Global Warming

[Joe.]

13 hours ago, davenportram said:

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

Yes but both of those periods of time presented either uninhabitable, or barely habitable conditions. What we should be doing is preserving the conditions that we know our species can thrive in for as long as we can. 

[davenportram]

15 hours ago, eddie said:

That's basically because we stopped spewing fluorocarbons into the atmosphere. Over the last 20 years, it has recovered to the extent that the hole is around 40% smaller than its peak level in the 1990's.

yep, I know it was a joke

[SillyBilly]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 00:23, Highgate said:

Thats not the only thing we know, we also know that increasing GHG will always increase temperatures significantly in the absence of any major effect to counteract it.  Your policy would be to alter the composition of our planet's atmosphere, for us and future generations and hope that we are saved by a cooling effect from another source that is out of our control?  

It is a good point you make and it's not my policy, just playing devils advocate. I do actually agree we should take measures to limit our impact where possible. No point in rolling the dice if we don't need to. Banning  CFC s was critical. 1 CFC would destroy about a 1000 molecules of Ozone. What concerns me most about CO2 is actually ocean acidification. 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, SillyBilly said:

It is a good point you make and it's not my policy, just playing devils advocate. I do actually agree we should take measures to limit our impact where possible. No point in rolling the dice if we don't need to. Banning  CFC s was critical. 1 CFC would destroy about a 1000 molecules of Ozone. What concerns me most about CO2 is actually ocean acidification. 

I agree ocean acidification is also a serious concern.  Unfortunately replacing fossil fuels with clean energy is a far more difficult problem to solve than the depletion of the ozone layer by CFCs, which could simply be banned and replaced with less damaging chemicals. 

[PodgeyRam]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/14/february-breaks-global-temperature-records-by-shocking-amount?CMP=fb_gu

 

Scary stuff. I remember talking to my parents at Christmas, thinking when the last time we had a 'White Christmas' was. And by this I mean snow on Christmas day, not January. They seemed to have them all the time when they were growing up in the 60's and 70's. I can only remember 3 at the most during my 22 years on this Earth. Then again, my memory ain't what it used to be.

[Carl Sagan]

Climate change should not be a political issue and it's despicable that so many people have made it one.

We have ice cores going back 800,000 years and none of them have CO2 levels anything like as high as today. The physics of how greenhouse gases relate cause temperature rises is very basic. The additional positive feedback loop of melting ice leading to reduced albido leading to further increases in temperature is also basic and straightforward.

Overall, the Earth is a very complex system and modelling all the impacts is difficult, but from geological records it's also apparent that Earth's climate can reach equlibria in various states, from ice ages and even "snowball Earth" at around 10 degrees cooler than today to other times when the temperature has been 15 degrees warmer with no ice caps and vastly higher sea levels. And that large temperature rises in the past have sometimes been sudden (decadal) rather than gradual.

What should we do? We should see it as a technological and economic opportunity to move quickly away from a fossil fuel economy to a better future of renewables and electric cars and the like. Microgrids are much more secure and robust against modern woes such as terror attacks, for instance if someone flew an airliner into a massive nuclear power station. Further, the UK is brilliantly placed to develop wind and wave power and export that technology to the world, but lags massively behind a country like Germany and even China nowadays, which has recognized some of the dangers and also the industrial opportunities.

And energy saving should be high on the world's agenda - it's amazing how much is wasted and a lot cheaper to turn a machine off that's not in use than build a few extra power stations.

[wixman1884]

On 2/18/2016 at 17:22, 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.

Oh thank goodness for that. I was actually a bit concerned, because I was formally trusting people that have devoted their entire lives to the study of climate science. 

[AmericanRam]

12 minutes ago, wixman1884 said:

Oh thank goodness for that. I was actually a bit concerned, because I was formally trusting people that have devoted their entire lives to the study of climate science. 

What are your thoughts about global warming?

[scarboroughwa]

Still waiting for the three or four paragraph piece from an independent body, that categorically proves that the concerning level of global warming is in most part due to mankind's actions.

Surely, with so many people wetting their pants about this, this evidence should be easy to produce shouldn't it?

Or are people just jumping on the band wagon without having obtained the evidence?

[Wolfie]

5 hours ago, scarboroughwa said:

Still waiting for the three or four paragraph piece from an independent body, that categorically proves that the concerning level of global warming is in most part due to mankind's actions.

To those with entreched views on either side, there is, and never will be any such thing as catagorical proof.

Again, why does it matter if it's mainly caused by mankind?. It's happening. We know that reducing greenhouse gases could slow it down. Regardless of the cause, wouldn't it be a good idea to try to reduce it anyway for the sake of our kids?

[scarboroughwa]

10 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

To those with entreched views on either side, there is, and never will be any such thing as catagorical proof.

Again, why does it matter if it's mainly caused by mankind?. It's happening. We know that reducing greenhouse gases could slow it down. Regardless of the cause, wouldn't it be a good idea to try to reduce it anyway for the sake of our kids?

Thanks Wolfie, this is the usual response. It's eerily concerning that this basic proof cannot be produced.

I'm not a climate change denier by any means (that's what I usually get called when I ask for evidence before I espouse an informed opinion), so until it's produced the jury's out for me. Like any other sensible person I guess.

But tbh, why would tens of billions of dollars be spent on something that is just a good idea, rather than something that is tangible and provides proven relief for the world's suffering?

[Wolfie]

23 minutes ago, scarboroughwa said:

Thanks Wolfie, this is the usual response. It's eerily concerning that this basic proof cannot be produced.

I'm not a climate change denier by any means (that's what I usually get called when I ask for evidence before I espouse an informed opinion), so until it's produced the jury's out for me. Like any other sensible person I guess.

But tbh, why would tens of billions of dollars be spent on something that is just a good idea, rather than something that is tangible and provides proven relief for the world's suffering?

I haven't got the time or inclination for your role play games. There is plenty of evidence out there if you look & the podcast I referred to earlier is a decent place to start. Whether you will ever find anything which constitues the level of proof you require is, of course, up to you.

I haven't seen irrefutable proof either but I choose to believe that it's better that we do something which we know will help reduce the problem now, rather than leave it and let my daughter & future grand children get wiped out in future famine/war caused by catastrophic climate change & subsequent struggle.

[scarboroughwa]

56 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Iflated hagnnen't goin the time  isvvestmentnr inclination fo theor your role play games. There is plenty of evidence out there if you look & the podcast I referred to earlier is a decent place to start. Whether you will ever find anything which constitues the level of proof you require is, of course, up to you.

I haven't seen irrefutable proof either but I choose to believe that it's better that we do something which we know will help reduce the problem now, rather than leave it and let my daughter & future grand children get wiped out in future famine/war caused by catastrophic climate change & subsequent struggle.

I've read loads of research and listened to plenty of podcasts so I'm not new to this discourse or looking for somewhere to start. As you say, the proof does not appear to exist and It could be regarded as concerning that the current level of frenzy appears to be possibly unfounded.

Once the proof's there, cool I'm In but I'm not going to allow the generic Ingrained vision of a chimney pouring smoke Into the air to jump me to possibly way Inflated conclusions.

I've a feeling that this may come out as being being a complete furphy although governments will probably not want this to be exposed, given their level of Investment and that Includes financial.

Maybe not though, we'll see.

By the way, I'm not playing role play games. This sort of comment doesn't surprise me though. People often get emotional and stoop to this kind of comment when this subject Is requested to offer proof.

 

[Wolfie]

11 minutes ago, scarboroughwa said:

This sort of comment doesn't surprise me though. People often get emotional and stoop to this kind of comment when this subject Is requested to offer proof.

People also often resort to condescention and belittling of the opposing view in order to win an argument. Fair enough it's a tactic but not one I am going to engage with, so for that reason I'm out.

[scarboroughwa]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 19:48, Wolfie said:

Ns worldnill, I'm thenure we willaskedsall 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.

Or our children die from hunger and disease or nuked In world war 3 caused by hunger, disease and mass migration elsewhere In the world, caused by something totally other than global warming and the question Is asked "what were we thinking focussing on global warming when the systemic causes lay elsewhere?" Better still when people try to work out how this could possibly have occured as (as yet) there Is no real proof.

[scarboroughwa]

9 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Peopise also often resort to condescentcondescending in itselfson and belittling of the opposing view in order to win an argument. Fair enough it's a tactic but not one I am going to engage with, so for that reason I'm out.

So, there Is no proof. Being condescending Is not when someone asks you for proof, though putting this forward Is In Itself, Ironically.

[EastKentRam]

On 3/17/2016 at 17:07, wixman1884 said:

Oh thank goodness for that. I was actually a bit concerned, because I was formally trusting people that have devoted their entire lives to the study of climate science. 

I know f*ck all about the subject to be honest, but I do love peoples self righteousness on issues such as this.

As you said, only some of the smartest people in the world have dedicated their entire lives to tackling this problem, but nope, Dave the bricklayer from Derby read a couple of articles and he thinks it's bullsh*t.

I'm all for the 'don't take refuge in the false security of consensus', but I'm also a lazy f*ck and on this one, I'm going with the scientific consensus. 

If you want to counter the experts, I hope you've put as much work into your research as what they have, not listened to a few podcasts and read a few articles. 

[Anon]

What gets me about the climate change deniers is their willingness to believe it is all some kind of government conspiracy when there is little to no incentive for anyone to fabricate this problem. Am I meant to believe that the nefarious green energy lobby is so wealthy and powerful that they can buy off most politicians and scientists around the world?

[Joe.]

25 minutes ago, Anon said:

What gets me about the climate change deniers is their willingness to believe it is all some kind of government conspiracy when there is little to no incentive for anyone to fabricate this problem. Am I meant to believe that the nefarious green energy lobby is so wealthy and powerful that they can buy off most politicians and scientists around the world?

Exactly, never mind the 3 or 4 paragraphs to prove to the OP that its real, where's the three or four paragraphs from an independent body that proves its a government conspiracy?? I'm not believeing its fake until I get this ?

[Joe.]

3 hours ago, scarboroughwa said:

Or our children die from hunger and disease or nuked In world war 3 caused by hunger, disease and mass migration elsewhere In the world, caused by something totally other than global warming and the question Is asked "what were we thinking focussing on global warming when the systemic causes lay elsewhere?" Better still when people try to work out how this could possibly have occured as (as yet) there Is no real proof.

I realise you created this thread so you could engage in an argument, but if you need to have information to prove the existence of global warming, you would also need to present information to disprove the theory.