Global Warming.

philologos

taconnol: The only ranting I'm seeing is coming from those who suggest people are wrong to have legitimate doubts about this.

Macha

Jakkass wrote: »

taconnol: The only ranting I'm seeing is coming from those who suggest people are wrong to have legitimate doubts about this.

You're obviously not looking very hard.

Oh and while we're at it, archaeologists still haven't found the missing link between humans and apes. Who's up for replacing lessons in evolution with creationism is school. Who's with me?

philologos

How about trying to help out with clarifying the misconceptions by citing evidence, while respecting that there is probably some reason why people are becoming unsure about this?

I support energy independence and changing before the oil runs out, I also am concerned about recycling, and other issues. I'm absolutely agnostic on global warming though.

Macha

Jakkass wrote: »

How about trying to help out with clarifying the misconceptions by citing evidence, while respecting that there is probably some reason why people are becoming unsure about this?

I thought I was helping by pointing out the difference between climate and weather? It doesn't help when people don't even understand these two basic concepts. For my troubles I got a smart reply.

No surprise, this is AH. But you must be crazy if you think I'm going to waste my time arguing about AGW in this forum when there is already been more than enough debate about it in Green Issues for anyone who is genuinely interested in more than just having a good old rant.

Jakkass wrote: »

I support energy independence and changing before the oil runs out, I also am concerned about recycling, and other issues. I'm absolutely agnostic on global warming though.

Good for you. But climate change is happening whether you believe it's humans that are causing it or not.

andrew

Jakkass wrote: »

How about trying to help out with clarifying the misconceptions by citing evidence, while respecting that there is probably some reason why people are becoming unsure about this?

I support energy independence and changing before the oil runs out, I also am concerned about recycling, and other issues. I'm absolutely agnostic on global warming though.

Even if people are unsure, does should this mean that we act as though it is not happening?

The_B_Man

taconnol wrote: »

You're obviously not looking very hard.

Oh and while we're at it, archaeologists still haven't found the missing link between humans and apes. Who's up for replacing lessons in evolution with creationism is school. Who's with me?

Eh, they have found the missing link!!

Have you not heard of the underground shape-shifting vampire lizard people? and in case you think i'm joking, look up a very serious and sane man called David Icke!

pfft, missing link! :rolleyes:

philologos

andrew and tacconol: By helping out, I mean helping to explain the current events in the light of global warming. That's a reasonable thing to ask of rather than looking down at people for questioning what you're advocating.

I mean I had thought that CO2 as a greenhouse gas was facilitating global warming.

I mean given my viewpoint and belief, I am fairly adamant that we should be stewards of this world, but there has been a precadent of questioning for nearly 3 years on this issue. More and more people are becoming skeptical, and others have promoted viewpoints involving sunspot activity. Why is this? Bear in mind I am quite interested in becoming convinced of your point of view.

My name is URL

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm absolutely agnostic on global warming though.

Say's the Jesus guy...

=p

philologos

My name is URL wrote: »

Say's the Jesus guy...

=p

Indeed. I actually do believe in protecting this world, and people being stewards of it as a result of being such a Jesus guy.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for an explanation for why this weather is compatible with global warming, in the same way I don't think it is unreasonable for people to ask about my belief in Jesus.

Do you think I've been ignoring / snubbing peoples objections to my beliefs in the same way? I want people to understand why I hold the beliefs I do, and I think tacconol and andrew should want to help people to understand this from their point of view instead of snubbing it off.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

/QUOTE]

I mean I had thought that CO2 as a greenhouse gas was facilitating global warming.

It is a GHG, the most influential though is actually water vapour.

More and more people are becoming skeptical, and others have promoted viewpoints involving sunspot activity

Skepticism is good. In fact I encourage it. Ill thought out or strawman skepticism isn't.

No one can deny that the sun influences the climate.There are fews things to note here.

The first is that oceans retain heat and release it slowly. (This is why for example Ireland's climate change is predicted to happen slower than Eastern's Europe's.) There is generally a ten year lag between an increase in radiation from the sun and the earth warming as a result of it.

The second is the sun grows through cycles and our sun this year had an unusually quiet cycle. In fact some were predicting a phenomen known as Maunder Minimum that can lead to a mini ice age because sunspot activity was so low. It appears though that the sun has kicked off into it's cycle now.

The most important thing here to note is that the last 40 years of warming (the 10 warmest years on record occurred in the last 15 years btw) does not even correlate with activity from the sun. Leaving proponents of the that particular theory in fuzzy ground.
Yes there are still physical mechanisms from the sun that we do not fully understand but we cannot reasonably say the sun has primarily influenced the warming trend at all.

andrew

Jakkass wrote: »

andrew and tacconol: By helping out, I mean helping to explain the current events in the light of global warming. That's a reasonable thing to ask of rather than looking down at people for questioning what you're advocating.

I mean I had thought that CO2 as a greenhouse gas was facilitating global warming.

I would've thought it obvious that current events don't need explaining. Global Warming doesn't preclude us from experiencing a local cold snap. The trend is toward a changing climate over decades, and eventually a climate that is warmer (unless the gulf stream is disrupted by the fresh water inflows from the ice caps, in which case our climate could be come colder, or not change all that much), not a Day After Tomorrow style sudden change.

Again, I don't know if global warming is man made. But people with far more information than you or I say it probably is, so I believe them. And even if it isn't, then I still don't see why we should do nothing.

Sam Kade

Dudess wrote: »

The winter of '63, for instance, was a lot harsher than this one.

I heard about 63 a few days ago. I wasn't around to wittness it but I was told of people being house bound for 6 weeks.

Macha

I will come back in the morning on it but I'll just end up on this point.

I'm an environmentalist and even if I didn't believe in climate change, I would still consider the course of action urged by climate scientists to be an excellent one.

-Carbon dioxide levels in our oceans are increasing, with massive knock-on effects on all sea life from phytoplankton up.
-the burning of fossil fuels is not only inherently unsustainable, it is an expensive, non-indigenous fuel that pollutes in many, many other ways: mercury that gets into our food chain, dioxins, the human and environmental impacts of coal mining not to mention the impact on human respiratory diseases (Ireland has serious problems with asthma)
-the increased dependency on the car is going to be one of the biggest causes of social exclusion in Ireland's future as the sick, young and elderly are forced onto inadequate public transport

I could go on. But my point is you don't even need to believe in AGW to want to do something about the burning of fossil fuels. Make fossil fuels carbon neutral overnight? In the morning, we would still have major problems to deal with.

And on that note, good night!

philologos

taconnol wrote: »

I'm an environmentalist and even if I didn't believe in climate change, I would still consider the course of action urged by climate scientists to be an excellent one.

Agreed. So would I, for two reasons:
1) Oil's running out.
2) Economic independence concerning energy.

ascanbe

andrew wrote: »

I would've thought it obvious that current events don't need explaining. Global Warming doesn't preclude us from experiencing a local cold snap. The trend is toward a changing climate over decades, and eventually a climate that is warmer (unless the gulf stream is disrupted by the fresh water inflows from the ice caps, in which case our climate could be come colder, or not change all that much), not a Day After Tomorrow style sudden change.

Again, I don't know if global warming is man made. But people with far more information than you or I say it probably is, so I believe them. And even if it isn't, then I still don't see why we should do nothing.

Agreed. I, also, have no expertise in the area and regard scepticism as healthy; perhaps it will turn out that man has no influence on climate change.
What i find worrying is the growing consensus among many people, who have no expertise and have done no research, that all the climatologists/scientists who warn of man- influenced climate change are definitely wrong or, even worse, are engaged in some kind of sinister conspiracy/hoax.
These people, for whatever reason, are completely sure that they are correct, despite their lack of research in the area, and completely sure that the many scientists who have devoted their lifes work to this field are completely wrong/corrupt.
It also seems, that many of the leading lights amongst the more vocal sceptics,(won't use the term deniers, as it is dumb), have affiliations with the oil industry or particular political ideologies.

ScissorPaperRock

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for an explanation for why this weather is compatible with global warming

This weather is compatible simply because it is just that; weather.

Climate is the average weather. Projections for global warming extend over the next 100 years (although this trend has already began), and describe an average warming of varying degrees. The variations depend on many factors, economic, social, population growth, technological development, and how they will affect levels of emissions. Even a 2 degree rise in average temperatures is deemed dangerous.

Since it's an average increase, some places will experience more warming than others, it's possible some places could become cooler.

But my point is this cold spell is a drop in the ocean in terms of the scale of climate change.

I'd also like to leave something to think about for the nay-sayers. Humans are emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This has increased by around 30% since pre-industrial times.

Simply, CO2 traps escaping heat within the atmosphere.

Admittedly it's more complex than trapped heat=warming because of various feedback systems etc, so the outcome is not always as it seems. But the vast body of scientific evidence points to warming.

Even if you don't want to believe that, you have to admit that emitting such a vast quantity of a gas that traps heat will have a huge effect. And that is not natural, because we are emitting it.

smegmar

for the benefit of everyone not bothered to read any of the scientific evidence in preference to the media, here's how climate change will effect us.

heat from the sun enters the earth in long wave radiation from the sun. some is reflected back as shortwave radiation after it hits the earth, carbon in the air is scientifically proven to stop this from happening, and the atmosphere heats up.
the distribution of heat is uneven across the world. as the equator rises by one degree the poles will rise by maybe 10 degrees. The ice shelf will melt releasing millions of cubic litres of cold fresh water in to the north Atlantic, This cold water surge will disrupt the under water flow called mid Atlantic current. This current has kept us relatively warm and held back the cold north winds. when it is disrupted we in Ireland will experience alot more of the wintery conditions we've seen over the past few days. and it will only get worse every winter

Turtwig

smegmar wrote: »

The ice shelf will melt releasing millions of cubic litres of cold fresh water in to the north Atlantic, This cold water surge will disrupt the under water flow called mid Atlantic current. This current has kept us relatively warm and held back the cold north winds. when it is disrupted we in Ireland will experience alot more of the wintery conditions we've seen over the past few days. and it will only get worse every winter

I'm not sure this is going to happen.
You're only factoring in the effects on the polar ice caps that were pretty much sensationalised by media outlets. The reality is that, well I don't fully understand the reality, no one* does yet but it's a delicate system that depends on far more than fresh water from polar ice melt. For instance, if evaporation were to increase then that would increase salinity because well when water evaporates where does the salt go?
It's fresh water vs salt water. I'm hoping salt wins.:)
If it doesn't we're fcked!

* (I'm open to correction here.)

ScissorPaperRock

smegmar wrote: »

for the benefit of everyone not bothered to read any of the scientific evidence in preference to the media, here's how climate change will effect us.

heat from the sun enters the earth in long wave radiation from the sun. some is reflected back as shortwave radiation after it hits the earth, carbon in the air is scientifically proven to stop this from happening, and the atmosphere heats up.
the distribution of heat is uneven across the world. as the equator rises by one degree the poles will rise by maybe 10 degrees. The ice shelf will melt releasing millions of cubic litres of cold fresh water in to the north Atlantic, This cold water surge will disrupt the under water flow called mid Atlantic current. This current has kept us relatively warm and held back the cold north winds. when it is disrupted we in Ireland will experience alot more of the wintery conditions we've seen over the past few days. and it will only get worse every winter

That's not entirely accurate. Heat from the sun travels as short-wave, and from the earth travels as long-wave. Greenhouse gases are good absorbers of long-wave radiation, so that's the problem.

And while it's true that the North Atlantic Drift keeps Europe up to 10 degrees warmer in Winter, there isn't really any concrete evidence that it will shut down.

opinion guy

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

And while it's true that the North Atlantic Drift keeps Europe up to 10 degrees warmer in Winter, there isn't really any concrete evidence that it will shut down.

Um where would it be right now then, given that our current weather is all coming from the arctic ? ?

andrew

andrew wrote: »

Even if people are unsure, does should this mean that we act as though it is not happening?

Do you cut the red wire or the blue wire, if you know that cutting the wrong one will result in disaster or do you do nothing because you don't even know whether it'll blow at all if you do nothing - it may never blow.

cournioni

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you disagree that any change is taking place in the global climate?

The world's climate has always changed. Otherwise there would still be feckin velociraptors running around.

ScissorPaperRock

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

The world's climate has always changed. Otherwise there would still be feckin velociraptors running around.

You're still ignoring the billions of tonnes of CO2 that we're emitting each year.

That was not happening before.

Macha

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

The world's climate has always changed. Otherwise there would still be feckin velociraptors running around.

Yes but the rate of current change is unprecedented. And I would point out that the demise of the dinosaurs was brought about climate change caused by an impact event. ie, it was not "natural" climate change.

cournioni

Lots of "unprecedented" things happen. I'm sure throughout time unprecedented things have happened before humans populated this planet. The important thing is to enjoy ourselves while we're here.

cournioni

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

You're still ignoring the billions of tonnes of CO2 that we're emitting each year.

That was not happening before.

I'm sure it wasn't, but then again I'm sure there were things happening then that aren't happening now that still caused species to become extinct.

Turtwig

taconnol wrote: »

Yes but the rate of current change is unprecedented. And I would point out that the demise of the dinosaurs was brought about climate change caused by a HUGE impact event. ie, it was not "natural" climate change.

Fixed.:)

ScissorPaperRock

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

I'm sure it wasn't, but then again I'm sure there were things happening then that isn't happening now that still caused species to become extinct.

No one said there wasn't.

My point is that we're releasing billions of tonnes of this gas that traps heat. We need to stop doing that.

cournioni

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

No one said there wasn't.

My point is that we're releasing billions of tonnes of this gas that traps heat. We need to stop doing that.

In order to stop speeding up the inevitable?

Macha

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Lots of "unprecedented" things happen. I'm sure throughout time unprecedented things have happened before humans populated this planet.

Actually, you make an interesting point: before humans populated this planet (um are you suggesting there is another planet we did or might populate?). In order to survive any changes, humans would need to adapt.

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

The important thing is to enjoy ourselves while we're here.

Oh yes, we wouldn't want anyone or anything getting in the way of the current generation enjoying themselves (including the future living capacity of the entire planet).

ScissorPaperRock

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

In order to stop speeding up the inevitable?

There's no reasoning with you is there.

Who said it was inevitably going to happen anyway. We're talking about a short timescale of 20-40 years and the massive changes that will have taken place by then as a result of these billions of tonnes of gas emissions.

cournioni

taconnol wrote: »

Actually, you make an interesting point: before humans populated this planet (um are you suggesting there is another planet we did or might populate?). In order to survive any changes, humans would need to adapt.


Oh yes, we wouldn't want anyone or anything getting in the way of the current generation enjoying themselves (including the future living capacity of the entire planet).

Possibly... You'd never know. Maybe we are all space travellers boss! Maybe our ancestors modified their space ships into caravans in order to adapt.

My point is that regardless of the change that is happening to the planet at the moment, it always has been changing. So my point is that the inevitable is going to happen to future generations some day if what you're saying is correct. So what does it matter? Sure we're all fcuked anyway, we might as well have a party.

Macha

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Possibly... You'd never know. Maybe we are all space travellers boss! Maybe our ancestors modified their space ships into caravans in order to adapt.

Is that you, Jim Corr?

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

My point is that regardless of the change that is happening to the planet at the moment, it always has been changing. So my point is that the inevitable is going to happen to future generations some day if what you're saying is correct. So what does it matter? Sure we're all fcuked anyway, we might as well have a party.

What makes you think it's inevitable?

ScissorPaperRock

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Possibly... You'd never know. Maybe we are all space travellers boss! Maybe our ancestors modified their space ships into caravans in order to adapt.

My point is that regardless of the change that is happening to the planet at the moment, it always has been changing. So my point is that the inevitable is going to happen to future generations some day if what you're saying is correct. So what does it matter? Sure we're all fcuked anyway, we might as well have a party.

Ok so why waste time doing anything. "Hey millions of dying impoverished people around the world, you're all going to die anyway, so relax! Have fun!"

"Hey cancer/aids/malaria etc victim, you're going to die eventually anyway, so let's party! Yeah! Screw wasting effort on advancing science to help, it doesn't matter. Party!"

"Hey Mr Serial Killer, don't worry, they were going to die eventually anyway! C'mon join the party!"




****ing ignorance, that's what it is.

Turtwig

My point is that regardless of the change that is happening to the planet at the moment, it always has been changing.

Why did the K-T boundary extinction wipe out so many species? The climate change too quickly for ecosystems to adapt.
Humans are not suitable to many parts of this planet, and even amid our technological prowess we are still at the whims of this planet, if it's climate changes too quickly we are fcked.

So my point is that the inevitable is going to happen to future generations some day if what you're saying is correct.

Don't you want to pass the survival record, currently held by the dinosaurs (~170 million years)?

cournioni

taconnol wrote: »

Is that you, Jim Corr?


What makes you think it's inevitable?

Jim Carr would be more apt.

What makes you think its inevitable is my question? What makes you think this "unprecedented" change has anything to do with us and not nature.

cournioni

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Ok so why waste time doing anything. "Hey millions of dying impoverished people around the world, you're all going to die anyway, so relax! Have fun!"

"Hey cancer/aids/malaria etc victim, you're going to die eventually anyway, so let's party! Yeah! Screw wasting effort on advancing science to help, it doesn't matter. Party!"

"Hey Mr Serial Killer, don't worry, they were going to die eventually anyway! C'mon join the party!"

****ing ignorance, that's what it is.

You have to hand it to Al Gore who has nearly made a billion on this.

He never takes a serious debate even though climatologists have asked him to. Won't take questions on what he has said and even when a reporter tried to he had the reporters mic cut off.

**** the bloke doesn't have any background in science, lives like a king, flies private jets everywhere, has two big mansions, pollutes like ****, eats meat and then makes a bundle of money by telling others to change their ways.

Turtwig

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

Jim Carr would be more apt.

What makes you think its inevitable is my question? What makes you think this "unprecedented" change has anything to do with us and not nature.

Do you believe that demons cause sickness and that exorcism can cure it, or do you, perhaps, think that micro organisms cause it and that you should trust the doctors who study this stuff?
Climatalogists are well aware that it may be nature but after years of vigourous experiments (which are still ongoing) the current most acceptable explanation is Anthropogenic Global Warming - we're doing it.

Macha

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

What makes you think its inevitable is my question?

I don't

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

What makes you think this "unprecedented" change has anything to do with us and not nature.

*Sigh* I didn't say the change was unprecedented, I said the rate of change is unprecedented.

hooradiation

These threads make me sad, the amount of people who either can't or won't take the time to even conduct the most basic investigation into the evidence on climate change and yet still insist people give their opinions respect.

Turtwig

hooradiation wrote: »

These threads make me sad, the amount of people who either can't or won't take the time to even conduct the most basic investigation into the evidence on climate change and yet still insist people give their opinions respect.

Trust me, it's not near as depressing as debating creationists. The problem with climate change is the general public's poor grasp of statistics, imo.

philologos

hooradiation wrote: »

These threads make me sad, the amount of people who either can't or won't take the time to even conduct the most basic investigation into the evidence on climate change and yet still insist people give their opinions respect.

What's worse still, the people who don't provide evidence, but complain about peoples "ignorance".

There are two questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is it the fault of humans?

If we compare the climate, there is probably a warming occurring.

Is it the fault of humans? This doesn't seem to be too clear. I'm open to the possibility that it is, but I cannot say that I am sure.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

What's worse still, the people who don't provide evidence, but complain about peoples "ignorance".

There are two questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is it the fault of humans?

If we compare the climate, there is probably a warming occurring.

Is it the fault of humans? This doesn't seem to be too clear. I'm open to the possibility that it is, but I cannot say that I am sure.

Ok so if humans aren't causing it, what, in your opinion, is?

ScissorPaperRock

Jakkass wrote: »

What's worse still, the people who don't provide evidence, but complain about peoples "ignorance".

There are two questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is it the fault of humans?

If we compare the climate, there is probably a warming occurring.

Is it the fault of humans? This doesn't seem to be too clear. I'm open to the possibility that it is, but I cannot say that I am sure.

So you're saying you're not sure if billions of tonnes of a heat-trapping gas being emitted into the atmosphere will be of any consequence.

Also, know that CO2 has a lifetime of 100-200 years in the atmosphere, and that we're currently emitting 30% more than pre-industrial levels, and this is set to continue to rise.

hooradiation

Jakkass wrote: »

What's worse still, the people who don't provide evidence, but complain about peoples "ignorance".

Evidence that this thread is full of people who don't have a clue what they're saying?
Self evident - when you consider the bulk of people can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are two questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is it the fault of humans?

If we compare the climate, there is probably a warming occurring.

Is it the fault of humans? This doesn't seem to be too clear. I'm open to the possibility that it is, but I cannot say that I am sure.

Look, we have had thousands of climatologists working for years and years on this, the data is there and the papers available for all to read.

The consensus is that human activity is very likely the cause for the rapid increase in global average temperatures over the past several decades, as far as science goes this is as close to a sure thing as you get.

Now, feel free to disagree with that, i know plenty of people will, but if you have any actual strong evidence to the contrary then your place is not here, it's writing the paper that will change how we view our impact on the world.


Otherwise i can't see why i should indulge random Internet people with their baseless contrarianism masquerading as skepticism.

opinion guy

Frankly this entire climate change "debate" annoys me. It boils down to this - do humans affect the climate - probably. BUT even if we don't, pumping lots of greenhouse gases and pollutants into the enviroment can hardly be a good thing, and just in case it is causing change we should stop it anyhow lest we destroy ourselves. Precautionary principle applies.

END
OF

Turtwig

opinion guy wrote: »

Frankly this entire climate change "debate" annoys me. It boils down to this - do humans affect the climate - probably. BUT even if we don't, pumping lots of greenhouse gases and pollutants into the enviroment can hardly be a good thing, and just in case it is causing change we should stop it anyhow lest we destroy ourselves. Precautionary principle applies.

END
OF

And with that thought..

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/JoelPett_ClimateSummitHoaxForNothing_120709.jpg

Can you embed pictures in AH?

philologos

hooradation: I wasn't expecting your post to be reasonable or diplomatic anyhow.

I support getting off fossil fuels, and I support making this world more efficient and sustainable in the future. I remain uncertain as to the cause of global warming though.

cournioni

Malty_T wrote: »

Do you believe that demons cause sickness and that exorcism can cure it, or do you, perhaps, think that micro organisms cause it and that you should trust the doctors who study this stuff?
Climatalogists are well aware that it may be nature but after years of vigourous experiments (which are still ongoing) the current most acceptable explanation is Anthropogenic Global Warming - we're doing it.

I don't believe in demons nor exorcism, nor do I trust doctors alot of the time. Key words you've used there are "current most acceptable explanation is Anthropogenic Global Warming". Thats right CURRENT, how many more attempts do you need?

What next? "Er... We think that the co2's are causing Global Freezing its going to kill us all. But we're not sure of course."

cournioni

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok so if humans aren't causing it, what, in your opinion, is?

THE WORLDS CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!!!
Does that make it clear enough for you?