrhoea.

 

only in the case of Michael Howard it would keep him in at night

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone missed it: a new study which puts the lie to the solar activity theory. (Though I'm sure its proponents will simply choose to ignore the evidence as usual).

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

 

Or if you prefer the Telegraph to the New Scientist, here's their take:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml

 

By the way, I've only just stopped laughing at the comment made above that governments are encouraging scientists to support the climate change consensus. What a ludicrous notion! The US has spent years telling scientists to be quiet whenever they mentioned climate change. Significant NASA scientists have lost their jobs for talking about it. And this country is not much better. The scientists have been talking about this for decades and have been ignored. Climate change is probably the biggest pain in the ass any government is ever likely to face. Why on earth would they want people to believe in it? It is going to require massive societal changes, unpopular decisions that will likely get any party that tries to implement them voted out of office; it will almost certainly damage the economy massively. I can't see any reason why a government would ever encourage people to believe in climate change, unless, like now, the evidence is so overwhelming that to ignore or deny it is to appear reckless, ignorant and utterly foolish.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...