GLOBAL WARMING

[A Century United]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

There will always be variations around a trend.

:whistling:

 

[Jam_Man]

Weather patterns change, it will never remain the same.

Mankind cant control everything it wants to.

We should be environmental conscious as its the right thing to do, but not because its going to "save the planet" from global warming.

 

[Mad Cyril]

As Monty Burns said:

Mother Nature started the battle for survival and now she wants to quit because she is losing?

 

[superblue24]

Always a worry.....The Maldives is no good to me underwater.

 

[A Century United]

It's all a load of fear mongering balls.....

The Oil Producers would say that, wouldn't they? :whistling:

 

[Jam_Man]

I remember when people said the Ozone layer and acid rain were the end of the world.

Now its global warming.

In 20 years time it will be something else.

 

[londonblue]

Always a worry.....The Maldives is no good to me underwater.

Indeed. We went there for our honeymoon, and want to go back for our tenth anniversary. Although at the moment we can't afford it, so we may have to make it our 15th, and by then they may not be there.

 

[MK Shrimper]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...2013/9/9/1378692793547/ArcticEscalator450.gif

I consequently feel a bit foolish. :blush:

 

[londonblue]

My view of the whole thing is simple, mainly because I am.

I think why take the risk? Something like 95% of scientists believe global warming is man made. My view is that the chances are they're right. But even if they're wrong, why take the risk, especially as looking after the environment is financially better for us anyway?

I've put in low energy bulbs all over our house. That will save us in the long run, but in the short run we saw our electricity bill come down by about £50/quarter. Ok, it will take some time to pay back for the extra cost of the bulbs, but it will be worth it.

I also changed the boiler. The new one is far more efficient than the old one, and saves us money on our heating. (I took the opportunity to change to a mega-flow system as well which is fantastic...) Again, that will take time to pay back, but it will, and at least in the short term means we're using less gas than we were.

I now only buy diesel cars, and also drive like a big girls blouse. In my old car (I haven't had the new one long enough to judge), by driving more sensibly I went from getting about 35mpg to about 60mpg. That's good for the environment, but more importantly it's great for my pocket.

I've also put in two water butts at home. That probably doesn't save all that much because water is pretty cheap anyway, but it has meant in previous summers I've been able to water the garden and clean the patio without breeching the hosepipe ban.

We also try to recycle as much as we can. That may not save us money, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even an environmental scientist) to work out that putting things like batteries into landfill will only harm us in the long run.

I'm no saint, I do this because it helps saves the planet, and even if the 95% of scientists are wrong, it saves me money.

However, I also believe that we don't own this planet, it owns us. We borrow it from the next generation. I would like the planet I pass onto the next generation to be a better one than the one I inherited from previous generations.

 

[Jam_Man]

I doubt its 95% of scientists. Im sure most scientists agree the climate is changing, whether they all agree its mankind's fault is another thing.

I read a while ago that research into proving global warming was being funded more so than those disputing it, so you therefore just hear about it more.

I dont buy the theory that we are changing the planet, and even less that there would be anything we can do to make it "change back". The weather and climate will always change and would do so even if mankind didnt exist.

That said I totally agree, we should be more environmentally aware anyway, it wont 'save the world' but it will make it a better place to live in. Now if only the billion Chinese and the Indian continent etc would give a toss...

 

[Mad Cyril]

I see global warming as my kids problem, not mine.

 

[londonblue]

I doubt its 95% of scientists. Im sure most scientists agree the climate is changing, whether they all agree its mankind's fault is another thing.

I read a while ago that research into proving global warming was being funded more so than those disputing it, so you therefore just hear about it more.

I dont buy the theory that we are changing the planet, and even less that there would be anything we can do to make it "change back". The weather and climate will always change and would do so even if mankind didnt exist.

That said I totally agree, we should be more environmentally aware anyway, it wont 'save the world' but it will make it a better place to live in. Now if only the billion Chinese and the Indian continent etc would give a toss...

Again, not something I've corroborated, but apparently about 95% of scientists believe climate change is man made.

I guess it's like the MMR argument. All doctors bar 1 said it was safe, but that 1 was given equal air time, so people got the impression that it was a 50/50 argument.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

I saw the Briksdall Glacier in Norway a few weeks ago, and seeing the posts marking where the glacier reached at different times in the past leaves you in no doubt as to the trend. Even speaking to the guys who work up there taking tourists like me to see the glacier say you can see the difference year on year. My take on global warming is this, the earth naturally goes through peroids of getting colder and warmer, but to think we have no effect on that whatsoever is naïve. And even if we didn't, refusing to use sustainable energy over fossil fuels is just stupid. These things will not last forever (unless you think it's like the magic self-refilling lasagne tray of Garfield's dreams), so wouldn't be better to use things like solar, wind & water power as much as possible and save the oil & gas for when we find something that only those things can be used for? Surely it's just common sense.

 

[Jam_Man]

I saw the Briksdall Glacier in Norway a few weeks ago, and seeing the posts marking where the glacier reached at different times in the past leaves you in no doubt as to the trend. Even speaking to the guys who work up there taking tourists like me to see the glacier say you can see the difference year on year. My take on global warming is this, the earth naturally goes through peroids of getting colder and warmer, but to think we have no effect on that whatsoever is naïve. And even if we didn't, refusing to use sustainable energy over fossil fuels is just stupid. These things will not last forever (unless you think it's like the magic self-refilling lasagne tray of Garfield's dreams), so wouldn't be better to use things like solar, wind & water power as much as possible and save the oil & gas for when we find something that only those things can be used for? Surely it's just common sense.

People thinking its just man made and that if we recycle it will make the planet's climate chance are just as naive.

As you say the climate will change whether we are here or not, even if we have an effect it wouldnt remain the same for eternity if we suddenly disappeared. For the effect we may (or may not have) then that would be caused by 5 billion people, anyone who thinks we can all suddenly stop living the lives we lead even more naive.

That doesnt mean we shouldnt be taking steps to move away from fossil fuels and producing less pollution, but we should do so because its not sustainable and common sense, not so we can make the climate go back to how it was 100 years ago.

 

[A Century United]

People thinking its just man made and that if we recycle it will make the planet's climate chance are just as naive.

As you say the climate will change whether we are here or not, even if we have an effect it wouldnt remain the same for eternity if we suddenly disappeared. For the effect we may (or may not have) then that would be caused by 5 billion people, anyone who thinks we can all suddenly stop living the lives we lead even more naive.

That doesnt mean we shouldnt be taking steps to move away from fossil fuels and producing less pollution, but we should do so because its not sustainable and common sense, not so we can make the climate go back to how it was 100 years ago.

Nobody is saying we can make the climate go back to where it was 100 years ago. What they are saying is that it would be a very good idea to stop it rising by more than 2 degrees C. Even if we do (and I don't hold out much hope) that is a far greater increase than there is any evidence for ever having happened in a similar time scale.

Acid rain and the Ozone layer are still problems but they were dealt with by rapid international action (eg banning the refrigerants that were a major cause of the ozone layer depletion). If there had been no action, we would be in some trouble now.

This debate reminds me irresistibly of the battle that took place when scientists first pointed out that Tobacco kills people. A combination of denial (there is no problem) and obfuscation (the people who are saying there is a problem have a secret agenda/more funding than the pro-tobacco lobby/are faking the evidence). You would be surprised at how much money the oil companies, for instance, are putting into funding climate change denial.

 

[Jam_Man]

Nobody is saying we can make the climate go back to where it was 100 years ago. What they are saying is that it would be a very good idea to stop it rising by more than 2 degrees C. Even if we do (and I don't hold out much hope) that is a far greater increase than there is any evidence for happening in a similar time scale.

Acid rain and the Ozone layer are still problems but they were dealt with by rapid international action (eg banning the refrigerants that were a major cause of the ozone layer depletion). If there had been no action, we would be in some trouble now.

This debate reminds me irresistibly of the battle that took place when scientists first pointed out that Tobacco kills people. A combination of denial (there is no problem) and obfuscation (the people who are saying there is a problem have a secret agenda/more funding than the pro-tobacco lobby/are faking the evidence). You would be surprised at how much money the oil companies, for instance, are putting into funding climate change denial.

Just as bad as thinking we can revert it.

Lets say mankind disappeared instantly, the climate would still change and it would still increase by 2 degrees. Yes it would be nice to stop it, it would be nice to have 30 degree summers and mild winters with just the right amount of rain to keep us alive, but we dont have that control.Anyone who thinks we can control the temperature of the planet is deluded. Its a massive rock spinning around a big ball of fire, we really dont have that much control over it despite human nature thinking we should have.

Oil companies etc may be adding their spin, but basic common sense tells you the planet's climate will change with mankind or not. It changed before we existed and it will continue to change long after we have gone.

Tobacco is a totally different debtate, there was no information regarding smoking as it is relatively new and medical science has only really advanced in the last century, we do however know that there have been ice ages and global warming in the past so we know that the climate will change whether mankind are here or not.

 

[londonblue]

Just as bad as thinking we can revert it.

Lets say mankind disappeared instantly, the climate would still change and it would still increase by 2 degrees. Yes it would be nice to stop it, it would be nice to have 30 degree summers and mild winters with just the right amount of rain to keep us alive, but we dont have that control.Anyone who thinks we can control the temperature of the planet is deluded. Its a massive rock spinning around a big ball of fire, we really dont have that much control over it despite human nature thinking we should have.

Oil companies etc may be adding their spin, but basic common sense tells you the planet's climate will change with mankind or not. It changed before we existed and it will continue to change long after we have gone.

Tobacco is a totally different debtate, there was no information regarding smoking as it is relatively new and medical science has only really advanced in the last century, we do however know that there have been ice ages and global warming in the past so we know that the climate will change whether mankind are here or not.

Can you explain this for me then:



Admittedly it could be coincidence that global temperatures have increase in line with human CO2 production.

 

[Jam_Man]

Can you explain this for me then:

View attachment 2484

Admittedly it could be coincidence that global temperatures have increase in line with human CO2 production.

I dont feel I can make a final judgement on something that could have been made in excel by a 6 year old.

A 2 second google found this

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.

There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.

Now with no knowledge or understanding I see from that that the amount of CO2 does not make temperature rise at the same rate, which is what that graph is suggesting is happening. Surely in that case the incline in the temp would be about the half of what the CO2 rate of incline is, but it isnt, its mirrored.

So that makes that graph pretty pointless then. Id bet if you researched the consumption of mars bars over the past 50 years and plotted it against it that it would make it look like that was linked too.

 

[londonblue]

I dont feel I can make a final judgement on something that could have been made in excel by a 6 year old.

A 2 second google found this



Now with no knowledge or understanding I see from that that the amount of CO2 does not make temperature rise at the same rate, which is what that graph is suggesting is happening. Surely in that case the incline in the temp would be about the half of what the CO2 rate of incline is, but it isnt, its mirrored.

So that makes that graph pretty pointless then. Id bet if you researched the consumption of mars bars over the past 50 years and plotted it against it that it would make it look like that was linked too.

So you just dismiss one thing because it's a graph and could have been knocked up in excel by a 6 year old? In that case I'll just dismiss your prose because it could have been knocked up in word by a 6 year old.

At least have the decency to answer my point rather than just dismissing it.

 

[Jam_Man]

So you just dismiss one thing because it's a graph and could have been knocked up in excel by a 6 year old? In that case I'll just dismiss your prose because it could have been knocked up in word by a 6 year old.

At least have the decency to answer my point rather than just dismissing it.

You made a point ?

What about my comments regarding the increase of CO2 not increasing global warming by a proportionate amount ?

Was that not a comment that justified dismissing the graph which showed the increase being matched exactly. Can you explain why the increase in temperature isnt at a lower rate than the increase in CO2 then as that passage says it should be half as much?

I dont know anything about the science, but you posted a graph out of nowhere that doesnt tally up with information I found in my first google search, so why would I take that to be evidence of anything?