Climate Change

[Rhyolith]

There seems to be a few Climate Change skeptics about....

Climate Change has been occurring for pretty much all of Earth's history, or at least since it had a atmosphere. Extreme climates are dotted all along Earths timeline, here are but a few:
- "Snowball Earth" - There is a theory that the Earth was once entirely in-cased in ice at on one maybe more than on occasion
- The late Permian Extinction - 96% of all life on Earth Died out due to a global warming crisis far worse than today's; this is the biggest extinction in Earth's History!
- The Carboniferous Period - todays atmospheric oxygen content is 21%, during the Carboniferous period it was 35%! This meant easy explosions and giant insects! Most fossil fuels formed from the remains of the swamps from this period.

So a reasonable counter to any scare mongering about climate change is that its happened before and for that matter it has done so to far greater extremes than today, indeed then even many of the worst (scientific) predictions of where it might go. Which is true, but missing one massively important factor... Time. In the past a change of even a few Degress C on a Global scale took millennia giving life a pretty good chance to adapt to it, today the same change has happened over 200 years. The only known period in Earth's History even comparable to this is the Late Permian... and look how that ended :shock: (above). So looking at Modern climate change (warming) on a big timescale is pretty dyer.

Another common argument of climate change skeptics is that there is no evidence that we (humans) are causing it. In scientific terms there is heaps of evidence that humans are causing climate change, not least that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere which is known to be a greenhouse gas and the Earth's climate it warming at the same time. What there isn't is absolute proof, which is something that does not exist is true science, the highest level of certainty I believe is "Highly Likely" (any scientists pls correct if I am wrong).

Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understand of the climate system. {2-14}

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report is an scientific organisation that in a nutshell collates and summarises global knowledge on Climate Change, here are some links for those who want know more:
- What is the IPCC? http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs ... t_ipcc.pdf
- IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. I found this a good summation of their findings, its a long document, but the orange boxes contain many of the key points, including how certain they about many aspects of climate change: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... _FINAL.pdf
- The IPCC main Website: http://www.ipcc.ch

Climate change is defiantly happening and is highly likely to be linked to human activities. The only real debate is how the Earth is going to react, this includes both politics and the physical world (natural systems). For example, when will the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt? Note if they do thats approx 75m of sea level rise... goodbye South East England!

I have by no means covered everything here, it would be simply too much effort of look up all the scientific journals that provide evidence for climate change. If your not willing to take my word for that there are a lot, then look them up yourself

 

[thetyreman]

I'm definitely a skeptic of it, why isn't that ok?

 

[sunnybob]

I'm definitely a skeptic of it, why isn't that ok?

When you get "once in a 100 years" floods, every other year.....
Some people cant see the trees for the rain. :lol: :lol: :lol:

But its way too late to reverse it, so enjoy what you have while you still have it.

 

[Rhyolith]

I'm definitely a skeptic of it, why isn't that ok?

Climate change is a global problem that is best dealt with a unified manner. Skeptics undermine this and unlike something like the UK Referendum where both sides have some valid arguments, there is no case for being a skeptic of climate if you have actaully seen and understood the evidence (there is a reason all the skeptics are'nt scientists).

I'm definitely a skeptic of it, why isn't that ok?

When you get "once in a 100 years" floods, every other year.....
Some people cant see the trees for the rain. :lol: :lol: :lol:

But its way too late to reverse it, so enjoy what you have while you still have it.

From a scientific point of you the flooding (such as that in fairly recently cumbria) is only evidence of climate change if it occurs consitantly for a long time (i.e. 100 years). However it is a good example of why climate change matters: if thats how much damage a bit more rain does, imagine what the UK would be like if the Gulf stream shuts down and we get a climate akin to that of Canada... :shock:

In theory its not impossible to reverse it, just unrealistic. What is realistic is stopping it and frankly why wouldn't we? The answer is possibly that its just too inconvenient...

 

[lurker]

The difference between today and 100, 200, 300 years ago is statistically meaningless regarding weather change.

People can't mentally comprehend the real time between say now and when dinasaurs ruled the earth, but thats just a blink of the eye.

Also folks are so self centred if it did not happen in their lifetime it did not happen.

Locally we have a flood plain, because there had been no flooding for about 30 years the council allowed it to be built upon. Now the new houses have been flooded 3 years running its "proof of global warming".
There was a small clue nobody spotted: the original road was called Splash Lane.

 

[DTR]

The difference between today and 100, 200, 300 years ago is statistically meaningless regarding weather change.

The day-to-day statistics, maybe, but surely the moving average will still show a change in the trend?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

When I was a nipper, there was a lot of discussion and some near-panic about the onset of the next Ice Age, which was (apparently) overdue. For all I know, it might still be.

Strange how things go. Especially as science has not yet explained how the climate functions.

Yes - I know we have some very sophisticated computer models that tell us that we're on an exponential temperature growth curve (despite the apparent fact that world temperatures have been stable, or declining, depending on who you listen to, for the last decade and a half), but they all seem to be run by a small cabal of inter-linked enthusiasts, and are kept very secret; they are not available to the general scientific community for general scrutiny and comment. However, their short-term forecasting of the last couple of decades has been diametrically opposite of what actually occurred, which raises concern about their long-term accuracy.

There have been mistakes made. The hockey stick graph and the melting Himalayas glaciers, for example. We don't really know what, among current hypotheses, might also be mistakes.

By the way - the IGCC isn't a scientific organisation - it's the Inter - GOVERNMENTAL committee on Climate. The clue is in the name. It actually has very few scientists serving in it, most of it's delegates are NGOs, journalists and 'climate activists' from the likes of Greenpeace.

If the climate is warming faster than it should it may not be all negative. It may get a bit warmer in the far north and the far south, and make them both a bit more hospitable. Increased carbon dioxide may make plants grow a bit faster (apparently there's some evidence that this is the case), which given the increase in the world's population, might actually be a positive.

Some scepticism is justified - indeed, it is the 'proper' scientific position. So far as I'm aware, there is no General Theory of Climate - yet - though there are plenty of decent and committed scientists (and possibly a few charlatans) in many disciplines gathering data, analysing it, promulgating hypotheses, and trying to understand it all.

What's the truth of it all? Damned if I know - but I have learned to check over the wellies and sou-wester when the Met Office forecasts a barbecue summer.

 

[Beau]

Think I read somewhere that yes all other things being equal we would be heading into a "mini ice age" due to our orbit and the suns (can't remember the detail). From what I understand global warming has swamped the effect of the expected cooling.

Personally I am firmly in the AGW camp but think there are inevitably inaccurate predictions made which the deniers latch onto to claim it's all a pack of lies.

Think I may need to pull up a chair and get the popcorn in for this thread :lol:

 

[lurker]

The difference between today and 100, 200, 300 years ago is statistically meaningless regarding weather change.

The day-to-day statistics, maybe, but surely the moving average will still show a change in the trend?

Yeh but:
no one has explained to me how they know what the average was 100 or more years ago.
The "change" thats quoted can be explained by the improved accuracy of temperature measuring devices.

I'm not saying there isnt global warming, just I remain unconvinced
If there is, I'm not convinced its man made.
If it is, there is no point in pratting around with the "environmental stuff" the UK which is wasting money (and destroying jobs) on, if China is opening new coal fired power stations at the rate they are.

 

[RobinBHM]

I have read the book 'the skeptical environmentalist: measuring the real state of the world' by Bjorn Lomborg (former member of Greenpeace).

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Enviro ... 0521010683

Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific evidence and argues that we are making decisions about the use of our limited resources based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Concluding that there are more reasons for optimism than pessimism, he stresses the need for clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems.

I do realise the book is now a bit dated as it was published in 2001

One point he makes is that: "we could give all people in the world food and clean water forever for less than the yearly costs of Kyoto"

Overall it is an interesting alternative view and shows exposes that really we should prioritise much better.

 

[DrPhill]

Climate change is as close to fact as meteorology can get. The evidence that humans are causing it is almost as solid.

If we believe them and we are wrong then we are a little inconvenienced maybe do not have all the holidays and cars we want. If we disbelieve them and we are wrong we condemn future generations to a miserable legacy. Lives will be lost. What choice will you make for your children and grandchildren?


In case you want facts, here are some climate scientists. Real scientists. Real facts. Peer reviewed articles in respectable publications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/

Not Dr. sponsored-by-oil publishing in 'fictional magazine funded by petro-dollars'. And not a single mention of 'government' to scare off the conspiracy theorists.

(FWIW IPCC is recognised as a scientific institution. What evidence (apart from the word 'government' in the name) is there for them being part of a global conspiracy to stop people having fun?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Membership of the IPCC is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.[4] The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change.[5][6] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system".[5] IPCC reports cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."[6]

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change,[10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.[11]

 

[lurker]

Phil,
A cynic might suggest all of your real scientists funding means they have a vested interest similar to the petro dollar scientist

But let's assume you are bang on the nail: why should we waste money in the uk that wil have a trivial effect on man made global warming compared to say China.
Steel making in the uk is dying specifically because of self imposed environmental costs. Then we import chinese steel that has a far greater environmental footprint.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

A few thoughts on climate change - an issue I have followed with some interest.

Firstly consumption of fossil fuels is time limited and potentially shortsighted. It took 100's of millions of years for nature to lay them down and we are consuming them in a few centuries. When they are gone - they're gone. There is some debate as to when this will happen as new sources of (carbon based) energy are constantly being exploited (eg: fracking). It makes very good sense (possibly financial and certainly environmental) to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable sources, but ultimately willing adoption of alternatives will come down to price.

There are far more pressing threats to humanity - defined by immediacy and probability - than climate change. Terrorism, nuclear, disease, ineffective antibiotics, chemical/biological warfare, population growth etc. These need similar international effort and should be addressed with at least the same level of financial and political resources.

The science is not settled. The basic premise that CO2 acts as a climate "blanket" is not generally disputed, but the complexity of feedback mechanisms is not fully understood and modelled on appropriate scales. eg: increased temperatures increase cloud cover which reduces incoming radiation. Climate modelling is at least as uncertain as the economic modelling around the referendum with greater long term uncertainties and less historical data upon which to base realistic assumptions.

I also get the very distinct impression that "project fear" also rules the climate debate. Any unusual weather event is ascribed to climate change. All changes in flora and fauna in a particular location is blamed on climate change irrespective of their capacity to adapt or migrate. Statistic are used selectively to prove a point, not objectively analyse or assess. As with the referendum the constant deluge of negative messagesd promote distrust rather than enlightenment.

There is also the issue of whether humanity can simply adapt to changing conditions over human timescales - certainly feasible in wealthy developed economies. Denying the third world access to cheap energy condemns them to inefficient food production and inadequate infrastructure - water, sewage, transport etc. It is questionable whether the funds devoted to climate research would be better spent relieving humanitarian suffering now.

 

[DrPhill]

Ah the 'tragedy of the commons'.

We all need to learn to live with less. Less meat. Less energy. Less waste. Sure the chinese are using their cheaper energy and state subsidies to dump steel on our market. That is plain wrong. But the chinese are also investing a far higher proportion of their GDP in greener and cleaner energies. At some point we have to stop hiding behind the actions of others and take responsibility for our own actions.

For example, if we measure energy consumption per capita we find that the USA EU and middle east are all ahead of china. So you, as a european, are responsible directly or indirectly for more energy consumption then a chines person. Plus you have more control over your government than the chines person has over theirs. You therefore, in my book have more responsibility not less.
2008 figures (latest in wikipedia) give a flavour
USA: 87216kWh/person
EU-27: 40821kWh/person
Middle East: 19422kWh/person
China: 18608kWh/person

Now, these figures can be disputed, and I am sure they will, but when exercising your sophistry try to image you are justifying to your grandchild or great grandchild why you did not do more to pass on an inhabitable world.

Those who come after, who inherit whatever’s left of the world once this culture has been stopped will not care about 'china did this', or 'america did that'. They’re going to care whether they can breathe the air and drink the water. They’re going to care whether the land is healthy enough to support them.

In that context 'Oh, I did not do anything because it would not have made much difference' does sound a bit lame. does it not?

 

[lurker]

Well I can say yes actually. :shock:
I was part of the team that neutralised what was billed as europe's biggest environmental hazard
http://stv.tv/news/scotland/302837-doun ... al-hazard/

Whilst I am proud of the part I played in this, my point is we "deniers" are not necessarily scientifically illiterate.
And man made environmental hazards are not always to do with fossil fuels

 

[doctor Bob]

Surely it's as simple as doing your bit?

If I see a bit of litter close to a bin I'll pick it up, regardless of whether 10 people have just walked past it.
Just do your bit, what harm can it do.
There seems to be a real attitude these days of "if he isn't going to do it then why should I".

 

[Benchwayze]

1947 Extreme weather.
1950s extreme floods.
1966 extreme weather.
1976 Extreme weather.
1996 Extreme weather.
2016 extreme weather.

Some of it is hot, some of it wet, some of it cold and very 'snowy'.

Notice the intervals?

I'm sick of the anti-carbon brigade blaming mankind for a natural phenomenon, about which mankind can do nothing! Despite all the action we take; have taken' nothing gets any better, nor has it become any better. Doesn't that tell us anything? There ain't nothing we can do that will make much difference, until the Earth sees through this period of polar precession. We can of course also try to see it through! While wind generator firms and solar panel providers see their wallets get fatter at our expense.

 

[Beau]

1947 Extreme weather.
1950s extreme floods.
1966 extreme weather.
1976 Extreme weather.
1996 Extreme weather.
2016 extreme weather.

Some of it is hot, some of it wet, some of it cold and very 'snowy'.

Notice the intervals?

I'm sick of the anti-carbon brigade blaming mankind for a natural phenomenon, about which mankind can do nothing! Despite all the action we take; have taken' nothing gets any better, nor has it become any better. Doesn't that tell us anything? There ain't nothing we can do that will make much difference, until the Earth sees through this period of polar precession. We can of course also try to see it through! While wind generator firms and solar panel providers see their wallets get fatter at our expense.

Err um Global Warming not UK anomalies or is this just a wind up?

 

[Benchwayze]

Like I said Beau. I am sick of the argument.
Just as I am sick of the nonsense about the cause of obesity, or any other quasi-religious mantra. (Because that's what climate change ideology is; except there is distorted and misquoted so-called evidence which claims to 'back it up'.)

I read both sides of the coin, and both sides claim their opposite views to be true.

As for this majority of respected scientists... More than one of them tried to have their names removed from that 'list', and had extreme difficulty in so doing. Also, a majority of respected scholars once believed the Earth was flat and considered men like Copernicus, and Galileo to be heretics. It appears that being in a majority doesn't mean you are right by default.

I have no wish to fall out over this, but if you think I am winding-up, that's your prerogative. However, those are my views, and as someone else says, if you don't like them, I have others. So you may beg to differ Beau.

Cheers and happy woodworking, without conscience.

John :wink:

 

[Beau]

Hi John
I don't fall out with people over the subject just agree to disagree

I am worried that we may end up with much faster warming than predicted with current speed of warming. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35354579
There are some potentially nasty feed back loops that may exaggerate the whole problem but only time will tell. Whether one believes in it or not it seems prudent to not squander an extraordinary useful resource like oil buy burning it when it's what we use to make so many of our day to day things. Hopefully renewables will reach a price point where oil struggles to compete. I presume this is why oil prices are being kept low to hurt the current renewable development.