Climate change

1,843 posts in this topic

 

If you have a hot winter (like we have had) this almost certainly has nothing to do with global warming.

Exactly, it's too simplistic to say that this mild winter is because of global warming, or Hurricane Katrina was because of global warming, or a cold snap is proof that there is no global warming. It's medium and long-term trends that determine if the atmosphere is heating up or cooling down, and the fact that the warmest six years of the 20th century were in the 1990s is evidence of global warming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've only been measuring temperatures accurately for 150 years. The fact that the warmest six years were in the 1990s simply means they were the warmest years in the last 150. On a global scale this is totally insignificant and tells us nothing about long term climate changes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it takes a genius or any scientific studies to figure out that pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and chopping all the trees down is going to be good for the atmosphere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@STB

 

The ice cores are nowhere near as accurate as the multiple calibrated direct temperature readings of the last 150 years or so. They only tell us what happened in the arctic or antarctic, or on top of mountains for a start. Have you read the 2001 climate change report?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've only released a summary so far, the rest of the report/s will be released later this year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually the IPCC's reports say otherwise. It's all happened before, and sometimes more quickly even in the last 15,000 years, which is an insignificant amount of time in terms of climate.

For those who don't like clicking links ;)

 

 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4

 

The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on February 2, 2007. Its key conclusions were that:

 

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal

* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations

* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)

* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%

* World temperatures could rise by anything between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 and 11.52°F) during the 21st century and that:

o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)

o It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall

o It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years

Link

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the conclusions. Actually finding evidence to support those conclusions in the report is more difficult if you read critically. They contradict themselves, ignore lots of evidence and so on. It's not actually peer-reviewed report, so in scientific terms it doesn't have much credibility.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the IPCC are bunch of biased liberal amateurs. The conclusions bear no resemblance to the rest of the report. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I really cant help thinking that the climate experts sound just like the computer experts did prior to Y2K. (Or am I starting to believe Crichton? - Was that a pteradactyl gliding past my window?)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@STB

 

Have you read it? The conclusions say what's happening now is unprecedented but earlier in the report they mention several times where similar things have happened in the past. They must think we're all stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts:

 

1.) The earth's climate is changing

2.) It is possibly the result of human actions

 

Other Facts:

 

1.) The earth's climate has always been changing

2.) To a certain extent biotic entities have been responsible for climate and atmospheric change for aeons.

 

Q and A:

 

1.) Will climate change be catastrophic - we do not know

2.) Will we destroy the earth - No. Even if we let rip with all our poisonous emisions and had complete nuclear fall out the best we could hope for is to kill ourselves off and that most probably only because we are an over-specialised species and a small disturbance in our environment could have dramatic effects for us.

 

This idea that we are in control of the earth and need to maintain it as it is now is a through back from psuedo religious beliefs that we are the stewards of the earth. We are just another species and like all species before we will have a high point and then become extinct. That's what species do. Once we are gone there will be other dominant species. Then the Sun will run out of energy and everything in this general vicinity will be dead. And no-one will care that several billion years ago we raised the temperature of the Earth by 0.4 deg C.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But I really cant help thinking that the climate experts sound just like the computer experts did prior to Y2K.

The problem with this argument is there was no control. A lot of effort was spent on ensuring that Y2K was not a problem. The question is; if that effort had not been taken what would have been the consequences?

 

Although there was some hysteria it was a real problem with possible serious consequences.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you read it? The conclusions say what's happening now is unprecedented but earlier in the report they mention several times where similar things have happened in the past. They must think we're all stupid.

No I haven't read it all. But I doubt that they've overlooked something that you have unearthed.

 

 

2.) Will we destroy the earth - No. Even if we let rip with all our poisonous emisions and had complete nuclear fall out the best we could hope for is to kill ourselves off and that most probably only because we are an over-specialised species and a small disturbance in our environment could have dramatic effects for us.

This is an important point. Global warming deniers go on about "environmentalism", but global warming is first and foremost a human welfare issue. As temperatures and precipitation increase, disease will spread, while rising sea levels will flood vast areas of land, often in the developing world where the people have nowhere else to go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No I haven't read it all.

So you've taken it on trust rather than exercised your own judgement. I wonder how many people have done that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

global warming is first and foremost a human welfare issue.

This is the crux of the matter - climate change is a people problem and not really an "earth" problem. Although proponents of climate change awareness will have us believe that they are looking out for all of us this is not true. An extrapolation of current climate change policy will show that in the next few decades it will be more costly and difficult for developing nations to initialise industrialisation thus leaving them (as always) at the mercy of the developed countries.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'environmentalists' (AKA human haters) are actively preventing third-world countries from developing already. Scumbags. Imperialism all over again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that any country should follow history of industrialisation in western Europe (pollution, exploitation, etc.). The developing world has an opportunity to lean from the mistakes of others, although it is doubtful if they will take it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we did it so it's a bit rich of us to tell them they can't. And no-one has come up with a better way as yet. Photo-voltaic cells and wind power won't be anywhere near enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now