Global Warming
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Pretty much what he said..... Every day I see the teenage "baby factories" wandering past work. The problem isn't cars or fossil fuels or energy consumption... It's the thing that uses all this stuff. HUMAN BEINGS. Keep the population down and the planet can recover... simples
The biggest drivers of the Global Warming Panic are the Money ********, out to screw us all over again
Hi, Just to throw a spanner in the works. there is more data out there to suggest completly the opposite of global warming. the planet is actually getting colder.
I don't think that the specifics of localised effects alter the main argument i.e. the extent to which anthropromorphic climate change exists.
For the record I don't think it does, or at least to any major extent. I would also like to state that I agree that population increase is probably one of the most important crisis factors we must face as a planet. Heck we've been facing it on our island for so long it's considered the norm.
Like I said. Perhaps you could back up your statements with some references. Here are a few for you, to save you from further embarrassment:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/keyfacts/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/
and if you only have as much time to devote to your research as apparently you've devoted already, check out page 2 of this:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/downloads/quick_guide.pdf
And it could be a recipe for ginger cake. That's the point of the 'publication' part of research, and why there are 'references'. You're supposed to look them up and read them, instead of parroting half-baked garbage dreamed up by journalists, misquoted by somebody's pals down the pub and then rephrased beyond all recognition on an Internet forum.
Although I do agree we Humans are'nt taking care of our planet as we should, What with de-forestation of the planets "lungs" and the amount of garbage we kick into the atmosphere.
Yes we should be doing a hell of a lot more to stop the damage, What i don't agree with is the Governments scare tactics that " Climate Change " is solely our fault, and that Taxation of the masses will cure that.
A couple of years back a friend of mine said Global Warming or Climate Change as its now known is inevitable, whether man was on this planet or not, He also said that, from the turn of the last Century Earths climate has been cooling and not warming up.
After reading up on Milankovitch Cycles, i really don't believe the Governments C**p anymore.
It's just Mother Earth saying Time for a change.
Yes we should be doing a hell of a lot more to stop the damage, What i don't agree with is the Governments scare tactics that " Climate Change " is solely our fault, and that Taxation of the masses will cure that.
A couple of years back a friend of mine said Global Warming or Climate Change as its now known is inevitable, whether man was on this planet or not, He also said that, from the turn of the last Century Earths climate has been cooling and not warming up.
After reading up on Milankovitch Cycles, i really don't believe the Governments C**p anymore.
It's just Mother Earth saying Time for a change.
Please read the science a little more carefully. We are at the moment in a generally cooling part of the Milankovitch cycle. In fact the rapidly warming phase of the cycle happened about ten thousand years ago and we seem to have come through that OK. But before everyone gets all excited about that and starts thinking that it's the answer to our prayers, we all need to understand the science. Or, failing that, at least the graphs. We have another 100,000 years to wait before we can hope for any help from our Serbian friend.
In very handwaving terms, the Milankovitch cycle describes observations of several, different, superimposed cyclic fluctuations which result in cyclic (although complex) changes in global surface temperatures of the order of ten degrees Celsius. These changes take place over something like 100,000 years. This means that as far as Milankovitch cycles are concerned, we are discussing changes in the order of 0.0001 degrees Celsius per year or 0.1 degrees per millennium.
The global warming that we're worried about in this thread, whatever the source(s), is happening at a rate of about 0.1 degrees in five years, that is a couple of hundred times faster than anything that Milankovitch can explain. It's much more worrying, because while Milankovitch explains a cyclic tendency of a few degrees over hundreds of thousands of years, the global warming that we see now is not cyclic and it's happening a lot faster. As far as we know at the moment, for all intents and purposes it's permanent, and the physics places no arbitrary limit of a few degrees on the actual temperature rise. We really could be talking eventually about a surface temperature on the Earth which would boil water. It's like that on Venus right now -- the mean surface temperature there is about 460 degrees Celsius. It's primarily the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere which heats the surface to that level, it's not just because of the distance from the sun. Venus is twice as far from the sun as Mercury and so receives only one quarter of the insolation that Mercury receives. But Venus is generally hotter than Mercury because Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of.
All the science I'm describing here is readily accessible on the Internet, see Wikipedia for example, and it is not seriously disputed.
We are now seeing changes in human timescales which should only be happening in geological timescales. It is staggeringly difficult to make deliberate changes to the planet of this order of magnitude, but the consensus is that we've managed to do it. If we stand by and do nothing while these changes continue then the time will probably come, and soon, when we will be unable to do anything effective to reverse them. By then we will at least have a pretty good idea of when the end will come, and what it will be like.
Sorry not been keeping up much with this thread just wanted to jump in, although what i have read does make interesting reading and gives the views of the general forum populace.
Yes, readily accessible on the internet it may be but how much of it is the actual truth? Providing Wikipedia as a reference and backup won't get you far, maybe try posting links to scientific journals instead & from varied sources. If I put wikipedia in any of my uni assignments I would have been laughed at and told to go away.
Question though, if we have had these very large cycles through geological time, what caused past warmings/coolings? Certinaley humans were not around, can you prove this is any different?
Yes, readily accessible on the internet it may be but how much of it is the actual truth? Providing Wikipedia as a reference and backup won't get you far, maybe try posting links to scientific journals instead & from varied sources. If I put wikipedia in any of my uni assignments I would have been laughed at and told to go away.
Question though, if we have had these very large cycles through geological time, what caused past warmings/coolings? Certinaley humans were not around, can you prove this is any different?
Last edited:
It's stunning that people can form an opinion without first reading anything. Maybe you should try reading the Wikipedia page that I linked to. At the bottom of the page you will find 31 links to references in scientific journals, further reading, and links to other Websites which will provide all the information you could possibly want about Milankovitch cycles.
When was that? Your colleagues at university would do better to remember why they are there. It's foolish to ignore something just because of where it was found. Many an investigator has had cause to regret that. Agreed that by its very nature Wikipedia is a moving target. It is open to abuse, and regrettably that happens daily, but most of the damage is quickly repaired. Wikipedia is serious. It has policies on references, and if you read much at all you will often see pages with a heading "This article does not cite any references". When you see that you know to treat what you read there with more caution than usual.
Why don't you just read the references that I've already given?
The differences are in the timescales as I have previously explained. You would know that if you had taken the trouble to read this stuff.
Over the last million years we have been looking at average temperature changes of a couple of degrees every 25.000 years or so. Like the value of your house, the temperatures went down as well as up.
But we are now looking at an average temperature change of a couple of degrees over the next century. And the temperature will just go up, even though in this part of the Milankovitch cycle it ought to be going down, and it will keep on going up until we do something about it.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that if after all it turns out that Man didn't cause this warming then we can stop worrying. We have to worry even if it isn't our fault. In fact if it isn't our fault I'd suggest we need to worry even more, because then we really wouldn't have a clue what to do about it.
Last edited:
Ged, I hear a lot of what you are saying but the way you are saying it is likely to wind people up.
Using emotive phrases like "It's stunning that people can form an opinion without first reading anything." or "Your colleagues at university would do better to remember why they are there." while satisfying to write, seem intended to score points rather than offer a reasonable argument.
I am learning a great deal in this thread but lets please try to keep it convivial.
Using emotive phrases like "It's stunning that people can form an opinion without first reading anything." or "Your colleagues at university would do better to remember why they are there." while satisfying to write, seem intended to score points rather than offer a reasonable argument.
I am learning a great deal in this thread but lets please try to keep it convivial.
Have you read those 31 references to see what they really said? I could cite references til the sun comes up, but doesn't mean I have read them or even taken what is written into account what they said. The writter of the wiki has taken that info and provided a summary of those references. This can also be the case with some papers, depends on who the publisher is or financial backer is.
In reference to my last question, what I was getting at was maybe not made clear. These past changes on graphs span millions of years and are presented at such a large scale it may not be possible to see the minor changes over centuries, this also depends on the accuracy of the tool/person that is measuring, say ice cores for example.
In your last statement, if man is not behind the cause and it is nature are you suggesting that we act against it or just be worried about it?
You're quite right, and I'm sorry. I'm the one that's wound up and I shouldn't let it get to me like that. I'll try to do better.
The poll needs another category:
"I'm fed up with sanctimonious gob****es on both sides telling me how to think and swearing blind they know how it really is and how they're saddened that no one agrees with them and they're so stupid that they can't see they're actually alienating me which is a self-defeating tactic where everyone - including the sodding planet - suffers. Now knock it on the head."
I'd give that my vote.
"I'm fed up with sanctimonious gob****es on both sides telling me how to think and swearing blind they know how it really is and how they're saddened that no one agrees with them and they're so stupid that they can't see they're actually alienating me which is a self-defeating tactic where everyone - including the sodding planet - suffers. Now knock it on the head."
I'd give that my vote.
