[Closed] Global warming update!

I really don't understand the point of this debate. We can't keep burning fossil fuels, dumping rubbish in holes, burning forests, climate change or not.

Why not embrace the change instead of fighting it because...?

That's all very true Lifer and a very considerate opinion. However, many people who have similar views feel they have been lied to, had their taxes raised considerably, family holidays in the sun put out of reach..... all on the back of a scare scam, perpetuated by politicians for their own purpose!

no its quite complex

In which case it's not obvious.

Still I more meant cause and effect alone made a good prima facie case.

You mean that it would be common sense to assume a link? 😈

The issue I'm picking up on here is that using words like that is part of the whole propaganda used to put down anybody who's opinion doesn't conform with [s]the accepted[/s] your position. Another of which is the old "scientific consensus" line. The thing is, nothing in climatology is at all obvious - I've not studied climatology [s]in any great depth[/s] at all, but I have done some fluid mechanics, on which some of the attempt to find cause and effect is based. Now there is a branch of science where an awful lot of stuff is totally non-intuitive. The very reason why this thread was re-opened, a prominent climate scientist being proved completely wrong in his weather predictions ought to be proof enough that nothing is obvious or common sense. I'd go so far as to suggest that if you comment that something related to the climate is obvious then either you have a very poor understanding of it, or you're simply attempting to stifle debate by suggesting that anybody with a contrary view is stupid.

That's all very true Lifer and a very considerate opinion. However, many people who have similar views feel they have been lied to, had their taxes raised considerably, family holidays in the sun put out of reach..... all on the back of a scare scam, perpetuated by politicians for their own purpose!

Those people should stop believing nutty conspiracy theories.

Why not embrace the change instead of fighting it because...?

Because an awful lot of the stuff being done in the name of "preventing climate change" isn't just stopping burning fossil fuels, dumping rubbish in holes, burning forests. We're spending an awful lot of money on stuff which might not actually prevent climate change at all. Now you might suggest that all this stuff is good anyway - but the question is whether you might be able to do more good by spending money in other ways. For example, rather than trying to stop the juggernaut of climate change, which we may have rather less influence over than many people seem to think, why not spend all that money on measures to alleviate the effects of the change in climate which is happening whether we like it or not?

which we may have rather less influence over than many people seem to think

At least three levels of ambiguity right there. Scientific consensus shows that we are the dominant forcing factor in global warming (not just surface temperatures). I agree that politicians use climate change to raise some unjustified taxes but that's not the fault of scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus shows

Scientific consensus doesn't show anything, apart from that some scientists agree with each other.

In which case it's not obvious

I'm picking up on here is that using words like that is part of the whole propaganda used to put down anybody who's opinion doesn't conform with the accepted your position

Another of which is the old "scientific consensus" line

I'd go so far as to suggest that if you comment that something related to the climate is obvious then either you have a very poor understanding of it, or you're simply attempting to stifle debate by suggesting that anybody with a contrary view is stupid.

I will take the broader point but the case against is weak and a someone getting weather wrong is not really news 😉
FWIW the modelling - ie predicting what will happen beyond a vague warming is obviously very complicated but as we cannot predict weather i am not that surprised we can predict much. I view it as like weather reporting they can tell you winter is colder than summer but not what a given week will be like. We can say it will get warmer and what the briad effects wil be - rising sea levels etc but the exact impact on weather will be in the realms of educated" guess work". The fact we struggle to describe what will happen when it warms does not mean it is not warming. Models are weak for sure and yes I know what theat means and the attack coming especially when zulu reads this but i am offline for few days

some

🙂

I'm aware what scientific consensus means. I'm more than happy to use it as a term. I'm also aware that a few skeptics and internet contrarians love to denigrate it as a term to support their contrary view. No matter.

We're spending an awful lot of money on stuff which might not actually prevent climate change at all.

Well that's an entirely different issue. We're trying to answer the question 'is it happening?' but you're moving onto 'what can we do about it?'

There is a consensus on evolution

only recently dear boy, prior to the works of Chambers, Darwin er al...there was consensus that god made the world and creationist biology rather than evolutionary was the norm. Strange that Creationism is having a come back....

see no such thing as a scientific consensus, just a stampede into whichever way is the most comfortable and easiest to secure funding from. 😀

see no such thing as a scientific consensus

Yes there is. Scientists argue about a lot of stuff. That which most of them don't argue about, that's consensus.

that's consensus.

that's chasing funding and keeping a job.

you've never worked in research have you molgrips?

tazzymtb - Member

only recently dear boy, prior to the works of Chambers, Darwin er al...there was consensus that god made the world and creationist biology rather than evolutionary was the norm.

Not, however, a scientific concensus. Rather, an ignorance concensus, which I think is probably less valuable.

No but I know a few people who have.

Are you saying that evolution, relativity, water on mars etc etc are being peddled by people looking for funding? Where do you draw the line? If people can only get funding by agreeing with each other, how come so many are arguing?

Well that's an entirely different issue. We're trying to answer the question 'is it happening?' but you're moving onto 'what can we do about it?'

I think the vast majority of people accept it is happening (I'm quite happy if those who don't are described as loonies), which leaves the intelligent debate over the extent of the change and what influence anything we can do will have on the change (note, that's completely different from to what extent the change is caused by what we've done and are doing).

I'm aware what scientific consensus means

In which case, are you really sure there is one on humanity being the dominant factor in climate change? Given the scale of current temperature changes compared to the scale of historic temperature changes, I'd suggest that's far from an obvious point.

The value of the consensus is directly related to the depth of the knowledge and understanding that supports it. We are very fortunate that professional bodies of climate scientists, including our own Met Office recently, are very open about the current level of knowledge. From this we are able to apply the appropriate weight to their conclusions.

and if climate change was such a massive issue should industrial emission limits for discharge of pollutants to atmosphere be decided by lobby groups from the largest industries saying what they can comfortably achieve rather than what is actually needed?

*many years as stack testing monkey when I was younger, taught me one thing...we may be all driving electric cars to save to planet, but the shite getting pumped out to atmosphere that contribute to the potential for man made climatic change from factories all around us, (all perfectly within their "legal limits" as stated in the authorisations and process guidance notes) makes a mockery of the flippin lot.

It's nearly as bad as folks that recycle thinking they are doing their bit to save the planet.

and if climate change was such a massive issue should industrial emission limits for discharge of pollutants to atmosphere be decided by lobby groups from the largest industries saying what they can comfortably achieve rather than what is actually needed?

Ideally no. But you've also got to look after the global economy. And that's where we have our biggest issue. The entire world economy is geared towards increasing consumption all the time.

There's no real answer to this. However as far as I can tell, there's a three-pronged approach to the thinking.

Firstly, and probably most easily, there's legislation (like carbon trading or taxation on fuel etc) to try and stop people simply pissing energy up the wall like it's not important. Of course that can only go so far - charge £5/l for fuel and we'd be in a lot of trouble pretty quickly.

Then there are people looking at renewable generation and so on - again, great, but only part of the solution.

And there are also people looking at the wider solution - how to move to an economy that's not based on ever-increasing consumption.

makes a mockery of the flippin lot.

Quite so, but it doesn't invalidate the whole concept of attempting to be eco friendly. There are of course many many examples of gross stupidity in this area, and naked marketing too, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to keep working on it til we actually can get somewhere.

Don't throw the baby into the water butt with the bath water.

But you've also got to look after the global economy. And that's where we have our biggest issue. The entire world economy is geared towards increasing consumption all the time.

and sadly that will never change..in the west we have shiny things a lust for shiny things. We also wan't a cleaner place to live, so we move all our nasty dirty manufacturing to countries with no emission limits, minimal human rights and no health and safety and we can continue to have our shiny things, whilst tut-tutting at the rest of the world that also wants shiny things and to crap on some other developing economies.

So what's the solution, tazzy (et al)? I do have to wonder whether a lot of the stuff we are doing at the moment is counterproductive as it makes us feel better without addressing any of the big issues.

Personally I like fixing things, so I do try and opt out of our throwaway society to some extent, but can't help feeling that doesn't really help any more than recycling does.

attempting to be eco friendly.

it's impossible for homosapien to be eco friendly. As soon as we adapted our environment to suit us and stop being a nomadic hunter gather we knackered it up.

the best we can achieve as a species is to be marginally less destructive to the environment than previously and the most efficient way to do that is for mass population die back.

to pretend anything else is just putting a Mr bump plaster over a terminal illness to make us feel a little bit better

I do have to wonder whether a lot of the stuff we are doing at the moment is counterproductive as it makes us feel better without addressing any of the big issues.

totally agree with this.

also worth noting that even if we make each and every individual on the planet now, super eco friendly, the exponential worldwide population growth will still overtake us. just in the UK alone one person dies approximately every 55 seconds, one is born every 40... Take somewhere like africa, one still dies every minute, but is born every 20 seconds.

we can not stop the avalanche of demand and consumption

the best we can achieve as a species is to be marginally less destructive to the environment than previously and the most efficient way to do that is for mass population die back.

to pretend anything else is just putting a Mr bump plaster over a terminal illness to make us feel a little bit better

The best way? To kill lots of people? I think you have a different definition of 'best' to me!

To be honest, that doesn't seem like much of an argument to me. It's all very adolescent to just throw your hands in the air and say 'it's all ****ed'. In reality, we should value human life, in all its billions, and see if we can get our act together and solve the problems we have.

Your argument seems to be 'let them all die' which isn't palatable.

I do have to wonder whether a lot of the stuff we are doing at the moment is counterproductive as it makes us feel better without addressing any of the big issues.

Oh aye, there's a lot of total bollocks.. but in amongst the noise there is some science - which is what this thread is attempting to be about.

In reality, we should value human life, in all its billions, and see if we can get our act together and solve the problems we have.

never happen, basic human nature won't let it. Cling on to the belief that there is a happy fluffy utopia waiting. There isn't. we are just another rapidly growing and consuming organism until we exhaust the host and cease to exist as a species.

Your argument seems to be 'let them all die' which isn't palatable.

It may be if we remove all the hand wringing emotion and just look at the problem logically. We have lots of dead people, now there is a lot of energy and useful by product there. Pyrolysis and energy generation, In vessel composting of bodies to make high nutrient compost for developing countries with poor soil quality, person burgers...it is ridiculous to waste such a valuable commodity and then claim to be eco friendly.

Oh aye, there's a lot of total bollocks.. but in amongst the noise there is some science - which is what this thread is attempting to be about.

It's not helped by the meme that anything has to be good if it might prevent AGW.

Any examples of that? Not sure what you mean.

Are you saying that evolution, relativity, water on mars etc etc are being peddled by people looking for funding?

That's pure scientific research, different thing entirely.

😆

which isn't palatable.

and therein lies the biggest problem. We all want a solution that makes us feel fluffy and isn't too difficult. Which is why, as aracer has pointed out there is an awful lot of personal time and money being wasted on "eco-Friendly" solutions that will have no impact other than to make people feel that they are "doing their bit" and making the planet a better place for their kiddies, because they were selfish enough to add to the burden on the planet and now hope that driving a car with battery will make up for the massive impact they've just added to the world.

and therein lies the biggest problem. We all want a solution that makes us feel fluffy and isn't too difficult.

Well no, I don't mind if it's difficult, I'm just thinking of something that doens't involve billions of deaths. Don't you think that's worth a bit of effort? Feel free to be cynical about greenwash, but don't give up on the human race.

Yes, the situation is desperate, because our entire economy is based on selling stuff, and the language of selling stuff is marketing. So it's no surprise that marketers play on people's guilt.

It'd be nice if there was a way for everyday citizens to actually help in some practical way. Becoming an eco hermit might not be ideal, because our economy would probably regress to the point where we couldn't support the people who already live here. Barring a global revolution I can't see how we can work around capitalism, at least in the short term.

I believe only ideas can save us all.

Any examples of that?

Windfarms, the Severn tidal barrage 😈

Hm.. both arguable, but valid points.

Now if someone could jsut come up with reliable information on any CO2 savings windfarms have created...

Like, I dunno - a graph of power station coal consumption versus average wind speed at windfarm sites...

both arguable

Well why else would I mention the first? The second is one I feel very strongly about - it appears for some people the certain and permanent environmental destruction is worth it because of the chance is might make a small difference to the climate.

As well as folk mixing up weather and climate, there's also a lot of folk mixing up temperature and heat. Bless.

Let's just assume we stopped the AGW impact to avoid the death and doom forecast.

Then the climate begins to cool into a deeper ice age.

Then what?

Will we accept the death and doom that those actions bring? Or are we embarking on a journey of controlling the climate forever?

tazzymtb - Member
We all want a solution that makes us feel fluffy and isn't too difficult.

Do we?

Which is why, as aracer has pointed out there is an awful lot of personal time and money being wasted on "eco-Friendly" solutions that will have no impact other than to make people feel that they are "doing their bit"

An awful lot but only two examples so far, plese give us more. The Severn Barrage is hardly a done deal with most of the criticism from environmental campaigners.

theocb - Member
Let's just assume we stopped the AGW impact to avoid the death and doom forecast.

Then the climate begins to cool into a deeper ice age.

Then what?

Will we accept the death and doom that those actions bring? Or are we embarking on a journey of controlling the climate forever?

What if we learn to control the elements? Then the sun goes supernova...then what?

The evidence we have and scientists agree upon is that without AGW we will/would be heading toward a deeper ice age, there is no perfect stable Human environment. (I didn't make that up like your nonsense :-), or were you trying to be clever on the interweb. Bless!)

Then the climate begins to cool into a deeper ice age.

The thing about an ice age is that a) it'll be a slow process and b) there will likely not be anything we can do about it.

If our actions are causing GW, then surely we ought to be able to modify our actions, yes?

We're spending an awful lot of money on stuff which might not actually prevent climate change at all. Now you might suggest that all this stuff is good anyway - but the question is whether you might be able to do more good by spending money in other ways. For example, rather than trying to stop the juggernaut of climate change, which we may have rather less influence over than many people seem to think, why not spend all that money on measures to alleviate the effects of the change in climate which is happening whether we like it or not?

it appears for some people the certain and permanent environmental destruction is worth it because of the chance is might make a small difference to the climate.

For me, aracer has hit the nail on the head with these points

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific - be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.

Particularly given the fact that so much of this money is being spent in the developed world on reducing CO2 - IF, and its an IF any change in temperature is a natural fluctuation, then this money has not only been wasted, we will have caused a huge amount of ecological damage for no gain, standing Canute like in the face of an oncoming tide when we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc - hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.

Thats the real outcome, that we could have wasted something that really could have made the world a better place, on a willo-the-wisp created by statisticians looking for patterns in random data.

😆

theocb - Member
The evidence we have and scientists agree upon is that without AGW we will/would be heading toward a deeper ice age, there is no perfect stable Human environment. (I didn't make that up like your nonsense :-), or were you trying to be clever on the interweb. Bless!)

Well done for missing the point entirely.

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific

Doesn't that happen with coal mines as well?
[img] [/img]

rattrap - Member

For me, aracer has hit the nail on the head with these points

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific - be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.

So it would be better if we didn't make batteries more efficient? Plus why keep mentioning the Severn Barrage when it is still being debated?

Particularly given the fact that so much of this money is being spent in the developed world on reducing CO2 - IF, and its an IF any change in temperature is a natural fluctuation, then this money has not only been wasted, we will have caused a huge amount of ecological damage for no gain, standing Canute like in the face of an oncoming tide

Well no, we'll have more efficient batteries, less particulates in the air, less congestion so more efficient travellng, engergy independence.

when we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc - hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.

How much has been raised in 'green' taxes? More than the value of third world debt?

Thats the real outcome, that we could have wasted something that really could have made the world a better place, on a willo-the-wisp created by statisticians looking for patterns in random data.

It's been done.