Climate change woes

[Haselsh1]

You know, we are constantly bombarded by the media about things like climate change but how many people actually believe it is happening...? How come to suit all things climate we are now facing a change of name from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'...? Just what the hell is going on...? Have your say; I would love to hear your views.

:)

[Ali Tait]

Well, I think they changed the name as the facts showed there is no overall warming trend.

I think at most what the human race is doing is slightly speeding up what would happen anyway.

What amuses me most is the amount of people equating geological timescales with human timescales.

The Met office struggles to predict what the weather will be tomorrow, yet we are expected to believe that climatologists can give us facts on what the climate will be like in a century's time? Don't make me laugh.

[Gordon Steadman]

You know, we are constantly bombarded by the media about things like climate change but how many people actually believe it is happening...? How come to suit all things climate we are now facing a change of name from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'...? Just what the hell is going on...? Have your say; I would love to hear your views.

:)

All we can do is look at the evidence and the number of scientists who support the idea - that is, the vast majority. They can't all be protecting their livelihood. The only sort of conspiracy I believe in is to do with the major corporations who have a vested interest in poo pooing the idea. This on its own makes me suspicious enough to assume that the GW thing is, on balance, probably real.

Just say its all a scam is just wishful thinking. How can you be sure? Pascal's wager comes to mind here only, unlike the god thing, this one is likely to affect everyone or their children at least.

Whatever you call it doesn't change the facts.

[Haselsh1]

I just wonder; the ice at the North Pole is now so thin that you can't walk on it so where has it all gone...? There has been no increase in sea levels and no immediate loss of land so what the hell is going on...?

[Haselsh1]

The Met office struggles to predict what the weather will be tomorrow, yet we are expected to believe that climatologists can give us facts on what the climate will be like in a century's time? Don't make me laugh.

LOL you are correct of course. I always thought the weather forecast was exactly that; a forecast but it appears that all they can actually tell you is what it is doing now. I can look out of the window for that information.

[Ali Tait]

It's nothing that hasn't happened before. We are heading towards a warmer period before cooling down into the next ice age.

[Ali Tait]

Speaking geologically of course.

[Macca]

I just wonder; the ice at the North Pole is now so thin that you can't walk on it so where has it all gone...? There has been no increase in sea levels and no immediate loss of land so what the hell is going on...?

Think about it - the ice floats on water so when it melts it no longer displaces that amount of water so no net change in sea level. same reason your scotch and soda doesn't overflow the glass if you leave the ice cubes to melt.

[Haselsh1]

Think about it - the ice floats on water so when it melts it no longer displaces that amount of water so no net change in sea level. same reason your scotch and soda doesn't overflow the glass if you leave the ice cubes to melt.

Damn fine answer methinks. Archimedes...?

[synsei]

Anyone who thinks that pumping greenhouse gases and pollutants into the atmosphere is a good thing is quite frankly deluded, anyone who doesn't agree with this either has an agenda or frankly doesn't give a toss about the rest of us. Strong stuff? You betcha, especially when my descendants future depends on it.

The irony of it all is that nature will adapt to what we are doing to it in time however we won't due to the timescales involved and as such, we will end up as just another addition on the extinct species list except there will be nobody left to add us. If you care about our planet then you owe it to yourself and your descendants to do what is needed to protect it, after all in this case we really are 'all in it together'.

[Haselsh1]

Pretty much like Jesus; there is evidence but no proof

[synsei]

Pretty much like Jesus; there is evidence but no proof

Evidence is all one needs unless you are a gambling man. The stakes are the very highest here and it would be a brave (and stupid) person to sit in on this particular game... .... :rolleyes:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

[Oldpinkman]

I just wonder; the ice at the North Pole is now so thin that you can't walk on it so where has it all gone...? There has been no increase in sea levels and no immediate loss of land so what the hell is going on...?

http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t582/oldpinkman/DSC_0008_zps34efb9ec.jpg (http://s1315.photobucket.com/user/oldpinkman/media/DSC_0008_zps34efb9ec.jpg.html)

[Haselsh1]

A few areas of localised flooding only points to a total lack of management where the drains, ditches and rivers are concerned. It doesn't point to anything else.

[Gordon Steadman]

A few areas of localised flooding only points to a total lack of management where the drains, ditches and rivers are concerned. It doesn't point to anything else.
Well it certainly points to the odd drop of rain:)

[Oldpinkman]

A few areas of localised flooding only points to a total lack of management where the drains, ditches and rivers are concerned. It doesn't point to anything else.

That anonymous area of local flooding is my local post office. Current estimates are that sea levels are rising by 3-4mm a year. It may be a natural cycle of ice ages and solar winds, and nothing to do with Jeremy Clarksons Range Rover or cows farting, but the levels are rising just the same. Very interesting program the other night about a journey round the sun - primarily about how the earths tilt affects the seasons, but in a bit about why the coldest day is 19 January and not 23 December, there was a walk out onto the polar icecap to its edge with an eskimo. His walk gets shorter every year. As Gordon pointed out, it takes a peculiar sort of paranoia to assume there is a global conspiracy of the vast majority of world scientists.

Mind, science isn't popular on this forum. I dare say the subjectivist ice cap is expanding - that's what I hear anyway, and the ears are the final arbiter ;)

[Ali Tait]

I have no doubt that the climate is changing, it always has changed and always will. I also agree that polluting the environment is not a good idea. The question is, how much has what we have done had an effect on what is happening. Some say we are in the midst of a species die off in any case, which has happened plenty times before, and surely must have in some previous cases been down to climate change?

[walpurgis]

There has always been climate change, extreme to minor. Conditions can vary a lot and it all tends to be cyclic and historically goes through minor and sometimes major cycles. Geological and archaeological records have shown this is true.

Does anybody remember? It's only about twenty years or so since we were being told of a possibly impending ice age.

My view is that nobody has a proper grasp on predicting anything really, but jumping on the 'prediction bandwagon' is so lucrative everybody wants to join in! Scaremongering if you ask me, not to mention governments using this to justify huge amounts of money for forecasting, research and engineering works like flood defences and thereby giving loads of dosh to industry, who I'm sure do much to propel said scaremongering!

Global warming? It's all hot air! ;)

[synsei]

That anonymous area of local flooding is my local post office. Current estimates are that sea levels are rising by 3-4mm a year. It may be a natural cycle of ice ages and solar winds, and nothing to do with Jeremy Clarksons Range Rover or cows farting, but the levels are rising just the same. Very interesting program the other night about a journey round the sun - primarily about how the earths tilt affects the seasons, but in a bit about why the coldest day is 19 January and not 23 December, there was a walk out onto the polar icecap to its edge with an eskimo. His walk gets shorter every year. As Gordon pointed out, it takes a peculiar sort of paranoia to assume there is a global conspiracy of the vast majority of world scientists.

Mind, science isn't popular on this forum. I dare say the subjectivist ice cap is expanding - that's what I hear anyway, and the ears are the final arbiter ;)

Talking of Cows farting as we were and on a lighter note, although no less relevant to this debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25922514 :D

[anthonyTD]

I am amongst those who believe we are affecting the climate, however, compared to natures natural events, we are mere armatures, just look at the affect volcanoes have when they erupt, :stalks: either way, i agree, its no good burying our heads in the sand, if there is hard, factual evidence, then we should act upon it.
A...

[Markiii]

not sure there will ever be hard factual evidence

and unfortunately interpretation of the available evidence is manipulated on a daily basis to force agendas both by government and industry. Even the scientists themselves are dependant on cash to continue research, and ooh look where that cash comes from. Yep government and industry

you can prove anything if you pick the rights statistics to argue about

[Haselsh1]

Talking of Cows farting as we were and on a lighter note, although no less relevant to this debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25922514 :D

I guess that must be arson :lol:

[Haselsh1]

I remember these meteorological lunatics telling everyone about this huge hole in the ozone layer was going to burn everyone to a frazzle...:lol: What next...:rolleyes:

[Gordon Steadman]

What gets me about all this is that the scientist say that the best information they have points to MMGW but the deniers are 100% certain that its either false or a scam.

How can they be so sure? Doubt is one thing but denial is quite another when there is plenty of evidence in one direction but what exactly in the other?

As Sensei said, it seems an awfully big gamble when its your kid's future we are talking about. Being as selfish as some others, I'm glad I have no children.

[Gordon Steadman]

I remember these meteorological lunatics telling everyone about this huge hole in the ozone layer was going to burn everyone to a frazzle...:lol: What next...:rolleyes:

CFCs were reduced/banned and the ozone layer healed to a degree I understand. It seems strange how, when you need science for personal reasons like surgery and other life saving stuff, scientists are trusted but when it comes to something that might affect the livelihood of the big corporations, suddenly they don't know what they are talking about. Strange that.

[loo]

it seems to me that it don't take a scientists brain to realise that sucking every last drop of carbon based fuel out of the planet and burning it is a recipe for disaster , wait till we've fracked the f*** out of everywhere then climate change will be the least of our worries :mental:

[The Grand Wazoo]

I can't be arsed think too much about this at the moment, as I'm just home from work and knackered, but here's what I wrote about it on another thread a while back (with a little edit here and there).....

I tend to resist getting into these sorts of discussions because the work I do is not unrelated to the subject and I know how much shite is spoken about it from both sides. I've earned my living for the last 10 / 11 years directly as a result of people trying to fight climate change and was involved in establishing the project which sought to reduce the fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions of the largest single source of CO2 pollution in western Europe - 21 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Despite doing this work, I'm highly sceptical of a lot of what we're told and the way that the powers that be are behaving. Some of the science that is being spouted is flawed and our knowledge is incomplete.

What's clear to me is that we don't know whether we are the major cause of global warming or not - no emphatic statement by a politician or scientist will change that.

Certainly we may contribute to it. However, the world's termite population produces more CO2 than the human race, and the most prolific greenhouse gas is actually water vapour. We're tackling carbon dioxide because we can - I don't see much activity on methane (over 20 times more polluting than CO2 by weight), nitrous oxide or water vapour.

If (and it's a big if) it is all correct & over the last 100 years, we've done what they say we have, then how the hell will they reverse or just stop that in the space of 20? Would we not be far better expending our energies making provision for coping with the disease than trying to reverse the symptoms?

In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our act - there's always been a good reason not to cause pollution.

There's nothing wrong with trying to curb the shameful profligacy that's exhibited by modern man.

Let's just not fall for the politics of fear. Let's not waste hundreds of billions on trying to stop something that we can't stop. King Canute anyone?

..........oh & don't get me started on the bollocks that's spoken about some forms of renewable energy.

[Haselsh1]

OK I'll come clean. I have spent thirty years working as a scientist in the chemical industry but I just wonder what the f*** is going on right now.

[Haselsh1]

I guess everyone who burns a fuel of one kind or another either directly or indirectly is guilty of contributing to this but some are more guilty than others especially those who take pleasure flights in high altitude aeroplanes which inject CO2 directly into the high atmosphere.

[Ali Tait]

I can't be arsed think too much about this at the moment, as I'm just home from work and knackered, but here's what I wrote about it on another thread a while back (with a little edit here and there).....

I tend to resist getting into these sorts of discussions because the work I do is not unrelated to the subject and I know how much shite is spoken about it from both sides. I've earned my living for the last 10 / 11 years directly as a result of people trying to fight climate change and was involved in establishing the project which sought to reduce the fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions of the largest single source of CO2 pollution in western Europe - 21 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Despite doing this work, I'm highly sceptical of a lot of what we're told and the way that the powers that be are behaving. Some of the science that is being spouted is flawed and our knowledge is incomplete.

What's clear to me is that we don't know whether we are the major cause of global warming or not - no emphatic statement by a politician or scientist will change that.

Certainly we may contribute to it. However, the world's termite population produces more CO2 than the human race, and the most prolific greenhouse gas is actually water vapour. We're tackling carbon dioxide because we can - I don't see much activity on methane (over 20 times more polluting than CO2 by weight), nitrous oxide or water vapour.

If (and it's a big if) it is all correct & over the last 100 years, we've done what they say we have, then how the hell will they reverse or just stop that in the space of 20? Would we not be far better expending our energies making provision for coping with the disease than trying to reverse the symptoms?

In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our act - there's always been a good reason not to cause pollution.

There's nothing wrong with trying to curb the shameful profligacy that's exhibited by modern man.

Let's just not fall for the politics of fear. Let's not waste hundreds of billions on trying to stop something that we can't stop. King Canute anyone?

..........oh & don't get me started on the bollocks that's spoken about some forms of renewable energy.

Good post, I agree.

[Gordon Steadman]

I can't be arsed think too much about this at the moment, as I'm just home from work and knackered, but here's what I wrote about it on another thread a while back (with a little edit here and there).....

I tend to resist getting into these sorts of discussions because the work I do is not unrelated to the subject and I know how much shite is spoken about it from both sides. I've earned my living for the last 10 / 11 years directly as a result of people trying to fight climate change and was involved in establishing the project which sought to reduce the fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions of the largest single source of CO2 pollution in western Europe - 21 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Despite doing this work, I'm highly sceptical of a lot of what we're told and the way that the powers that be are behaving. Some of the science that is being spouted is flawed and our knowledge is incomplete.

What's clear to me is that we don't know whether we are the major cause of global warming or not - no emphatic statement by a politician or scientist will change that.

Certainly we may contribute to it. However, the world's termite population produces more CO2 than the human race, and the most prolific greenhouse gas is actually water vapour. We're tackling carbon dioxide because we can - I don't see much activity on methane (over 20 times more polluting than CO2 by weight), nitrous oxide or water vapour.

If (and it's a big if) it is all correct & over the last 100 years, we've done what they say we have, then how the hell will they reverse or just stop that in the space of 20? Would we not be far better expending our energies making provision for coping with the disease than trying to reverse the symptoms?

In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our act - there's always been a good reason not to cause pollution.

There's nothing wrong with trying to curb the shameful profligacy that's exhibited by modern man.

Let's just not fall for the politics of fear. Let's not waste hundreds of billions on trying to stop something that we can't stop. King Canute anyone?

..........oh & don't get me started on the bollocks that's spoken about some forms of renewable energy.
A measured response - unlike those that just say it can't be true. The fact is it can, we just don't know for sure.

[NRG]

Whatever the cause the fact remain air and sea temperatures are rising. We are also heading into a period of very low solar activity called The Maunder Minimum but we are not suffering from severe periods of sub zero temperatures...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.Uuf_kHk4nZs

[Clive]

Think about it - the ice floats on water so when it melts it no longer displaces that amount of water so no net change in sea level. same reason your scotch and soda doesn't overflow the glass if you leave the ice cubes to melt.
It's not just the North Pole. Greenland and Antarctica....they don't float. Having said that the polar ice is quite thick now, maybe due to the lack of sunspots.

[synsei]

It's not just the North Pole. Greenland and Antarctica....they don't float. Having said that the polar ice is quite thick now, maybe due to the lack of sunspots.

In fact sunspot activity is high just now as the Sun is at the peak of its eleven year solar cycle...


I guess everyone who burns a fuel of one kind or another either directly or indirectly is guilty of contributing to this but some are more guilty than others especially those who take pleasure flights in high altitude aeroplanes which inject CO2 directly into the high atmosphere.

Therein lies the problem, it's not the individual but the number of individuals consuming which is the key. The more people there are who consume the more we pollute. Some time soon we, as a species, are going to need to face an awkward truth, there are just too damn many of us and we are all producing waste in its various forms, some of which is known to pollute the environment, except it is not just our environment. Many aboriginal tribes around the world have a philosophy and it goes something like this: The land does not belong to man, man belongs to the land. The 'civilised' world seems to have forgotten this.

Look this is not a trend which is going to go away, whether one likes it or not the human population has reached a level where it is directly influencing the ecosphere and as the population grows this influence can only increase. At the heart of it is mankind's need for copious amounts of energy to produce 'stuff'. Some of this 'stuff' is arguably necessary for our survival but much of it is trinkets and gadgets for our own amusement.

So, what is the solution? Obviously there is no cure all 'magic bullet', what is needed is a complete strategy, a strategy for survival. Firstly we need to put the brakes on population growth, for our own good as well as that of the worlds ecosystem.This perhaps will be the hardest to achieve because as individuals we see it as our right to have children. Social attitudes would need to change before we can come anywhere near addressing this issue.

By adopting green energy practices we can reduce pollution output significantly, although not totally as energy is needed to produce the equipment needed to achieve this goal. Funding for research into Fusion energy needs to be massively increased as this technology has the greatest potential to dramatically address environmental issues. The problem here though is that we need to be building fusion power plants NOW, at a rate of five a day apparently, to even begin to address the energy shortfall generated by the closure of coal fired power stations around the developed world.

Most important of all is that we need to take responsibility for our actions otherwise in the immortal words of Dads Army's private Fraser, 'We're doomed...'

Obviously the above are my own thoughts on the subject interspersed with information I have picked up along the way. I don't pretend to have a detailed scientific understanding of the minutiae of the processes involved however I can see the common sense of reducing our influence on the worlds climate and all of the above would help in this regard. I care for the environment as without it I would not be here, therefore I am keen to stop shitting in my own bed... :eyebrows:

[Macca]

World population is set at current trends to max out before it reaches 10 billion due to births and death rates equalising. And more CO2 in the atmosphere means increasing crop yield - which is why greenhouses pump it in. We would need to reach double the CO2 now to reach the level for optimum plant growth.

Its not a pollutant.

[Clive]

Dave. Sunspot activity has unexpectedly totally shutdown....it should have been at a high.

[Ali Tait]

Nope, it is on the increase according to the latest news.

http://spaceweather.com

[Clive]

Nope, it is on the increase according to the latest news.
Or not...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4645248
It seems to depend on the timescales you look at.http://m.space.com/24378-why-is-the-sun-going-quiet.html

[NRG]

The overall solar activity is decreasing Ali. There is still activity but it's in decline.

[Ali Tait]

Overall yes, not sure if it means much in the scheme of things, was about as low around the beginning of the 20th century.

[walpurgis]

'We're doomed...'

In the long run we are anyway, whatever happens! It's only a matter of time before humanity either evolves past the human phase, or decays into a less able and degenerate life form. The end of human existence is inevitable when the sun starts dying (more than it is now). If we are lucky enough to persist in our survival long enough, we shall perish alongside all other life on Earth. We will never escape the solar system and populate other worlds, as many wishful thinkers seem hopeful of. The earth will be swallowed up when our sun goes super nova (I believe it has just about enough mass), then Universal history will be the only thing left of us, that is until the Universe ends, as it inevitably will, then there will be NOTHING and at the end of the day (whatever infinite day that may be) it won't matter a bean, 'cos it's all meaningless. Existence is just a fluke.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :eyebrows:

[southall-1998]

In the long run we are anyway, whatever happens! It's only a matter of time before humanity either evolves past the human phase, or decays into a less able and degenerate life form. The end of human existence is inevitable when the sun starts dying (more than it is now). If we are lucky enough to persist in our survival long enough, we shall perish alongside all other life on Earth. We will never escape the solar system and populate other worlds, as many wishful thinkers seem hopeful of. The earth will be swallowed up when our sun goes super nova (I believe it has just about enough mass), then Universal history will be the only thing left of us, that is until the Universe ends, as it inevitably will, then there will be NOTHING and at the end of the day (whatever infinite day that may be) it won't matter a bean, 'cos it's all meaningless. Existence is just a fluke.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :eyebrows:

Your poor Tannoy's Geoff!!!!!!


:)

S.

[Ali Tait]

Yeah, but not for several billion years. Anyhow, don't agree, we will make it out of our solar system one way or another!

[walpurgis]

Yeah, but not for several billion years. Anyhow, don't agree, we will make it out of our solar system one way or another!

'Fraid not. There are not sufficient resources on the planet for intergalactic migration. Not that any spacecraft could carry enough of anything (including people) to enable a settlement on an other world, let alone taking off again from one that proved unsuitable. Then there's the problem of cosmic radiation (never mind lethal solar radiation). To screen properly (which you can't), you would need millions of tons of screening material (lead?). How on earth (not a pun), would you get it all into orbit? Let alone accelerate it all fast enough to make the voyage (huge mass you see). I can't envisage any future technology getting around that. Anyway, we'll all be long gone, so not our problem.

[walpurgis]

Your poor Tannoy's Geoff!!!!!!


:)

S.

Well, I reckon they'll outlive me and in any case I can't hear them properly at the moment, so they may not be staying, much as it breaks my heart!

[Roy S]

In the long run we are anyway, whatever happens! It's only a matter of time before humanity either evolves past the human phase, or decays into a less able and degenerate life form. The end of human existence is inevitable when the sun starts dying (more than it is now). If we are lucky enough to persist in our survival long enough, we shall perish alongside all other life on Earth. We will never escape the solar system and populate other worlds, as many wishful thinkers seem hopeful of. The earth will be swallowed up when our sun goes super nova (I believe it has just about enough mass), then Universal history will be the only thing left of us, that is until the Universe ends, as it inevitably will, then there will be NOTHING and at the end of the day (whatever infinite day that may be) it won't matter a bean, 'cos it's all meaningless. Existence is just a fluke.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :eyebrows:

I'll just stay under this duvet

[Ali Tait]

'Fraid not. There are not sufficient resources on the planet for intergalactic migration. Not that any spacecraft could carry enough of anything (including people) to enable a settlement on an other world, let alone taking off again from one that proved unsuitable. Then there's the problem of cosmic radiation (never mind lethal solar radiation). To screen properly (which you can't), you would need millions of tons of screening material (lead?). How on earth (not a pun), would you get it all into orbit? Let alone accelerate it all fast enough to make the voyage (huge mass you see). I can't envisage any future technology getting around that. Anyway, we'll all be long gone, so not our problem.

Just look at how we have come technologically in just the last hundred years. We'll find solutions to all the problems, we'll have no choice, it's the only way we will survive as a species in the long term.

[Barry]

Think about it - the ice floats on water so when it melts it no longer displaces that amount of water so no net change in sea level. same reason your scotch and soda doesn't overflow the glass if you leave the ice cubes to melt.

Umm yes – but not quite. True, a floating body (the iceberg) will displace its own mass, but the displaced water is seawater, which has a higher density (1.05g/cm³) than the fresh water of which the iceberg is composed. This means the displaced volume is smaller than that of the melted iceberg. So a melting iceberg will create a greater volume of water than that which it displaced as an iceberg and thus the sea level will rise slightly.

However, as others have noted, a large proportion of the ice is not floating; it is covering landmasses such as Greenland, Northern Canada and Antarctica. If this melts the rise in sea level will not be negligible. It takes 80cal/gram to melt ice (≡ 334J/g). Once melted it requires the same amount of heat to be extracted to re-freeze the water. The mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps is at least 28 .1015g (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml), so if melted would require something like the removal of 1019J to refreeze. The world’s energy consumption in 2008 was ~ 500 1018J (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption), so assuming that all of this energy could be directed to refreezing the icecaps, it would take 0.02 years to occur - about a week.

An interesting scenario.

[walpurgis]

We'll find solutions to all the problems, we'll have no choice, it's the only way we will survive as a species in the long term.

I keep hearing that we have to survive. Why? It's the natural thing for species to evolve and prosper or not. Humanity may eventually just die out over millennia. It's nothing we can even remotely predict or really plan for, here and now. Humans are ugly and selfish creatures, we have little to show for our existence that has benefited the world. Earth might just be a better place without us. I don't care either way.

[Ali Tait]

Equally we may evolve and prosper. I agree there is a lot to be ashamed of in the Human psyche, but there are things to be proud of too.

[synsei]

To use a metaphor, mankind is in his early, petulant teenage years with much to learn but thinking he knows everything. In fact we are probably at one of the most crucial junctures in our development as we need to solve our propensity to fight amongst ourselves before we can even think about reaching for the stars. We need to get our house in order first and that includes sorting out our energy and resource management issues. There is an entire solar system out there which we can use to harvest resources if we can just get our shit together and work as a unit. As I see it this is an essential step if we are to ever develop the technology which will take us to the stars for as Geoff has pointed out, there are not enough resources on the Earth alone to achieve this goal.

Another thing which would need to be consigned to the scrap heap is our dependence on a monetary economy. This system severely stifles mankinds development by rewarding the few whilst keeping the majority subservient. We will never be able to explore interstellar space under this umbrella as the costs will be prohibitive. This has to change if we are to have any ambition to move our civilisation beyond our own borders. A pleasant side effect of ditching the monetary economy would be that many who currently feel excluded from the rewards of society by the existing system would suddenly have a laudable goal to work towards. It is important to have faith in ourselves because without it our civilisation will collapse.

Truly, it is about believing in ourselves and what we are capable of, cynicism is the destroyer of progress. Geoff, you gently chide 'wishful thinkers' and yet it is such people who drive progress as it takes imagination to pilot a course into the future... ;)

[losenotaminute]

All we can do is look at the evidence and the number of scientists who support the idea - that is, the vast majority. They can't all be protecting their livelihood.

Why can't they all be protecting their livelihood?

If they work as a climate scientist, of course they're going to say there is a problem. The first conclusion of almost every scientific paper is that more research is needed, it's pitiful.

Lawrence

[Ali Tait]

There is a huge amount of money being made by those who like to be seen as "environmentally friendly"

[Gordon Steadman]

Why can't they all be protecting their livelihood?

If they work as a climate scientist, of course they're going to say there is a problem. The first conclusion of almost every scientific paper is that more research is needed, it's pitiful.

Lawrence

Cynical moi?

[losenotaminute]

Cynical moi?

Any scientist with an ounce of grey matter should admit that the global warming scare was just that. They spend billions of pounds coming up with a model that completely failed to predict what would happen, and now all they can say is that the climate will be more variable, but they don't really know why. They would get an F if they tried that at school. As you can probably tell, I'm not happy about funding their nice lifestyles while they jet around the world at international conferences adding to carbon emissions 10 times faster than non-scientists....

I really love it when the BBC send a highly paid presenter to the Arctic, along with a cemeraman, sound recorder, producer and various other parasites to lecture us on the dangers of over consumption. It is all a scam, paid for by the taxpayer as usual.

Lawrence

[Ali Tait]

Well they had to come up with something after the Cold War ended..

[dave2010]

Well, I think they changed the name as the facts showed there is no overall warming trend.
Actually I believe the facts are that over a period of a bit more than 100 years there has been a "significant" warming of about 2 degrees centigrade. See http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate_time_machine which shows global temperature and sea level effects.

Of course you may think, or believe that those who created these tools are liars, or are fabricating "evidence", but I don't.

[Ali Tait]

A rise or fall over such a short period of time means nothing. Perfectly normal variations. Happened before and will happen again.

[dave2010]

Think about it - the ice floats on water so when it melts it no longer displaces that amount of water so no net change in sea level. same reason your scotch and soda doesn't overflow the glass if you leave the ice cubes to melt.You're probably right there - but I believe that an additional effect above 4 degrees C is that the water itself expands, and this may be significant if temperatures rise globally. It's not just about melting ice.

[Macca]

NASA are one of the main culprits for poor 'climate science'. they had some particularly dodgy stuff to do with back radiation on their website for a long time before some proper NASA scientists forced them to take it down as it was giving them and NASA a bad name.

I'm afraid the scam runs quite deep now and 'appeals to authority' are no longer convincing for those of us who smell something rotten in the whole circus.

[losenotaminute]

NASA are one of the main culprits for poor 'climate science'. they had some particularly dodgy stuff to do with back radiation on their website for a long time before some proper NASA scientists forced them to take it down as it was giving them and NASA a bad name.

I'm afraid the scam runs quite deep now and 'appeals to authority' are no longer convincing for those of us who smell something rotten in the whole circus.

NASA's 2011 budget was $18.4 billion according to Wikipedia. If that isn't a huge vested interest then I'm a banana.

Lawrence

[dave2010]

NASA's 2011 budget was $18.4 billion according to Wikipedia. If that isn't a huge vested interest then I'm a banana.

LawrenceCompared to bankers and the way they treat money, that's a drop in the ocean.

[Gordon Steadman]

A rise or fall over such a short period of time means nothing. Perfectly normal variations. Happened before and will happen again.

Not everyone agrees with you

[Audioman]

Not everyone agrees with you

The problem is that in recent years warming was found to be less than predicted. There is a lot of erratic weather at the moment. Some parts of the planet are cooling while others are suffering extreme heat. Hence they are talking climate change now rather than global warming as the later is not what appears to be happening. It's difficult to tell if this is outside the norm in the long run. In any case if they are right about greenhouse gas effect shutting power stations and building wind farms in the UK will make little difference. What happens in China and USA is what counts.

[Ali Tait]

NASA are one of the main culprits for poor 'climate science'. they had some particularly dodgy stuff to do with back radiation on their website for a long time before some proper NASA scientists forced them to take it down as it was giving them and NASA a bad name.

I'm afraid the scam runs quite deep now and 'appeals to authority' are no longer convincing for those of us who smell something rotten in the whole circus.

+1

[Gordon Steadman]

The problem is that in recent years warming was found to be less than predicted. There is a lot of erratic weather at the moment. Some parts of the planet are cooling while others are suffering extreme heat. Hence they are talking climate change now rather than global warming as the later is not what appears to be happening. It's difficult to tell if this is outside the norm in the long run. In any case if they are right about greenhouse gas effect shutting power stations and building wind farms in the UK will make little difference. What happens in China and USA is what counts.

Absolutely, its difficult to know for sure. This is why I don't trust the 'deniers'. They are 100% sure its not true and a scam. Doubt I can understand. Denial just smacks of either foolishness or agenda.

[Oldpinkman]

I think I can answer the earlier question about where the water from the polar ice caps go. The answer is my garden. Outside my home office is a pond which has been dry since we planted a 2ft Willow sapling next to it (which now towers 60 ft above me). It is full to the level of the grass (we are up a hill - not in the flood zone I published photos of earlier). Every inch of lawn squelches. I have never known it so wet for so long. It is currently pissing down :(

[Oldpinkman]

The problem is that in recent years warming was found to be less than predicted. There is a lot of erratic weather at the moment. Some parts of the planet are cooling while others are suffering extreme heat. Hence they are talking climate change now rather than global warming as the later is not what appears to be happening. It's difficult to tell if this is outside the norm in the long run. In any case if they are right about greenhouse gas effect shutting power stations and building wind farms in the UK will make little difference. What happens in China and USA is what counts.

But if you could try to avoid breaking wind...

[losenotaminute]

Absolutely, its difficult to know for sure. This is why I don't trust the 'deniers'. They are 100% sure its not true and a scam. Doubt I can understand. Denial just smacks of either foolishness or agenda.

I've not come across many people who are deniers, lots of sceptics though.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation for example aren't deniers, they do however point out the fallacies pedalled by the troughing global warming brigade and question whether it is sensible to be committing so many resources to a scare.

Lawrence

[Gordon Steadman]

I've not come across many people who are deniers, lots of sceptics though.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation for example aren't deniers, they do however point out the fallacies pedalled by the troughing global warming brigade and question whether it is sensible to be committing so many resources to a scare.

Lawrence

But you are saying that it is a scare. How do you know? And what happens if you are wrong?

[losenotaminute]

But you are saying that it is a scare. How do you know? And what happens if you are wrong?

It's a scare because the evidence doesn't support the claim that GW is the single biggest threat to humanity.

Lawrence

[walpurgis]

I have never known it so wet for so long. It is currently pissing down :(

Richard, that will have no effect at all on the fact that we are now probably only a matter of weeks away from the first hose bans of the year! :)

[Gordon Steadman]

It's a scare because the evidence doesn't support the claim that GW is the single biggest threat to humanity.

Lawrence

Well, as someone who has zero knowledge of the science I can only judge by the opinions of others. On balance, it would appear that you are in the minority so it seems reasonable to assume you are wrong.

In any case, if you are right, all we will do is spend money. If you are wrong, bye bye most if not all, of humanity. I think I will leave it there.

[losenotaminute]

Well, as someone who has zero knowledge of the science I can only judge by the opinions of others. On balance, it would appear that you are in the minority so it seems reasonable to assume you are wrong.

In any case, if you are right, all we will do is spend money. If you are wrong, bye bye most if not all, of humanity. I think I will leave it there.

Yep, I think you probably should!

Lawrence

[synsei]

Yep, I think you probably should!

Lawrence

That response was unnecessary Lawrence as Gordon has already stated that he doesn't wish to pursue the debate with you any further, probably because you were being a little 'full on'. Gordon is entitled to his views just as you are so perhaps the offering of an olive branch might be in order...

[losenotaminute]

That response was unnecessary Lawrence as Gordon has already stated that he doesn't wish to pursue the debate with you any further, probably because you were being a little 'full on'. Gordon is entitled to his views just as you are so perhaps the offering of an olive branch might be in order...

Gordon says that he knows nothing about the topic, but it is safe to conclude that "I am wrong" and that he is then going to leave it there so I am supposed to cease discussion.

I would also stress that up to that point I had not made any comments that were personal in nature.

I apologise for being rude however.

Lawrence

[walpurgis]

Well, we have now passed the point where the wettest January on record was reached and there's no sign of the repeated rain stopping yet. Should we be building an Ark?

[Effem]

Been invited to a bakeoff in Somerset, so I thought I would dress appropriately

http://www.divinghelmet.nl/divinghelmet/1839_Augustus_Siebe_3_files/Siebe%20Gorman%20RNN%20web.jpg

Gonna be a real bastard to hear any cable differences methinks :eyebrows:

[walpurgis]

Is that on the level Frank? ;)

[Effem]

Is that on the level Frank? ;)

On the level? Oooops yes, thou doth jest.

Nah, just trying to lighten this thread up a bit, although I also realise it is no joke for the poor sods who are still flooded out :(