climate change

[welshbairn]

It's incredible to me that people who think that human behaviour has nothing to do with the increased levels of C02 and it's effect on global temperature disbelieve the vast majority of scientists who are actively researching it but accept every word Exxon's proxies come out with. You can't trust the MSM and experts, but if industries dependent on pumping carbon into the atmosphere say it's harmless, then it must be true.

[LongTimeLurker]

Nobody, as far as I am aware, questions that burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale has increased atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 200 years. Very few people would question that it has a greenhouse effect to some extent.

What does get called into question is whether there are large feedback effects connected to enhanced water evaporation as that's what shifts the impact from no big deal and arguably mildly beneficial from a crop yield standpoint as photosynthesis works a bit better sort of levels to oops that ice cap just melted and the Dutch are all going to drown sort of levels.  

Anyone who claims to know for sure either way doesn't understand where the science is really at and is parroting propaganda. Odds on the developing world is going to burn all available fossil fuels in an attempt to reach western living standards so if you are around until late this century you will find out which of those scenarios it is going to be.

Edited December 29, 2016 by LongTimeLurker

[dorlomin]

7 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Nobody, as far as I am aware, questions that burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale has increased atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 200 years. Very few people would question that it has a greenhouse effect to some extent.

Dr. Murry Salby who have been given wide prominence by the alt science community including the previously recomeneded WattsUpWithThat,others claim it is all from volcanoes. It was a line tried for many years before being sunk under a weight of evidence. 

 

 

Quote

What does get called into question is whether there are large feedback effects connected to enhanced water evaporation

Its not "enhanced water evaporation", warmer air holds more moisture. Basic physics. 

 

Quote

as that's what shifts the impact from no big deal and arguably mildly beneficial from a crop yield standpoint as photosynthesis works a bit better sort of levels to oops that ice cap just melted and the Dutch are all going to drown sort of levels.  

In the Arctic, what is called "albedo" is probably as important. The Antarctic is basically a 3000m slab of ice on a continent. In the Arctic most of the area covered by ice was about 5m thick and floating on the ocean (with the exception of the Greenland ice sheet). This is very reflective and ocean water is pretty dark. Sea ice can melt relatively quickly and expose energy absorbing water in summer. This feedback is likely to warm the Arctic much faster than anywhere on the planet (as we are currently seeing). This will likely melt the Greenland ice sheet and that is where the Dutch, East Anglia and many of the worlds most populous cities get into trouble. 

 

Quote

Anyone who claims to know for sure either way doesn't understand where the science is really at and is parroting propaganda.

I am willing to bet I know a damn site more about physics than you do and am far better placed to be able to understand the arguments here than you. CO2 fits into a much bigger picture than just "fossil fuels == doom therefore pay tax" that you seem to think it is. Our understanding of how the glacial\interglacial pacing works (called Milankovitch Cycles) relies on a CO2 feedback to enhance the small changes in energy distribution that switch our planet form 3km of ice over Glasgow to today's climate. Why was it warmer than today during the Cambrian, about 500 million years ago when the Sun was about 5% less energetic? Well we see much higher CO2 that likely helps explain it, I could go on for ages. Anyone who wants too, you can get everything from introductions written for children right up to postgraduate level text books and research this science for yourself. If you have doubts go for it, use real text books not websites. Learn the basics, learn the advanced stuff. 

 

Or just spout pish on a football forum. 

[LongTimeLurker]

On 28/12/2016 at 08:08, Duff Man said:

Considering the earth has been here for billions of years and temperatures only recorded for less than 100 years of that, how do they know that humans are actually at fault for sudden climate shifts?  

The truthful answer is that we don't with complete certainty, but this whole issue became highly politicised so nuanced scientific language about statistical certainty levels was replaced with categorical statements from the likes of Al Gore about the science being settled and some highly dodgy looking tree ring evidence was used to air brush the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (that had previouly been well known aspects of Scottish history) out of the recent scientific literature as that suggested that the changes over the last two centuries are within the range of what happens naturally.

Problem was that until the recent El Nino weather event, which is cyclical and based on the effect of currents in the Pacific Ocean, the actual data measurements had been flat lining for about 15 years rather than doing what the models were predicting they should do if CO2 was the main driver. The most likely scenario is that yes there is significant man-made warming, but the feedback loops involving water vapour are probably not severe enough to melt the ice caps. There's no way to be completely sure on that though, so a move to renewable energy sources and a more collectivist system is the responsible course of action. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by LongTimeLurker

[Afro]

Another bump. I've been reading and thinking a lot about climate change recently, and I was certain it'd be previously discussed on here. Some absolute gold from 2011 coming from Reynard and Ad Lib (although he seems to have become a lot more bearable).

The news of the ban on sale of petrol or diesel from 2040 here in the U.K. kind of triggered some interest in this for me. From what I've read so far, I'd say the ban is nothing more than a token gesture and I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that automotive technology will have progressed significantly further than the present combustion technology we commonly use. That said, going hell for leather in a change towards electric vehicles isn't exactly sensible in the short term given the way in which we currently generate electricity. Are hybrids the answer? Not sure how reliable it is but I've read several pieces on how a Prius, for example, produces more emissions over its entire lifetime, including mining materials required for the battery, than a large SUV like a Hummer.

The good (?) news I've mainly taken away from reading numerous articles in the past few days is that overall carbon dioxide emission levels have levelled in the past 3 years. Although, given Trump's crusade against scientists in the US, I would expect it to go up.

What is everyone's thoughts on this nowadays, compared to when the topic was created? Are we on the right path towards reducing emissions as a species? Is there some new technology out there that could actually reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

[whiskychimp]

I hope that we continue to heat the planet until it doesnt sustain human life.

We're such a bunch of parasitic c***s, moaning about killing the planet. The earth will be just fine once we're gone.

[moses1924]

Does anyone know if there is somewhere that you can compare the number of sunshine hours a place has experienced from one year to the next? I'm sure the last two summers have been darker and more miserable than those before but wanted to find a way to check if this was the case? Remember reading a while back that climate change would make Scotland permanently warmer, cloudier and wetter which looks like it is happening...

[The Chlamydia Kid]

I couldn't give a toss about climate change. Generally because the type of people who go on about it are usually total roasters, I wouldn't pay any attention to their views on how society should be run so I'm not inclined to pay much heed when they carp on about climate change.

In the 80s and 90s everyone used to get their knickers in a twist about holes in the Ozone layer, CFC gasses and acid rain. You never hear a thing about them now. These impending disasters suddenly became non issues. Is climate change going to be the next fad?

I've not got a clue about the science behind it. Frankly I'm not interested either. I've got more important pressing concerns in my life. I will be long gone before it has any impact on me or my offspring.

[welshbairn]

41 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

In the 80s and 90s everyone used to get their knickers in a twist about holes in the Ozone layer, CFC gasses and acid rain. You never hear a thing about them now. These impending disasters suddenly became non issues. Is climate change going to be the next fad?

I assume you're trolling/wooshing but you do know we did things to mitigate that stuff?

[Jambomo]

On 31/07/2017 at 03:35, Afro said:

Another bump. I've been reading and thinking a lot about climate change recently, and I was certain it'd be previously discussed on here. Some absolute gold from 2011 coming from Reynard and Ad Lib (although he seems to have become a lot more bearable).

The news of the ban on sale of petrol or diesel from 2040 here in the U.K. kind of triggered some interest in this for me. From what I've read so far, I'd say the ban is nothing more than a token gesture and I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that automotive technology will have progressed significantly further than the present combustion technology we commonly use. That said, going hell for leather in a change towards electric vehicles isn't exactly sensible in the short term given the way in which we currently generate electricity. Are hybrids the answer? Not sure how reliable it is but I've read several pieces on how a Prius, for example, produces more emissions over its entire lifetime, including mining materials required for the battery, than a large SUV like a Hummer.

The good (?) news I've mainly taken away from reading numerous articles in the past few days is that overall carbon dioxide emission levels have levelled in the past 3 years. Although, given Trump's crusade against scientists in the US, I would expect it to go up.

What is everyone's thoughts on this nowadays, compared to when the topic was created? Are we on the right path towards reducing emissions as a species? Is there some new technology out there that could actually reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

I think that that as I understand it, much of the technology behind electric cars in actually already here and that its development towards producing more reliable and useful cars is being held back by those who have financial interests in petrol and diesel.

I think that the governmental plans are good in that hopefully stating that there will be a firm change from 2040, will mean that people have enough reason to start properly developing electric cars and we can start to see better infrastructure in place to make them more practical.

As for climate change overall, I am interested in it to some degree but there is a mountain of information out there, which no person could keep fully up with unless its your day job. I tend towards the thoughts that the majority of scientists, those whom are not being funded by interested parties, do seem to agree that we have a problem and that we should be addressing it and so I am generally happy to accept their informed opinion on the subject.

It may or may not be the case that certain actions help to reduce things such as carbon. I do, when I can (i.e I won't buy a Prius because I can't afford one and their green credentials are dodgy) do things to try and help reduce climate change because generally they are things that are pretty easy to do and in general have benefits that outweigh negatives, i.e not buying food flown in from the other side of the world. If it shows that they end up making no difference, well, nobody has lost anything because of doing it have they?

[Cerberus]

Apparently the floods in SE Asia and the hurricane in Houston are due to the effects of climate change.

Remember when things were just things and no one made them fit didn't have an agenda?

[Zetterlund]

12 hours ago, Cerberus said:

Apparently the floods in SE Asia and the hurricane in Houston are due to the effects of climate change.

Remember when things were just things and no one made them fit didn't have an agenda?

Let's just be logical and scientific, and call it what it is.

It's obviously God punishing the sinners.

[welshbairn]

12 hours ago, Cerberus said:

Apparently the floods in SE Asia and the hurricane in Houston are due to the effects of climate change.

Remember when things were just things and no one made them fit didn't have an agenda?

You can't take a single event and pin it solely on climate change. What you can say is rising sea temperatures will mean more frequent and severe hurricanes. It's basic mechanics.

[pandarilla]

Apparently the floods in SE Asia and the hurricane in Houston are due to the effects of climate change.

Remember when things were just things and no one made them fit didn't have an agenda?

Remember when everyone got cholera and died and it was just a thing? Bloody scientists, trying to work out causes and patterns. Just leave things be.

#whenhurricaneswerehurricanes

[throbber]

There's no such thing as climate change it's just another scare tactic from the elite.

[BallochSonsFan]

Climate change is a scientific fact.

The earth warms and cools. Has done for pretty much the entire time it's existed beyond the initial period where it was mostly magma. We've had ice ages in the past. We'll have ice ages again. We'll also have periods where the earth is hotter than is ideal.

The issue is whether or not we contribute to it?

Clearly we do. To what extent we contribute to it is debatable, but pretty much everything we do contributes to climate change in some way. The use of fossil fuels. Intensive farming of cattle. Deforestation. Draining marshland that would otherwise act as a carbon store.

In the grand scheme of things our contribution probably only increases the rate at which our climate is changing by a small amount. That small amount can still lead to catastrophic consequences but our climate would change regardless of whether we were contributing to the overall effect or not. That doesnt mean that we shouldn't try to limit how much we contribute but I'm probably more interested in environmental change as a whole rather than climate change as a single issue. Environmental change impacts on how we can deal with things like extreme weather. If we build on land that should otherwise be used as natural flood plains then we put people at risk. If we allow waterways to become polluted then we create the conditions for disease to spread through drinking water. If we continue to strip forests then we create the conditions for soil to suffer, not to mention the impact on wildlife.

All of which has the potential to cause serious problems to us as a species and which need as much, if not more, attention than the single issue of climate change.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

50 minutes ago, throbber said:

There's no such thing as climate change it's just another scare tactic from the elite.

Stick to your comment sections on David Icke videos on youtube throbbswold, the adults are talking.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Anyhoo, this cartoon is nice

[Nkomo-A-Gogo]

Used to be called global warming then climate change and now aren't there calls for it to be called "extreme weather"
this increasing vagueness ensures the noses can be kept in the troughs for the foreseeable future.

[LongTimeLurker]

5 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Anyhoo, this cartoon is nice

Sums it up for me where the mentality of a particular type of right wing response to the debate is concerned, but the likes of Elon Musk are being driven by the profit motive as much as anything else and regardless of the whole climate change debate fossil fuels have been getting more expensive as the most easily exploited reserves were used up and that has created the fiscal environment where wind and solar and the Li battery has actually started to compete and make financial sense. Hopefully that will continue as if it is cheaper to keep burning fossil fuels developing countriesare going to do what they have to do to get their slice of the action economically regardless of what Al Gore and Michael Mann have to say about it.