Forum menu
I'm hoping that it will prove to be an investment.
Ian Munro - Member
I wonder what the carbon footprint of this thread is?
...so that's 8Kg of extra carbon belched into the atmoshpere.
or 500 punctures fixed with CO2 cartridges 🙂
Hasn't this issue been debated on this forum before with much the same outcome? i.e. people taking sides and calling each other idiots and questioning the sanity/ intelligence/ motives of the 'opposition'.
righttimerightplace, your views on climate change are noted but whether or not we can actually prove human activity is the major contributor to it is frankly a pointless debate. Climate change can be witnessed in one form or another during many phases of human evolution, as can changes in local climate and natural resources, all with disastrous consequences for those caught up in it. If it is going to happen we will just have to live with it. Lets face it, the human race is growing beyond the resources available to it so, from a totally logical viewpoint, a few global disasters that wipe out a few million people will help redress the balance and spread the Earths resources out a bit more. Sound harsh? Well I'm afraid thats how nature works. As a species we aren't so special and we have don't special rights to survive at all costs.
For too long the climate change lobby has been wailing about how man is ******g up the planet but to be honest they have used the same tired arguments and evidence with no sign of a development or evolution of their ideas. If climate change is happening on the scale that the CC lobby predict then can they please stop bleating about it and actually provide some accurate models of what will happen, when, and just what the impact really will be? I by this I mean models that are accessible for external evaluation and not built upon a bedrock of assumptions and caveats (which is something most of the climate models used at present are guilty of). Its about time the CC lobby started working with more serious intent on issues like how to physically, economically and politically deal with climate change 'when' it happens; taxing motorists and industry more and sticking up a few wind turbines sure as hell aren't going to alter the way the planet works.
To be quite frank, until I know for sure that I'll be taking a boat rather than the car to work I'm not going to be too concerned with it.
Thanks for your words of wisdom Big Dave.
Powerfull stuff Dave , powerfull.
If you are free can you get to Copengahgen put them staright on a few things?
Thanks for your words of wisdom Big Dave
The pleasure is all mine. I'm just getting rather annoyed that everything we do in the modern world is apparently killing the planet and that there is seemingly no end to the queue of people who are willing to tell me. I think the earth is a bit too big and complex a structure for us to truly damage. Besides, never mind the damage to the environment. I'm still waiting for the climate change lobby to tell us all that the things they want us to change will be sustainable for the business community. Hands up all of the people on this forum have had their standard of living reduced by rising fuel duty, higher costs in the shops as a result and a struggling transport industry.
Just had to sit through Lucy Siegal on the One Show telling us to all turn vegetarian. If we all gave up meat Norfolk will still sink. If she shut up there would be a significant carbon saving right there.
I've stayed away from this argument deliberately, but just skimming the last page: are there really people so literal to say its not real because the atmosphere isn't actually like a physical greenhouse?!
Its not really like that. As has already been alluded to, atmpsheric energy balance and climate are hugely complicated.
Thats why its called the greenhouse [i]effect[/i] - an analogy so that the divvy's [i]kind of[/i] understand.
I despair for Copenhagen on the back of this thread.
Sorry Big Dave, bad news I'm afraid. Climate change, peak-oil and population growth aren't going to be sustainable for the business community. That's the point really. Even if you really really really don't want it to happen, it might happen anyway. Your standard of living may fall! Even in Norfolk.
Hands up all of the people on this forum have had their standard of living reduced by rising fuel duty, higher costs in the shops as a result and a struggling transport industry.
If you think that was bad, wait till you see the price of food once major food producing areas have been reduced to desert.
If climate change is happening on the scale that the CC lobby predict then can they please stop bleating about it and actually provide some accurate models of what will happen, when, and just what the impact really will be? I by this I mean models that are accessible for external evaluation and not built upon a bedrock of assumptions and caveats (which is something most of the climate models used at present are guilty of).
Err .. that's what they have done. Which part, exactly, are you missing? Maybe read these and get back to us?
[url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm ]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm[/url]
+1 for big dave, the voice of reason in a tread filled with utter tedious drivel.
-1 for big dave same head in sand toss from somebody who has yet to think about what it will mean to him.
a tread filled with utter tedious drivel.
Sorry 'bout the tedium - that's the way science is, I'm afraid - all o' them tiresome pesky facts 'n' sech. Boring old logical deductions and arguments.
Here are some of the points in tasty bite size nuggets:
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm[/url].
Have to wait for "Climate Change - the Musical", though.
The pleasure is all mine. I'm just getting rather annoyed that everything we do in the modern world is apparently killing the planet and that there is seemingly no end to the queue of people who are willing to tell me.
You are aware of pollution being a bad thing aren’t you?
I think the earth is a bit too big and complex a structure for us to truly damage.
Imagine say we bomb each other with nucleur weapons and had a century of winters … damaging it would be an absolute piece of pi55…. Granted it will recover and I am sure the insects will love it.
Besides, never mind the damage to the environment. I'm still waiting for the climate change lobby to tell us all that the things they want us to change will be sustainable for the business community
I don’t think anyone here is actually arguing that this is sustainable whether for or against global warming. However if you are tell us the status quo is sustainable I am interested in hearing this argument from you.
Hands up all of the people on this forum have had their standard of living reduced by rising fuel duty, higher costs in the shops as a result and a struggling transport industry.
Is oil running out or something ? Are we facing increased demand for the ever dwindling oil resources…are the vegetarians just hiding it in their tofu to spite you and Norfolk?
Anyone watching "Man on Earth on Channel 4 now? Tony Robinson doing a sort of Time Team thing tracing human history through climate change.
-1 for big dave same head in sand toss from somebody who has yet to think about what it will mean to him.
Actually I have. I've studied it, been out there in the world and gotten my hands dirty working on nature reserves and even changed career on the strength of my believes but after many years I have to admit that my views have softened, I've listened to the other side of the argument and I have to say that I'm really and truly not convinced. I also grew fed up with under powered weedy little eco cars and the feeling that I was slowly becoming an form of eco-catholic (full of guilt but without the buggery :D)
Science is about having a balanced argument and the almost evangelical tone that some of the posters on this thread have adopted sums up everything that is bad about the climate change movement. The tone of the pro-climate lobby only serves to alienate people who may be interested but not overly familiar with some of the issues as it doesn't come across as open minded.
I work alongside a lot of very passionate people in very high profile delivery bodies and environmental institutions and I have to say that a lot of the time their arguments are well intentioned but surprisingly flimsy when viewed objectively. They are also not always relistic or entirely rational as too much emotion has crept into the green movement over the last ten years.
For my parting shot consider this; you are all on this forum because you are presumably mountain bikers. You ride bikes that in most cases where made thousands of miles away from the UK, you probably always make sure you buy the latest gear and to enjoy your hobby a lot of you will most likely strap your bikes to the back of a car (not great for fuel consumption) and travel sometimes hundreds of miles to ride them in a largely artificial environment which was created at the expense of once natural habitat. Some of you will even fly to Europe and beyond to enjoy your biking. Seriously, are you really the sort of people to be handing out sage advice on climate change?
Science is about having a balanced argument and the almost evangelical tone that some of the posters on this thread have adopted sums up everything that is bad about the climate change movement. The tone of the pro-climate lobby only serves to alienate people who may be interested but not overly familiar with some of the issues as it doesn't come across as open minded.
We are open minded what facts have you got then?
We just get polemics like yours and others that slate scientific orthodoxy with religous words [evangelical, zealots] despite the fact it is you that is taking a leap of faith. You offer no explantion of what is happening [clearly it is warming and things are melting], nor offer any evidence to support you position.
We did the how green are you thing early re-read the thread and see our scores. Your description/ slur is not that accurate and even if it were it adds nothing to your argument. Notice than when challenged you offer nothing to explain some of your rather outlandish claims /assertions.
Again I am open minded now persuade me with facts not invective.
Big Dave, can I summarise for you?
What you seem to be saying is that you can't be arsed, but you'd feel better about yourself if nobody else could be arsed either.
Well, I'm sorry, but you have to make your own decisions in this life, then live with them.
If you think some people on here have an evangelical tone that you don't like, then don't listen, but don't make it an excuse for not facing up to reality.
dave had you said it like that the first time round i would not have responded in the way that i did.
that seems like a fair view to me.
I think the earth is a bit too big and complex a structure for us to truly damage.
That's not a good enough reason to ignore our resonsibilities.
We all reap the benefits of technology. We've all picked up the habits of our parents, like they did from theirs, and made them normal.
All these problems seem to stem from using technologies on a large scale before we understand all their effects.
We're just engaged in a series of unproven experiments with the natural world. For 200 years we've been at this but I think that arrogant attitude needs to be left in the 20th century.
Science is about having a balanced argument
Nope - it's about looking at the data and following your logic to its conclusion, however uncomfortable that may be. The truth is not "balanced", or democratic.
I avoid posting credentials or a CV as I'm not deluded enough to think it gives any weight to what I say, either you follow my reasoning and take it on its merits or you don't. I will say that some of the best MTB trails I've ridden anywhere start less than a mile away though. 🙂
I note you are of the view Britain is not in Europe Dave. 😉
Bet you guys are hopping mad now, big summit in Frankfurt about global warming and 2 stories on the BBC today: Branson unveils his rocket ship to fly you in to space for £120k a go and Britains aviation needs room to grow 😉
epicyclo,
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm ]Greenhouse effect in a bottle[/url]
Greenhouse effect in a bottle
Slightly ironic that the video starts with a car ad.
Also - it slightly annoys me that she says she "hopes" the CO2 bottle will get hotter. Why "hope"?
because, it's a science experiemt, and they go wrong sometimes.
(wires fall off, a bottle leaks, the cat escapes, someone left a cheese sandwich in the vacuum chamber, yada yada yada).
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm ]clicky[/url]
and before someone says: 'most weather stations have seen urbanisation over the last 200 years, blah blah concrete blah...' it's the arctic regions that are seeing some of the fastest warming.
with enough pressure on our governments, we can start funding serious research into nuclear fusion, once we get that sorted, we're sorted.
Surely the world would turn wartastic if everyone had fusion
Anyone watching "Man on Earth on Channel 4 now? Tony Robinson doing a sort of Time Team thing tracing human history through climate change.
Amazing how the changes just happened with "Scientists" saying how they just happen even within a decade giving big temp changes...im sure it will be dismissed...by the its all our fault brigade... 🙄
did ya see the cavemans private Jet parked outside his Cave..next to the bently.... 🙂
rightplacerighttime - Member
epicyclo,Greenhouse effect in a bottle
Thanks, quite interesting demonstration of how CO2 absorbs heat. I'm familiar with that bit.
I've been trying to rig up a similar experiment but with a black metal plate on one side to see what happens when the heat source is cycled, ie what happens to the heat stored in the CO2 when the heat source is removed - ie how much radiates away. Also to compare how much heat reaches the plate through CO2 compared to air when the heat source is active, and does less heat hit the plate when going through CO2. (I'll insulate the plate on its non exposed side).
Need more sensors and have to write a wee programme first.
If I finish it I will post it (regardless of results)
But I also have 5 bikes to get ready for the 'Puffer... 🙂
[url= http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/ ]“members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.”[/url]
Global warming is happening - fact.
Global warming due to man is the biggest Con out there.
It is an excuse for everyone to tax you within an inch of your life.
We are in a natural cycle, always have been, always will be.
Which natural cycle would that be hainey? All of the ones I'm aware of would suggest we should be cooling right now.
Global warming due to man is the biggest Con out there.
Looking forward to your detailed, peer-reviewed, analysis that supports that conclusion.
[url= http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm ]Sun spot activity low[/url]
"Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract."
Thanks hainey. I was one of those that believed the evidence and the science behind it but I'm now converted by your solid argument 😉
Could you provide similar incite in the field of particle physics as they're going through such a kerfuffle starting up the LHC?
It has been proven and ratifed by a large proportion of the scientific community that the earth has a natural warming and cooling cycle of 1500 years. In fact, there are far more smaller cycles of warming and cooling which happen every 50 years.
From about 1840 to 1890 the temperatures slowly rose by about 0.6degC. Then from 1890 to 1965 they slowly dropped by about 0.6degC. From 1965 to present day they have risen 0.4degC. The difference between 1890 and 2010 is that we have a knee-jerk media and governments who are struggling for money. In the late 1960s they were predicting doom and gloom that the earth was cooling.
Global warming and cooling does exist, but its just part of the planets natural cycle.
The suns activity vastly outways any effect of pollution or man made gases. The number of the Sun's cosmic rays hitting the Earth affect the number of low, cooling clouds that reflect solar heat back into space, amplifying small variations in the intensity of the Sun.
2000 years ago greenland was covered in trees, birds and mammals! Now its covered in about 200m of ice.
it is excellent to see the anti lobby litterally say it is wrong , offer no evidence to support this position and then go. It is like they have no robust arguments to back up their position.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry ]article above here with hyperlinks to case studies,graphs etc[/url]
Global warming and cooling does exist, but its just part of the planets natural cycle.
Why do we need to go back over and over these things? The magnitude and timescale of current warming trends are NOT explained by "natural cycles" (do you think the Earth menstruates? 🙂 ), but ARE explained best by man-made CO2.
These issues are not illuminated by bar-room type arguments like:
The suns activity vastly outways any effect of pollution or man made gases
It takes actual work to quantify that stuff, and the work suggests very strongly that you are wrong.
We've been through the rest but I like the anecdote about trees on Greenland. Were these below where the ice sheet is now?
Are you refering to Milankovitch cycles hainey? In which case you are being very selective in your time periods as there are three major superimposed cycles. How about posting a link to a site with the cycles expressed graphically? Or would that be embarassing as it would not support your view as Milankovich cycles in no way explain current high temperatures and CO2 levels.
Everyone arguing against global warming is brain-washed by big oil without even knowing it, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry ]FACT[/url]
According to who? All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity. If you have evidence suggesting differently then great. Thats what debate is all about.
You say that cycles "ARE explained best by man-made CO2" - care to elaborate on that, or is that an easy flippant statement to make? Its easy to blame man-made CO2, but global warming and cooling trends suggest differently and at times far earlier than us humans had entered the industrial revolution.
You say that cycles "ARE explained best by man-made CO2" - care to elaborate on that, or is that an easy flippant statement to make?
Fair bit of elaboration here:
[url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm ]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm[/url]
Not really, you've just pointed to a website.
Not really, you've just pointed to a website
Yes - a website with detailed information about the science behind climate change predictions. There are also executive summaries, if you're pushed for time.
There is also this site that I posted yesterday:
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm[/url]