Global Warming

[British Red]

I'm not so sure...




There's some very interesting reading in New Scientists "The 7 biggest myths about climate change" article that might give you a good idea of the difference between the popular press and the scientific journals from a layman's point of view, problem is much of its subscriber only, I'll chuck some into the debate every once in a while just to keep the arguments a bit more accurate eh?

Tell you what, why don't you just say you will offer an opinion - rather than an insight that everyone else lacks. This is not your own research, so at best you are repeating things you do not know to be accurate.

The idea of parroting second hand information and claiming accuracy is not the basis for scientific study.

Also can we please avoid use of stupidly emotional insults like "climate change denier" or at least allow terms like "Having blind faith in climate change"

Unless anyone here has conducted personal independent research, we are all believeing in one report or another and introducing, or quoting, insulting emotive terms is both unhelpful and unscientific.


I'm sure you are more knowledgeable than the quoted sources, but for those laymen amongst us

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html



Red

 

[wanderingblade]

Global warming? Natural cycle as far as I am concerned.

I remember at school in the 80's seeing environmentalists banging on about melting ice caps, falling oil reserves etc, etc and they were pretty much ignored.

Fast forward 25 - 30 years and all of a sudden it's headline news, the subject of numerous new pieces of legislation and the driving force behing much of the desicion making in business and government - why..................?

.........because some clever bugger figured out what a silver bullet it was. You can make a stack of cash, push through legislation, enforce new taxes and blame certain faliures on 'climate change'


It really bugs me how people bang on about 'protecting the environment / planet' The Planet couldn't give a stuff what the temprature is - it's been hotter / cooler in the past and life adapts.
It's protecting the interests of people not the planet. The false aultruism galls me.

 

[demographic]

Tell you what, why don't you just say you will offer an opinion - rather than an insight that everyone else lacks. This is not your own research, so at best you are repeating things you do not know to be accurate.

The idea of parroting second hand information and claiming accuracy is not the basis for scientific study.

Also can we please avoid use of stupidly emotional insults like "climate change denier" or at least allow terms like "Having blind faith in climate change"

Unless anyone here has conducted personal independent research, we are all believeing in one report or another and introducing, or quoting, insulting emotive terms is both unhelpful and unscientific.


I'm sure you are more knowledgeable than the quoted sources, but for those laymen amongst us

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html



Red

Although that article says that there was reduced sunspot activity during that period it stops a long way short of saying that it was the cause, or did I miss that section?
Could you point me to the part where it says it was the cause?

Better to parrot information that I read than to read more into an article than is actually there.

Another one which suggests that the sunspot activity doesn't directly cause climate change is this one...

Climate doesn't swing to the rhythm of the sun

* 04 October 2005 by Emma Young
* Magazine issue 2519. Subscribe and save

CLAIMS that increased solar activity could explain the world's warming climate are challenged by a study of Irish bogs. The research, which is a fresh blow to climate sceptics, shows that while there are cyclical changes in both climate and the sun's activity, there is no obvious link between the two.

"The data shows that there is no simple one-to-one relationship, as some researchers have touted," says Chris Turney of the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia, who led the work.

Other studies have claimed to find a link, but what sets this one apart is that the figures for the sun's heat output and those for climate are from the same source - trees growing in the bogs. This avoids any problems of accurately matching the dates of climate data from one source to solar activity from another, Turney says.

Firstly, the Irish trees already form part of the basis for the international radiocarbon calibration curve, the gold standard for inferring solar activity over the last 9000 years. Radioactive carbon-14 is created when cosmic rays from deep space hit the Earth's upper atmosphere, and trees absorb this carbon, laying down a record of historical levels. When the sun is very active, the increased solar wind of charged particles deflects cosmic rays and reduces carbon-14 production. So a low level of carbon-14 in trees reveals increased solar activity.

To deduce climate variations over the same period, the team used an archive of more than 750 excavated trees from the bogs, dating back 7648 years, to gauge tree cover. Periods of more abundant cover indicate relatively warm and dry spells, while sparser cover suggests the climate was wetter and cooler, since a higher water table makes it difficult for saplings to flourish.

"We find a clear cycle in wetting and drying phases, with shifts about every 800 years," says Turney. But the peaks in solar activity do not coincide with peaks in warmer conditions (Journal of Quaternary Science, vol 20, p 511).

Previous studies have used data from separate sources. In 2003, for instance, Feng Sheng Hu of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and colleagues reported a study of biological productivity in lakes in the Alaskan tundra, to use as an indicator of changing climate conditions. The team compared this with known changes in sea ice and the international radiocarbon calibration curve, and concluded that variations in climate do seem to tie in with changes in solar activity.

Hu is impressed with the new data though. "The quality of the chronology is extraordinary and the documented dry/wet cycles seem striking." But, he says, there are significant discrepancies between different measures of climate variation. Hu thinks that understanding these will be vital to understanding any link between solar activity and climate.

The question of exactly what is causing the roughly 800-year periodic shifts in North Atlantic climate seen by Turney's team is still open. We are currently a few hundred years into a warm, dry phase that followed the so-called little ice age, which ended around 1850. It is theoretically possible that solar activity might have some role in climate shifts, but if it does it is indirect, Turney says.

 

[British Red]

Could you point to a place where I DID say it was a cause demographic?

Nope, you can't. You might notice the use of the owrd "potential" and indeed "correlation" but nowhere will you find the word "cause".

That is the difference between our view points. Mine uses carefully cautious phraseology such as "potential". The "received wisdom" camp descends into emotive phraseology such as "climate change denier"

Tell me demographic - how do you feel that the majority of people respondingf to this poll think that climate change is a natural cycle?

Red

 

[demographic]

Could you point to a place where I DID say it was a cause demographic?

Nope, you can't. You might notice the use of the owrd "potential" and indeed "correlation" but nowhere will you find the word "cause".

That is the difference between our view points. Mine uses carefully cautious phraseology such as "potential". The "received wisdom" camp descends into emotive phraseology such as "climate change denier"

Tell me demographic - how do you feel that the majority of people respondingf to this poll think that climate change is a natural cycle?

Red

So what was the reason for putting that link up?

Is there a direct correlation between numbers of believers and how right they are on a given subject?

 

[British Red]

Well, I guess I'm happy to present people with information and allow them to form their own conclusion without needing to find derogatory terms to disparage them when they reach a conclusion different than my own.

There may not be a correlation between the number of people holding one of many alternate and equally valid opinions. I suggest though that if the "accepted peer reviewed scientific evidence" cannot convince the majority of the population of the merits of their opinion, than they must possess woefully inadequate communication skills.

Given that we live in a democracy, if you cannot convince the majority of climate change "science" then I suggest that the funnding could be better used to more important and necessary science - such as medical research.

Red

 

[malente]

All of the above.

 

[John Fenna]

With all the contradictorey info being put out there, all the different theories, modelling and projections, all the variations that are recorded in history - well - I find it impossible to sort it out in my own mind....but I find it an interesting subject to read about and try to understand more about!
It would seem however that IF it is all our fault we SHOULD do more to slow it all down....
IF it is part of a natural cycle this will have no efect...but it might make our planet a nicer place to be anyway!
IF mankind has screwed it all up again and the planet is heading to a point where it is going to be incapable of supporting human life - then we deserved it!
Lets hope that the planet can heal itself when we are gone!

 

[Rumi]

Really interesting variety of opinions.

I'm of the opinion that human activity (more to the point idustrialisation) is accelerating what may be a natural process. I don't like the term "global warming" it doesn't really describe what is occurring. Climate change is a more appropriate term as it does describe what is occurring. I would also like to draw a distinction between climate and weather. The weather changes constantly, climate is a constant which is changing and herein lies the challenge. We have about 200 years of recorded weather trends for the UK, as the climate changes we lose the ability to predict the weather. The problem with climate change is that the weather becomes unpredictable and extremes may occur.

I would also like to draw some further distinctions as well. Physical geological phenomenon, such as thermal vents and earth quakes may influence oceanographic events, including the various circulation systems of the different oceanic drifts. Individual catastrophic geophysical events are unlikely to be related to human activity and or natural climate change though some events, such as volcanic eruptions, may influence localised weather patterns.

So what it means for us is that there will be a global temperature rise of between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius and an increase of atmospheric CO2 to the levels which existed in the carboniferous period. We are consuming and destroying vast tracts of the planet faster than species can evolve to adapt to the changes we are causing so habitat and species loss in the past 300 years has probably been among the most catastrophic the world has ever seen. Not only do we need to slow down and stop the destruction we have to find solutions and adaptations so that our children's children may have some chance of survival.

Thats just my opinion..

 

[Neil1]

History tells us its part of a natural cycle, so the planet has been here before (and recovered). The big problem is that there has never been one species that has dominated to the degree that we humans are currently at (which seems to throw a big spanner in the works!
I heard recently (on the radio) that if you added up all previous human lives, the total would not be as great as the current human population.
The are a lot of theories about the number of humans the planet can support....some say we have reached that point.
So I, for one, will be keeping it in my pants!! (well for now anyway).
N

 

[Wallenstein]

We are all rich in global terms, therefore we will be relatively insulated against the effects (whether it's man-made or not).

And we'll be dead before it becomes a real problem for the Western world, so it's not something I can get worked up about.

One thing that does puzzle me is how closely support or opposition to man-made global warming is linked to wider political opinions.

Based on the responses of certain posters in this thread I reckon you could accurately predict their opinions on a range of other topics and take a reasonable stab at guessing voting intentions.

Maybe that's the problem - the science is so complex that all we can really offer are opinions, and those opinions will tend to align with other political beliefs we hold.

 

[BOD]

I am open to a cycle of warming and cooling but I can see climate change especially in the tropics.

Our reckless use of fossil fuels and deforestation cannot be good for the planet. We are creatures of excess whether in diet or otherwise.

I find it silly that we are trying to save the planet. The planet is running a fever to rid itself of a deadly epidemic -us.

It will succeed eventually.

 

[Nat]

Natural phenonmenom in my opinion. What goes around comes around. I've read of figures and ideas and scientists talking out their backsides for years on the subject and decided to ignore it.
THe earth is over populated so it has to try and balance out somehow

 

[Tadpole]

It’s a natural cycle that humans have made much worse, and much more likely to gain enough momentum to heat up enough or the earth to wipe out large amounts of land that is currntly used in food production, the likely affect is an end to human kind, ridding the earth of the cause of the problem.

 

[Antonia]

Greetings Folks

I am very saddened to see how this vote is going. I had thought that people such as ourselves would have a more concerned attitude to the environmental problems we all face. Sadly that seems not to be the case.
I shall not lecture here on the subject, but I shall say only;

Despite the past changes and how they effected the Earth, they cannot be used as suitable models to indicate how the Earths systems will behave in the future. Continents are in different positions, Ocean currents flow differently as a result, And too, levels of Methane / Methane hydrates greater.

No folks, if the gulf stream does not change due to increases in fresh water input within the next 30 years ( if I believed in a god, I would pray it would ) and we get to +2C, which we will ! Then we will more than likely NOT be able to prevent further rises to 5 or 6C.

That being the case, few humans will be able to survive and those that do may wish they had not. I do not care to get involved in heated debate on the issue. I just worry for my children and grand children.

I am one of those Scientists folks tend to slag off ! I didn't spent 20 years studying Physics, Biology and Planetary Science to have my teaching ruined by conspiracy theorists, something I see happening daily these days.

The only thing we have to loose folks, if we take this issue seriously enough to protect our Earth is money and time. If we don't take it VERY seriously then we will no longer have a suitable home.

What do you value more, your money or your Planet?

It really is that simple, trust me, you do not have the time to study it much further. Trust those that have.

Kind regards

Antonia

 

[telwebb]

but in there somewhere isn't there the point that "...we get to +2C, which we will ! Then we will more than likely NOT be able to prevent further rises to 5 or 6C."

That being the case, few humans will be able to survive and those that do may wish they had not." Which suggests, to me anyway, that however seriously we take it there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. Sad, but thats how it seems.

 

[British Red]

The argument also revolves around HOW to address the problem Antonia. I politely suggest that the root cause is the children (plural) that people insist on having. The quickest way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce population.

Would you mind telling us how many children you have?

Red

 

[Antonia]

I agree hehehehee

And, if I had known then what I know now I would not have had them, honestly!
I'm not sure that would be the quickest way to reduce CO2 tho. Even if we all died today, we will still get 1-1.8C as overshoot.

Antonia

 

[British Red]

The point is however, that if each couple has only one child, we halve the population in a single generation, quarter it in two, and probably, allowing for those who want none, reduce it by 90% in three.

This also adresses the lack of food, water, fuel and all the rest that an ever expanding population causes.

Climate change MAY cause problems going forward. Starvation is killing more people with each generation.

A few less cars or a few more woodburners will not change a thing. If we reduce our CO2 footprint, people in this country will die. We cannot feed ourselves, our farming is based upon fossil fuel based agriculture and fertilisers.

We can choose not to have to children, we can choose to thrust the existing population into the stone age, or we can choose to let people die.

Those are the real choices

Red (interested to see your heeeheee answer - do you find this a laughing matter having admonished the forum?)

 

[Antonia]

"(interested to see your heeeheee answer - do you find this a laughing manner having admonished the forum?)"

No, not at all. Just that I could see I let myself in for the fact that my own self having children allowed you to focus it back on me personally.

I agree with you, there are many real choices we need to make, population control being one of the prime ones. That does not negate the big problem of extreme climate change tho does it?
Anyway I did say I would not wish to get into too much of a a debate one the issue..... I find they often get ...heated.

Be well

Antonia