Global Warming

[AmericanRam]

This is an issue some colleagues and I tend to discuss quite often and am just curious what others on here think in regards to it? 

 I personally feel that it is not as bad as scientists and others make it out to be.

 

 

[ramit]

Since you ask

i think we are polluting and abusing the planet beyond it's tolerance and Gaia will cook us.  The body heats up to kill off invading viruses, there's nothing new here.  We might still have a choice to live in harmony with the planet, we would be silly to postpone it much longer, but no lets argue first about whether global warming is real and then when accepted we can argue about the cause of it and then when we agree on that we can blame it all on the politicians and continue as before.  Righto.

[scarboroughwa]

2 hours ago, AmericanRam said:

This is an issue some colleagues and I tend to discuss quite often and am just curious what others on here think in regards to it? 

 I personally feel that it is not as bad as scientists and others make it out to be.

 

 

This is something I discuss all the time and people get very, very agitated by this question:

"Can you please show me a three or four paragraph piece by an independent body which conclusively shows that the heating up of the planet is solely due to mankind".

What this is guarding against is, of course, is the earth going to heat up anyway with or without mankind because that's just the nature of the planet?

Of course, it's obvious that we would be better not spewing all that **** into the air and oceans al the time, but we're talking about global warming.

I am not a science denier (I'm a full on atheist because I'm not a science denier), all I am seeking is this evidence.

No-one's been able to come up with it yet.

[Wolfie]

Just yesterday I listened to the latest "infinite monkey cage" podcast on this very topic. Well worth a listen if you want evidence.

I would have thought that it's the word "solely" which gets them agitated - of course they can't say it's just down to humans as there are loads of variables but human activity is magnifying the effects. Why do you need to know it's solely due to humans?  That's irrelevant surely. The point is it's happening and we need to do something.

2 hours ago, scarboroughwa said:

This is something I discuss all the time and people get very, very agitated by this question:

"Can you please show me a three or four paragraph piece by an independent body which conclusively shows that the heating up of the planet is solely due to mankind".

What this is guarding against is, of course, is the earth going to heat up anyway with or without mankind because that's just the nature of the planet?

Of course, it's obvious that we would be better not spewing all that **** into the air and oceans al the time, but we're talking about global warming.

I am not a science denier (I'm a full on atheist because I'm not a science denier), all I am seeking is this evidence.

No-one's been able to come up with it yet.

 

[Joe.]

5 hours ago, scarboroughwa said:

Can you please show me a three or four paragraph piece by an independent body which conclusively shows that the heating up of the planet is solely due to mankind".

What this is guarding against is, of course, is the earth going to heat up anyway with or without mankind because that's just the nature of the planet?

There's plenty of evidence that the earth has had cycles of climate change naturally over the past thousands and thousands of years, and I don't think anybody actually thinks the current trend is solely due to human activity. However increased human activity appears to be magnifying the issue, it is far better to take preventative measures now than leave it 50 years because you haven't got three or four paragraphs saying humans are the some contributors, which they aren't

[Cisse]

8 hours ago, AmericanRam said:

This is an issue some colleagues and I tend to discuss quite often and am just curious what others on here think in regards to it? 

 I personally feel that it is not as bad as scientists and others make it out to be.

 

 

It sure has ruined the winters here. We should have minus10-20 now and it is plus one. Also most summers now we have heat waves we didn't use to have.

 

[ossieram]

Whether it's down to us or a combination of us and the way the planet changes naturally makes no difference because nothing will be done about it. Humans are generally selfish and will not stop doing what makes them happy/money because most think that they will be a long time dead before anything serious happens.

[Day]

No such thing.

Bloody freezing in Grimsby today, wouldn't mind a bit of warming.

[Wolfie]

2 minutes ago, ossieram said:

Whether it's down to us or a combination of us and the way the planet changes naturally makes no difference because nothing will be done about it. Humans are generally selfish and will not stop doing what makes them happy/money because most think that they will be a long time dead before anything serious happens.

Still, I'm sure we will all feel much more content when our children die from hunger or disease or nuked in world war 3 caused by hunger, disease & mass migration elsewhere in the world, knowing that we were not solely to blame for it.

[Mafiabob]

The biggest myth on this planet

[Srg]

Yes, it's getting warmer since the beginning of records... but records don't go back very far in the scheme of things. It's all cyclical.

[SaintRam]

Firstly I think it should be climate change, as opposed to global warming simply because it is not simply places warming up. Secondly, I've read enough into it to believe it's a significant issue but I'm no scientist so I'm certainly not going to try to explain it/persuade anyone.

But, in matters of science there are often disagreements between the experts in the field. In the case of climate change, every scientist in the field is in complete agreement and I find that quite convincing. 

[ossieram]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

Still, I'm sure we will all feel much more content when our children die from hunger or disease or nuked in world war 3 caused by hunger, disease & mass migration elsewhere in the world, knowing that we were not solely to blame for it.

We won't feel anything because we will already be dead. Plenty of people do care about what is happening to the planet, but the majority don't give a flying fook and couldn't give a toss about anything that doesn't affect their cosy little lives right now. They see the news and read about global warming and even if they do believe it is all down to people, they will not stop using fossil fuels, they won't stop buying stuff that is grown or made at the expense of the rain forests because we are as a species very selfish.     

[CornwallRam]

Clearly there has always been temperature fluctuations, and the evidence suggests that the Earth has often been considerably warmer than it is today. I think that the panic is based around how quickly the planet now seems to be warming, the fact that this increase may well be driven by human activity and the effects of climate change cause hardship that is now visible to all through global TV coverage. 

I find it interesting that news stories about climate change often mention the idea of a 'global temperature'. What this means is the averaged temperature of multiple weather stations. It is well known that urban areas generate heat, so any weather station that is close to an urban area will show a localised increase. Urban sprawl means that more weather stations are affected by this. I would say that a significant amount of 'global warming' is actually just the sensors picking up an increase in the size of towns and cities. Interestingly, satellites can also be used to measure temperature. Data from satellites still shows some warming, but far less than earth bound weather centres, and much more in line with what would be considered a natural variation.

I'm quite sceptical that global warming is quite as big an issue as often portrayed. Having said that, I still think we must do all we can to tread lightly on the planet. I'm not 100% convinced that current climate change is anything more than a natural cycle, but if it is and we keep driving it, we don't have another planet to move to. If we work hard to reduce emissions, stop draining non-renewable resources and contain any necessary pollution we get a nicer place to live in, even if it doesn't make a jot of difference to climate change. I do think the answer to that lies in technology and education though, not making things so expensive that only the wealthy can afford enjoy life.

[Stive Pesley]

I don't doubt that it's real and that human activity is making it worse, but then the planet was here for millions of years before us and will most likely be here for millions of years after us. We're just an insignificant blip really and whilst I agree that we should take what measures we can to avoid doing stuff that we know affects climate I don't see the point of being militant about it.In the scheme of things, even if we tried really hard to limit our activities, it would still be an insignificant effort. Likewise - not doing stuff would still be insignificant.

I don't take issue with climate change deniers because I want drastic action on climate change. I take issue with them because they are just using it to justify themselves acting like selfish bellends. And I don't like selfish bellends.

Plus we know that this planet has a hugely complex ecosystem and that life evolves. Whatever we do or don't do will have consequences that we can't possibly predict, life will go on and life will change. We all die

[Highgate]

If i had enough hair left....i'd tear it out anytime i read discussions about global warming and anthropogenic climate change.  The relevant physics is pretty basic and perfectly well understood and yet there seems to be so much confusion and denial.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) warm the planet.  That's a fact.  They allow sunlight in, but reflect and trap a portion of the heat (longer wavelength) the the Earth radiates back into space.  This phenomenon can be demonstrated by any science teacher in a school lab. 

The average surface temperature of the Earth, without greenhouse gases would be about -18C. That would mean frozen oceans, and it would be far too cold for life as we know it.  We can only exist on this planet because of the effectiveness of GHG at trapping heat from the sun.  At the other extreme, Venus, a planet with an atmosphere packed with GHG, has an average surface temperature of 450 C, hot enough to melt lead  (whereas you would it expect it to be just a little warmer than Earth due to it's proximity to the sun, but still just about habitable if it had a similar astmosphere) . There can be no doubt at all that GHG are capable or warming planets by their presence.

Humans are increasing the quantity of GHG in our own atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels. That is a fact. Now given that we know GHG warm the planet, and we know we are increasing their quantity in the atmosphere...just what do we think is going to happen to our climate?  

People for some reason confuse, or try to confuse the issue by saying there are other ways in which the planet can warm..and the current warming trend may have nothing to do with humans. They mention such factors as solar activity, changes in our orbit, changes in ocean currents, el nino/la nina cycles, axis tilt, position of the continents and even naturally produced GHG  This is all true of course, but it's not relevant. We all ready know, whatever other cycles are taking place, over whatever timescales, that we can and will heat our planet up with the GHG we are dumping into our atmosphere, regardless of what else is happening. 

The IPCC clearly states that it believes that the current warming trend is due to human activity...and given the quantities of GHG that we have already added to the atmosphere, they make very worrying predictions about the amount of warming we are already committed to and the inevitable sea level rises that will follow.  The truly frightening thing is that this is a consensus position, meaning that it was the minimum level, the level that all the scientists involved agreed was likely.  If you were to get an average position on the level of warming predicted by climate scientists, it would be higher. Many climate scientists try to factor in such positive feedback mechanisms such as the thawing of the permafrost and the methyl hydrates deposits in the oceans which as the temperature warms will dump even more methane ( a very potent GHG) into the atmosphere, which means the warming will be more extreme. 

As a species our collective response to this crisis has been pathetic, too worried about the petty economic concerns (it will seem so to future generations) to change the source of our energy.  We could do it if we tried.  By now, all of our energy should come from electricity, our cars and transport systems should also be electric and our electricity generated from renewable sources.  We should be tirelessly researching the possibility of nuclear fusion, which is so promising.  But instead for some bizarre reason...we still seem to be 'debating' this.  It's very basic science, the debate should be over long ago.. the delay could cost humanity dearly.  Time to wake up! 

[Srg]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

If i had enough hair left....i'd tear it out anytime i read discussions about global warming and anthropogenic climate change.  The relevant physics is pretty basic and perfectly well understood and yet there seems to be so much confusion and denial.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) warm the planet.  That's a fact.  They allow sunlight in, but reflect and trap a portion of the heat (longer wavelength) the the Earth radiates back into space.  This phenomenon can be demonstrated by any science teacher in a school lab. 

The average surface temperature of the Earth, without greenhouse gases would be about -18C. That would mean frozen oceans, and it would be far too cold for life as we know it.  We can only exist on this planet because of the effectiveness of GHG at trapping heat from the sun.  At the other extreme, Venus, a planet with an atmosphere packed with GHG, has an average surface temperature of 450 C, hot enough to melt lead  (whereas you would it expect it to be just a little warmer than Earth due to it's proximity to the sun, but still just about habitable if it had a similar astmosphere) . There can be no doubt at all that GHG are capable or warming planets by their presence.

Humans are increasing the quantity of GHG in our own atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels. That is a fact. Now given that we know GHG warm the planet, and we know we are increasing their quantity in the atmosphere...just what do we think is going to happen to our climate?  

People for some reason confuse, or try to confuse the issue by saying there are other ways in which the planet can warm..and the current warming trend may have nothing to do with humans. They mention such factors as solar activity, changes in our orbit, changes in ocean currents, el nino/la nina cycles, axis tilt, position of the continents and even naturally produced GHG  This is all true of course, but it's not relevant. We all ready know, whatever other cycles are taking place, over whatever timescales, that we can and will heat our planet up with the GHG we are dumping into our atmosphere, regardless of what else is happening. 

The IPCC clearly states that it believes that the current warming trend is due to human activity...and given the quantities of GHG that we have already added to the atmosphere, they make very worrying predictions about the amount of warming we are already committed to and the inevitable sea level rises that will follow.  The truly frightening thing is that this is a consensus position, meaning that it was the minimum level, the level that all the scientists involved agreed was likely.  If you were to get an average position on the level of warming predicted by climate scientists, it would be higher. Many climate scientists try to factor in such positive feedback mechanisms such as the thawing of the permafrost and the methyl hydrates deposits in the oceans which as the temperature warms will dump even more methane ( a very potent GHG) into the atmosphere, which means the warming will be more extreme. 

As a species our collective response to this crisis has been pathetic, too worried about the petty economic concerns (it will seem so to future generations) to change the source of our energy.  We could do it if we tried.  By now, all of our energy should come from electricity, our cars and transport systems should also be electric and our electricity generated from renewable sources.  We should be tirelessly researching the possibility of nuclear fusion, which is so promising.  But instead for some bizarre reason...we still seem to be 'debating' this.  It's very basic science, the debate should be over long ago.. the delay could cost humanity dearly.  Time to wake up! 

So what you're trying to say is... global warming made you bald?

[Sith Happens]

I am not sure i believe it. I remember reading that the planet is coming out of a mini ice age, so surely its going to get warmer as a result, including ice caps not having as much ice.

Also average temperatures are bound to be higher, it is always warmer in cities and cities are so much bigger now than they used to be when records started so of course more areas will have a higher temperature.

I dont doubt we are causing damage to the planet, cutting down the rain forests etc...but i do not believe the warming is purely down to man. We could say that actually trying to stop the warming could be more devastating if it is actually a natural occurance.

It probably doesnt help that the messages sent by the so called experts seem to change weekly, one week it will mean the UK will have a climate like spain, then the following we wont and we will just get wet summers. Then we will get wet winters, then the next thing we will get freezing cold winters. What this tells me is...no one knows or has a clue what is going on.

[davenportram]

there are some models giving levels of CO2 and other GHG that were 10 times higher than now in the long distant past.

 

 

the earth was a lot colder during the ice-age

 

at the end of the day the earth either falls in temperature and kills everything to start again, or it rises in temperature and everyone drowns and I starts again.

[davenportram]

9 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I am not sure i believe it. I remember reading that the planet is coming out of a mini ice age, so surely its going to get warmer as a result, including ice caps not having as much ice.

Also average temperatures are bound to be higher, it is always warmer in cities and cities are so much bigger now than they used to be when records started so of course more areas will have a higher temperature.

I dont doubt we are causing damage to the planet, cutting down the rain forests etc...but i do not believe the warming is purely down to man. We could say that actually trying to stop the warming could be more devastating if it is actually a natural occurance.

It probably doesnt help that the messages sent by the so called experts seem to change weekly, one week it will mean the UK will have a climate like spain, then the following we wont and we will just get wet summers. Then we will get wet winters, then the next thing we will get freezing cold winters. What this tells me is...no one knows or has a clue what is going on.

noone does have a clue. Records don't go back far enough to model the change accurately enough. Its all best guesses. I'm sure we should be a coastal town by now given some of the claims of the 80's