Science Global Warming / Climate Change

[old.user4556]

The festive season is behind us and 2016 is upon as, so it's back to Freddy business.

I was skiing in the Alps for a week where the lack of snow was a serious concern (there has been a big dump in the past two days) so I got reading various articles from around the net spelling doom and gloom for the Alpine ski industry due to man made climate change. I realised that I was rather ignorant on climate change and there's dozens of somewhat contradictory articles depending which hidden agenda is involved with some sources slating the other side for downright bollock-talking.

I know some of you are strongly opinionated on the subject, so I want to educate myself. I've got a reasonable grasp on Earth's history to know that climate has varied massively over the millions of years from huge rises in sea levels to a complete melting of the polar ice caps to ice ages covering as far south as London is just now. Personally, I don't see how we can surmise on such a short period of Man's time.

So - climate change - is it bollocks, or should we really eat less meat because farting farm animals are destroying the rainforests?

 

[Moriath]

The festive season is behind us and 2016 is upon as, so it's back to Freddy business.

I was skiing in the Alps for a week where the lack of snow was a serious concern (there has been a big dump in the past two days) so I got reading various articles from around the net spelling doom and gloom for the Alpine ski industry due to man made climate change. I realised that I was rather ignorant on climate change and there's dozens of somewhat contradictory articles depending which hidden agenda is involved with some sources slating the other side for downright bollock-talking.

I know some of you are strongly opinionated on the subject, so I want to educate myself. I've got a reasonable grasp on Earth's history to know that climate has varied massively over the millions of years from huge rises in sea levels to a complete melting of the polar ice caps to ice ages covering as far south as London is just now. Personally, I don't see how we can surmise on such a short period of Man's time.

So - climate change - is it bollocks, or should we really eat less meat because farting farm animals are destroying the rainforests?

I have my opinions and have voiced them before. But i really cant be bothered to get into a debate with @Scouse again. It will just end up as it always does. Lol

 

[old.user4556]

I know it's a touchy subject, but I genuinely want to lay it all flat on the table in one thread.

 

[Raven]

Its happening.

What the cause is, is open for debate.

In the meantime its a nice little earner for any old scientist wanting a grant though. Loosely relate your study to climate change and boom, cash in hand.

Personally I think its natural and if anyone cares to look at actual climate figures (not weather!) throughout history they will see its been up and down since the dawn of time. I do wonder if the hand wringers would be panicking about the end of the ice age if they lived 15k or so years ago, you would struggle to find climate change that changed the world more than that...

Its extremely arrogant to think we as man are the only cause and that we are the only entity...or thing able to "fix it"

 

[Embattle]

Short term events such as this years winter aren't really good guidance for long term issues, plus it is an El nino year.

Overall I've always said the same, whether we actually cause global warming or not doesn't matter since the risk is too great to ignore plus getting away from the things that possibly cause it would have many other benefits.

 

[old.user4556]

Its happening.

Isn't it naturally 'changing' though? Surely history evidences that the climate is forever changing.

 

[Job]

Check out Al Gores pre climate evangalist and post evangalist wealth.
I mean really, he's a 100X richer , it's a religion..the science only goes as far as nothing will happen..it's the modelling guesses that get you to 2 degrees.
I'm confident they are miles out either way.

 

[Bodhi]

Have a read of the below - it's a lecture delivered by Patrick Moore (not that one) on why, as a founder of GreenPeace he ended up fully on the sceptical side after looking at the science - any why, despite all the wailing a gnashing of teeth, Co2 emissions are actually a good thing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...ual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

 

[old.user4556]

Have a read of the below - it's a lecture delivered by Patrick Moore (not that one) on why, as a founder of GreenPeace he ended up fully on the sceptical side after looking at the science - any why, despite all the wailing a gnashing of teeth, Co2 emissions are actually a good thing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...ual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

I've only gone through the first few paragraphs of this and it correlates exactly with my understanding of geology and ancient climates.

 

[Raven]

What annoys me most is the massive amount of hypocrisy from the global warming mob.

Burn down/clear huge stores of carbon absorbing forests to make way for low carbon bio crap that will never in a million years make up for what they have cut down.

Dig up rare metals at a huge cost to the environment to power hybrid or fully electric cars and then charge them with existing carbon releasing coal or gas.

Then there is the fact that the tech just isn't there to switch to fully renewable energy without using nuclear, suggest nuclear and its a big no no...for no apparent reason. Any big switch will have to be done over decades, chucking in a bit of nuclear now and then switching over as renewable tech advances is the most sensible thing to do.

 

[ECA]

A hundred years ago scientists were warning about global cooling.
I think the big problem is that climate change happens on a geological timeframe... ie 1000 years is a small sample. so taking a few years of random/extreme weather, coupled with the rise of the internet so EVERY extreme weather condition ANYWHERE is recorded and played worldwide, means a lot of cognitive bias.

I'm of the opinion that I'm not informed enough to know about climate change, but it's pretty obvious that polluting the planet is a fucking stupid idea in the long run.

 

[Scouse]

Isn't it naturally 'changing' though? Surely history evidences that the climate is forever changing.

Pace of change.

For example, in a single year we lost a massive percentage of coral globally because it's an animal that is super sensitive to rapid change. And there's knock-on effects (spawning grounds/sea wall protection etc).

Humans are very good at coping with a range of temperatures (we're hugely adaptable - probably our single strongest evolutionary trait). Other flora and fauna not so - and a single degree is an awful lot of change if it happens rapidly (especially as it tends to be measured globally but massively more varied than that locally).

Only thing I'd say is don't read the press. Science reporting is awful in general. Subscribe to something reasonably reputable like New Scientist - apart from being an absolutely epic wide ranging read, if you're serious about upskilling it'll give you commentary on disputing arguments and how they develop over time whilst filtering out most of the tin foil hatters, who are legion...

 

[Job]

A hundred years ago scientists were warning about global cooling.
I think the big problem is that climate change happens on a geological timeframe... ie 1000 years is a small sample. so taking a few years of random/extreme weather, coupled with the rise of the internet so EVERY extreme weather condition ANYWHERE is recorded and played worldwide, means a lot of cognitive bias.

I'm of the opinion that I'm not informed enough to know about climate change, but it's pretty obvious that polluting the planet is a fucking stupid idea in the long run.

Actually in the 70s we had doom warnings in adverts and news reports about a coming iceage if we didnt change our ways, its a favourite of the sceptics...a statement from scientists in the 70s that reads practically word for word of modern warnings but was claiming catastrophic cooling.

 

[Trem]

Over population is the number one problem, not sure whether that has a bearing on this thread but it's the truth.

 

[Raven]

It is the awkward question.

 

[Trem]

I love you @Raven you cunt you are like my English @caLLous (*waits*).

 

[Raven]

I don't smell of cheese and onion so I win.

 

[Trem]

I don't smell of cheese and onion so I win.

Or surrender, you don't smell of that either.

 

[Bodhi]

Scouse, hate to burst your bubble, however there is nothing exciting or unprecedented about any current temperature changes we're seeing. This famous 1 degree is, if you believe NASA's figures (and many don't) the rise in temperatures over 150 years, yet if you care to dig through the ice core records, there are far more rapid changes in history - up to 15 degrees in 10 years.

That's if you believe there is any current change worth speaking of - surface temperature datasets show a slight increase, satellite datasets have shown no change for 19 years now. Given how compromised the surface datasets are (multiple adjustments, curious positioning of temperature sensors - normally next to an air conditioning unit or runway), I'm shocked anyone actually looks on them as being in any way scientifically credible, yet guess which datasets keep producing the hottest 29th of January ever EVER EVAR!!"!"! nonsense - yep it's the "adjusted" ones. Honestly, if you had any scientific background whatsoever the use of adjusted data would make you weep - if your hypothesis is not backed up by the data, your hypothesis is wrong - you don;t adjust the data until it's correct.

And what Coral extinction event are you referring to exactly? As if it was the event in 1998 I'll assume you do know that was down to El Nino, and numbers have recovered since then? Or was it the one due to starfish eating them all?

 

[Tom]

You have hundreds, thousands of scientists working in often disconnected fields of study all producing results which when viewed collectively tend to point toward man's activities having an effect on the Earth's climate.

I used to think there was some kind of conspiracy afoot before I realised that anti-vaxxers say the same things. Besides which, what's wrong with making our use of energy more efficient, reducing emissions of pollutants, and trying to make the planet a nicer place to live? Not much if you ask me.

 

[Raven]

Coral is mostly lost from localised pollution and ecosystem damage, or even from being carved up by the Chinese. not a direct result of climate change. That in itself needs addressing more than anything else and not just coral but all sorts of ecosystems all over the world that are getting shat on by pollution.

We are chasing our tail trying to have any effect on global climate if we aren't willing to stop pouring plastics and any old shit into the sea.

Mentioning hypocrisy and downright idiocy again. Everything used to come in glass bottles, easily recyclable and not in any way damaging to the environment. Now every fucking thing comes in nasty plastic shit, to save the world or whatever bollocks they come out with. If glass goes into landfill, who cares? If plastic goes into landfill you might as well just salt the earth.

The only reasons to use plastic is weight, production costs and an increase in profit margins, but its sold to Jonny Consumer as good for the environment.

 

[Moriath]

You have hundreds, thousands of scientists working in often disconnected fields of study all producing results which when viewed collectively tend to point toward man's activities having an effect on the Earth's climate.

I used to think there was some kind of conspiracy afoot before I realised that anti-vaxxers say the same things. Besides which, what's wrong with making our use of energy more efficient, reducing emissions of pollutants, and trying to make the planet a nicer place to live? Not much if you ask me.

Like the second part

 

[Bodhi]

You have hundreds, thousands of scientists working in often disconnected fields of study all producing results which when viewed collectively tend to point toward man's activities having an effect on the Earth's climate.

Follow the money....

 

[Tom]

Follow the money....

It's very, very easy to fire that quote right back at you.

 

[Raven]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de...gislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

That is one seriously profitable teat, and its growing.

 

[Bodhi]

It's very, very easy to fire that quote right back at you.

You could, but you would be mostly incorrect in this case.

 

[Scouse]

Like I said @Big G - don't follow the press or the tin-foil hatters. Especially the ones around here

 

[Tom]

You could, but you would be mostly incorrect in this case.

The kind of people whose view you don't agree with are the same ones who design your computer, your car, the systems that deliver energy to your home, that will fix the carotid arteries you'll eventually develop or the cancerous cells in your body.

The kind of people who think anthropogenic climate change is a myth? Donald Trump.

I was reading about Benjamin Franklin the other day. I didn't know that he was the first to plot and codify the Gulfstream. His recommendations were completely ignored, for years, by the British. When they eventually took note, sailing times between London and the US were reduced by two weeks. I suppose the British thought it was bad advice to listen to the words of an intelligent man who designed the first lightning rod.

 

[Job]

It's funny how people who predicted doom where the original tin hatters, endless comics with the guy holding..the end is near..placards, now the people who say everything is going to be fine are the tin hatters.
It's the Emporers new clothes of science, in decades to come this will be looked back as one of the greatest distortions of evidence in scientific history..careers ruined, science ridiculed by the hippy mob.
It's settled, climate deniers, 90% of scientists..none of that ever belongs in scientific debate.

 

[Trem]

@Tom can join in because he has no children, he's allowed to be on his high horse. The more you think about it (and the more you watch Doug Stanhope) you *will* realise that people are the problem. I'm pretty sure that is @Scouse's take on it but I don't remember. Anyway, this is one of his milder sketches, I suggest you hunt out his piece on the African lady whose fourth child has died of water shortage (yeah you can imagine what he thinks about that, much like me when I see the videos on charity ads. I am kind hearted and I care so much but at what point do people stop fucking and stop having kids when they can't feed them?)

Edit - I will repeat that @Tom has changed his tune somewhat since he got rid of his TVR


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsikRTIX28