Global warming update!

Home Forum Chat Forum Global warming update!

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 552 total)
  • Global warming update!
  • Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    1. How releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere doesn’t cause the atmosphere to warm.

    You go first with some proof that even the smaller than “expected” warming we’re seeing is directly attributable to atmospheric CO2.

    Junkyard
    Member

    What if it is all BOLLOCKS? What if caron dioxide isn’t responsible for global temp changes? what if all the job killing, environmentally destructive measures we’ve taken have been a spectacular waste of money?

    Well we will just have made a sustainable future for no point- as covered more than one with the picture. No idea what you are going to call environmentally destructive measures but it will be amusing to see your list so indulge me.

    As for carbon dioxide there is no debate about whether it causes warming and whether it is a greenhouse gas – if there is a question and its a big IF as no mechanism has been given yet – it is how does the earth reduce this effect- what is the feedback method – With reference to the laws of thermodynamics please.
    No offence but I dont expect you to even understand what is being asked

    I saw the Met Office climb down yesterday

    You saw something different from me I saw a change in prediction rate- has GO done a climb down yet when he changed his predictions?. I also find it most amusing to read an economist berating an area of science for its inability to do accurate long term predictions – Oh the irony

    Ps the climb down was described thus – sourced not from the daily mail

    The Met Office has been responding to claims that warming has stopped all week, explaining that the forecast in question only relates to short term fluctuations in the climate – and certainly doesn’t mean warming has stopped.

    Your better than this THM follow the data – its a reduced rate of warming due to better measurement/models it is in no sense a climb down by anyone standards. Poor, see me after class 😕

    The new model indicates that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 degrees Celsius above the average for the period 1971 to 2000 by 2017, rather than 0.54 degrees, as an earlier forecast had suggested. For more on the new forecast, read our blog here.

    Smith explains that fluctuations in global temperature in the next few years are expected due to natural variability, but that they have no sustained impact on long term warming. What’s more, Smith explains that the slightly lower prediction in the new forecast is still within the bounds of the previous prediction. He says:

    “The latest experimental decadal prediction provided by the Met Office issued in December 2012 suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than prediction from the previous prediction issued in December 2011, but still near record levels. While they are different, the range of temperatures in the 2012 prediction overlap with the range from the previous prediction provided in December 2011.”

    Its bobbins as using from Delingpole – now if you want to get science from an English lit graduate with an agenda then dont let me stop you. Personally I will listen to the experts in that area and what they say but you can have your polemicist, untrained journalist
    from 2:40 ish for context and 3:50 to o see how good he does with a scientist
    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU[/video]

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Well we will just have made a sustainable future for no point- as covered more than one with the picture.

    Unless of course we’d be better spending all the money which is being spent on futile attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 on something else which might be more beneficial to the environment. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for reducing consumption and all sorts of other things which are undeniably good for the environment and have no obvious downside. Just sceptical about all the emphasis being simply on reducing CO2 emissions, when there is no hard evidence at all that any of the large measures which are being taken to do that, and on which lots of money is being spent are likely to improve things in any significant way. Meanwhile all sorts of other things which could improve things a lot for much less money are being ignored.

    One good example of the way such thinking leads is vast amounts being spent on onshore wind farms, the effectiveness of which even at achieving their claimed aims is dubious. Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes, which would actually reduce consumption by a far larger amount than the contribution wind power makes to our energy supply. I’m fairly sure I’m in accordance with most right thinking environmentalists on that issue (it was certainly a point TJ also liked to make 😉 ), however they do seem to miss the point that an overemphasis on the “bogey man in the woods” is exactly what leads to that situation.

    bwaarp
    Member

    What if polluting the planet has stopped us entering a new ice age?

    Good or bad?

    :mrgreen:

    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/January2012/10012012-ice-age-delayed

    Yay to pollution! Now our children won’t starve in a frozen wasteland!

    Now we’ve just got to learn how much we need to pollute to keep the earth at a stable temperature! :mrgreen: Practice our terraforming skillzz before we go to mars.

    Junkyard
    Member

    lots of money is being spent are likely to improve things in any significant way. Meanwhile all sorts of other things which could improve things a lot for much less money are being ignored.

    I dont disagree that there may be better ways to do this than currently and the emphasis may be on the wrong things.

    Its a debate worth having

    I dont think the endless debate with non scientists about AGW is in anyway beneficial. If they were after understanding then fine but its just about ranting in a way that shows they dont actually understand the subject.

    FWIW I noted that 9/11 attracts left wing conspiracist and global warming seems to be the preserve of right wing conspiracist [ probably feel the car industry and the oil companies are being bullied by solar panel makers or something to stealth green tax us ] – see lawsons group for example- no idea what any of that means but i did notice it.

    zokes
    Member

    I fully agree with you, but I like many others feel aggrieved that we have had this shoved down our necks, had our holiday flights taxed to the hilt (and beyond) in addition to having to listen to barmy scientists witter on relentlessly………only to find out its all BOLLOX!

    And……don’t get me started on carbon footprints!!

    Poor ickle youse. Did you hav to pay too much taxes? Oh noes!

    How about these guys?

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/bangladesh/flooding-interactive

    zokes
    Member

    One good example of the way such thinking leads is vast amounts being spent on onshore wind farms, the effectiveness of which even at achieving their claimed aims is dubious. Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes, which would actually reduce consumption by a far larger amount than the contribution wind power makes to our energy supply. I’m fairly sure I’m in accordance with most right thinking environmentalists on that issue (it was certainly a point TJ also liked to make ), however they do seem to miss the point that an overemphasis on the “bogey man in the woods” is exactly what leads to that situation.

    Yeah, this is what happens to good ideas when you let politicians and their mates in XYZ industry near them. It would of course be better to use less in the first place

    piemonster
    Member

    environmentally destructive measures

    Isn’t this pretty much anything and everything humans do, to varying degrees.

    Knocking up 50 humongous wind turbines has it’s costs. As does buying a loaf of bread or a Google search.

    wrecker
    Member

    It would of course be better to use less in the first place

    Bang on. Reduction should be viewed as the first consideration. Govt schemes like EPCs, DECs etc haven’t been worth the paper they’re written on. The CRC had promise until they turned it into a tax. Renewables have their place but they’re expensive. Should be a secondary consideration IMHO.
    Of course what we do here in the UK is a drop in the ocean. I fear that until you have the worlds biggest polluters (china, India, USA, brazil etc) on board; there will be no meaningful change.

    Junkyard
    Member

    I think you are not discriminating between impact and destructive.

    For example taking some wood from the forest floor to make a fire will have an impact, Burning the entire wood down will be destructive

    piemonster
    Member

    Has the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation kicked off into a cooling phase yet?

    piemonster
    Member

    Guess that depends on whether you consider the carbon cost of energy production for a Google search to be destructive or an impact.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Isn’t this pretty much anything and everything humans do, to varying degrees.

    Next time you look out across beautiful rolling English countryside, bear in mind it’s already been destroyed, 1500 odd years ago.

    Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes

    Aren’t they also spending money on insulating homes?

    Of course what we do here in the UK is a drop in the ocean …. worlds biggest polluters (china, India, USA, brazil etc)

    It’s a bit more complicated than that. Why is India etc polluting so much? Cos they are making stuff for us to buy, or spending money we gave them for said stuff. Our hands are a lot dirtier than you think.

    piemonster
    Member

    The Elephant (well, one of them) in the room… population.

    That’s the bit that frightens me, I can live with the idea of rising sea levels and warmer temps.

    But feeding the billions is the scary bit. We aren’t exactly doing a perfect job as it is.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Junkyard – Big Hitter
    I also find it most amusing to read an economist berating an area of science for its inability to do accurate long term predictions – Oh the irony….Your better than this THM follow the data – its a reduced rate of warming due to better measurement/models it is in no sense a climb down by anyone standards. Poor, see me after class

    For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!

    FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics – indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one – so the unnecessary jibe doesn’t really hold up. Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, “is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.” This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).

    Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced? Second, if the Met says that the absolute temperature in 2012 was below the average of the last decade (and wording suggests that this is an absolute measure) what does that say?

    Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

    In the meantime, I will agree with the idea that science should be approached with caution given “its inability to do accurate predictions” and be thankful that the Met Office now has better equipment and models (oh no) to do its job better than in the past. If only scientific economists could do the same!

    wrecker
    Member

    It’s a bit more complicated than that. Why is India etc polluting so much? Cos they are making stuff for us to buy, or spending money we gave them for said stuff. Our hands are a lot dirtier than you think.

    That’s not really what I was getting at. They don’t have environmental regulation like we do (which drives change obv) because their economy is so reliant on manufacturing. Pollution is very much a secondary concern of theirs. Money first, environment second. They need to tighten that shit up. We can put as much celatex in as we like, it’s not touching the sides. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good and correct that we do, but bigger picture and all that.

    zokes
    Member

    neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven

    Back to the back of the class for you.

    We know that CO2, CH4, and N2O are products of industrialisation (i.e. MM)

    We also know that these are three gases that indeed cause GW.

    Now then, what was 2+2?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Well yes.

    However, we can’t change what China do but we CAN change what we do.

    Junkyard
    Member

    For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!

    Not seeing either an ad hom or a straw man tbh

    What you want to say your account was a good analysis of what has happened and my critique of it was nothing but personal? Good luck with that – was it a climb down then – was it – you make no mention of this nor defend your view I note.

    FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics – indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one – so the unnecessary jibe doesn’t really hold up.

    What jibe ?is it your view that economists are good at making predictions – you may not like the style of it but the truth [ that economist are not good at doing predictions]is self evidently correct,

    Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, “is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.” This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).

    I could say that about anything, evolution for example – do you have some actual evidence beyond this? the fact you out disparaging comment sin parenthesis is rather sad tbh and shows you are not even interested in debate as you are just so dismissive – what a shame you have yet to present any actual data or evidence to support your view
    You are never in a strong position when in a debate of science you are making philosophical points – that is not an ad hom either

    Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced?

    I would answer this but the Yea right – lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on 🙄 – makes me think you wont listen

    Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

    No idea what you require for proof here I suspect you are just setting it so high that nothing science says is proven.

    Again I refer you to my point that in a debate about science when you make philosophical point rather than discuss data or evidence it is most likely your viewpoint lacks evidence

    bwaarp
    Member

    The Elephant (well, one of them) in the room… population.

    That’s the bit that frightens me, I can live with the idea of rising sea levels and warmer temps.

    But feeding the billions is the scary bit. We aren’t exactly doing a perfect job as it is.

    Oh feeding 7 billion is easy if we got our shit together.

    The problem is western levels of consumption.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    We know that CO2, CH4, and N2O are products of industrialisation (i.e. MM)

    We also know that these are three gases that indeed cause GW.

    Care to provide a reference which proves that statement?

    bwaarp
    Member

    If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced? Second, if the Met says that the absolute temperature in 2012 was below the average of the last decade (and wording suggests that this is an absolute measure) what does that say?

    Firstly look up standard deviation and variance – all scientific data varies in small degree’s that cannot be predicted. Chemisty lab results show slightly different values no matter how many times you repeat them. What matters is, is if the variation is statistically significant and not caused by another variable that you have not studied or a deviation from your test protocols. To put it simply for artist scum like yourself, scientists do not think the latest variations in warming are significant in the light of historical long term trends. The variation is within the observed normal range.

    Long term predictions are relatively easy to make. It’s high likely that it’s going to get hotter, there’s no two ways round it.

    Now go back to splashing paint/monkey shit on canvas and selling it to Kensington yuppies or whatever it is you like to do.

    Junkyard
    Member

    aracer I dont understand why folk try to make a point with a question [ beyond the philosophical trick that it is easy to just keep asking questions – If you have a point why not make it 💡

    Any of the IPCC reports cover them all in some detail as will various other papers – try a search engine or wiki or a basic climate book

    He gave you two premises neither of which can be questioned.

    Which are you doubting – we dont pollute or that those gases dont cause warming via the greenhouse effect?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    He gave you two premises neither of which can be questioned.

    Really? The greenhouse effect due to certain gases is a generally accepted effect, but where’s the proof that GW is being caused by the concentrations changing? (apologies for the use of a question – if that really bothers you I could make it more awkward by rephrasing as a statement that there is no proof of that)

    All I think you’ll find in any IPCC report is some vaguely worded correlations.

    Junkyard – Big Hitter
    For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!
    Not seeing either an ad hom or a straw man tbh

    What you want to say your account was a good analysis of what has happened and my critique of it was nothing but personal? Good luck with that – was it a climb down then – was it – you make no mention of this nor defend your view I note.
    FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics – indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one – so the unnecessary jibe doesn’t really hold up.
    What jibe ?is it your view that economists are good at making predictions – you may not like the style of it but the truth [ that economist are not good at doing predictions]is self evidently correct,

    Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, “is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.” This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).
    I could say that about anything, evolution for example – do you have some actual evidence beyond this? the fact you out disparaging comment sin parenthesis is rather sad tbh and shows you are not even interested in debate as you are just so dismissive – what a shame you have yet to present any actual data or evidence to support your view
    You are never in a strong position when in a debate of science you are making philosophical points – that is not an ad hom either
    Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced?

    I would answer this but the Yea right – lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on – makes me think you wont listen
    Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

    No idea what you require for proof here I suspect you are just setting it so high that nothing science says is proven.
    Again I refer you to my point that in a debate about science when you make philosophical point rather than discuss data or evidence it is most likely your viewpoint lacks evidence

    CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV

    Stop taking teh interwebz so seriously! 🙂

    druidh
    Member

    Apparently, wind turbines should be painted purple to reduce the number of bats and birds killed.

    Just thought I’d throw that factoid in…..

    Edukator
    Member

    Care to provide a reference, Aracer? If you don’t know right from left you’re going to have trouble discussing which side of the road it’s best to drive on. If you’re totally clueless about a subject it’s usually best not to go out of your way to demonstrate you’d be better reading than contributing.

    Do you really think someone needs a reference to justify CO2 etc. being greenhouse gases or are you trolling? Don’t answer, I know you’re trolling because I’ve seen you on enough climatic change threads to know you’ve seen dozens of links to research demonstrating how greenhouse gases work.

    Edit: out of idle interest I pasted “CO2, CH4, and N2O” into Google, the result was pages of results on “gas à effet de serre” or “greenhouse gases”.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Junkyard – Big Hitter
    Not seeing either an ad hom…

    My point exactly! But one thing:

    I would answer this but the Yea right – lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on – makes me think you wont listen

    Well, given that many geographical phenomena including climate change occur over very long periods of time, the Met Office’s description of the period 1971-2000 as “long-term” seems to be verging on the ridiculous….hence the “yea right” comment. But that’s enough. We can normally debate pleasantly but not on this topic, so I will leave it there.

    bwaarp – Member
    To put it simply for artist scum like yourself, scientists do not think the latest variations in warming are significant in the light of historical long term trends.

    {To be consistent with previous posting], I would point out that I find calling people scum offensive. I would normally break a habit and report that, but the rest of the abuse was so funny that I changed my mind.

    Now go back to splashing paint/monkey shit on canvas and selling it to Kensington yuppies or whatever it is you like to do.

    I think we have different notion of artist. But thanks for the extra insult anyway.

    Junkyard
    Member

    The greenhouse effect due to certain gases is a generally accepted effect, but where’s the proof that GW is being caused by the concentrations changing?

    Right so we know the gases cause the greenhouse effect

    So increasing the concentrations [why did you say changing?] of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect will ?

    The IPPC is detailed to the point of telling you the additional watts [radiative forcing]for each gas so not sure why you were so dismissive re correlation etc – do you need a link to this

    I suspect you know all this so i dont know why you said them that way

    for example

    The RF due to changes in CH4 mixing ratio is calculated with the simplified yet still valid expression for CH4 given in Ramaswamy et al. (2001). The change in the CH4 mixing ratio from 715 ppb in 1750 to 1,774 ppb (the average mixing ratio from the AGAGE and GMD networks) in 2005 gives an RF of +0.48 ± 0.05 W m–2, ranking CH4 as the second highest RF of the LLGHGs after CO2 (Table 2.1).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UO8_Om91GSo

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
    Have fun

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Care to provide a reference, Aracer?

    A reference for what? I’m not the one making claims here.

    If it’s so obvious, it won’t be any trouble at all for you to provide a reference that proves that increases in global temperature are directly related to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and prove me wrong. You see the thing is, the way science works isn’t by stating that something is obvious and providing no evidence. I note that there’s a big difference between proving that and proving that CO2 has a greenhouse effect – something I’m perfectly happy to accept.

    That would be so much better a response than a load of ad-hom…

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    So increasing the concentrations [why did you say changing?] of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect will ?

    Have a far more complex effect on the global system than can be determined by a simple formula relating how the gases interact with radiation. BTW I thought “changing” was simply a more neutral word to use – far too much deliberate use of inflammatory terminology in this debate.

    The IPPC is detailed to the point of telling you the additional watts [radiative forcing]for each gas so not sure why you were so dismissive re correlation etc – do you need a link to this

    Probably because none of the evidence they provide is proof that any GW effects we’re seeing are directly related to concentrations of gas in the atmosphere. It’s all conjecture – there’s no direct evidential link.

    Junkyard
    Member

    My point exactly! But one thing:

    I was rather hoping you would highlight where I either did an ad hom or a straw man as I reject it – rejecting it hardly proves it – that’s not even logical enough to be fallacy 😉

    Edukator
    Member

    No trouble at all, ignore it at your peril.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Exactly what is that graph supposed to prove, edu? Though maybe I’ll take back my acceptance of a correlation between CO2 and global temperature given that evidence.

    Edukator
    Member

    That were enjoying a particularly cool period in geolical history, a very nice time to be on the planet for us humans as we’ve evolved in it and are adapted to it, a period comparable with the late carboniferous. When CO2 levels rose in the permian the average temperature went up dramatically resulting in extreme climatic change and the “permian extinctions”. Google that and you’ll understand why 330ppm is not good, 500ppm is defintely bad and 1000ppm puts an end to life on earth as we know it.

    Sleep on it, good night all.

    Edit: first Google result, note how all but the meterite explanation include greenhouse gases. Given the gradual nature of the extinctions I favour the chemical/climatic explanations which are better supported by the geological record

    wrecker
    Member

    However, we can’t change what China do but we CAN change what we do.

    Rather my point.
    Trouble is our impact is minuscule by comparison.

    tazzymtb
    Member

    who’s willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

    the earth is fine, the most we’ll do is make it uninhabitable for humans. the planet is dynamic system and will recover anyway. well over 90% of the life forms that have ever existed are extinct, that’s the joy of life. We’ll be gone the blink of an eye in the lifetime of planet and no matter much we arrogantly think we’ll leave any mark of significance behind either positive or negative is just so much egotistical cack. We are nothing and will leave no mark until the sun supernovas and it’s all gone.

    life is too short to worry about stuff that is so far out of our control, just enjoy your little microcosm before you go to the big sleep.

    Junkyard
    Member

    I note that there’s a big difference between proving that and proving that CO2 has a greenhouse effect – something I’m perfectly happy to accept.

    So you accept it is a greenhouse gas but dont accept that changes to its level will affect the greenhouse effect.

    Have a far more complex effect on the global system than can be determined by a simple formula relating how the gases interact with radiation.

    Well we may not be able to predict every last effect but what we are trying to do is establish if we get warmer when we store more radiation [ energy]. I dont think its that hard to do and you have some links to follow.

    BTW I thought “changing” was simply a more neutral word to use – far too much deliberate use of inflammatory terminology in this debate.

    its not neutral its inaccurate

    Probably because none of the evidence they provide is proof that any GW effects we’re seeing are directly related to concentrations of gas in the atmosphere.

    Not even the bit where they tell you how much extra thermal energy we are storing as result- What exactly do you want as proof here – it not like we have another earth to manipulate here is it to “prove” it?
    Its a serious point what do you require?

    It’s all conjecture – there’s no direct evidential link.

    As above – what do you mean by no direct evidential link?

    Are you claiming its all just correlation and coincidence?
    Sorry for the questions given what I said above bit tbh I dont really know what your point is or what you require when you say “proof” and ” evidence”

    mafiafish
    Member

    life is too short to worry about stuff that is so far out of our control, just enjoy your little microcosm before you go to the big sleep

    That’s the problem with humans, I want all the things now, I don’t care if that means everything’s naff for my grandchildren (never mind the millions of other species we share the planet with). Has to end badly doesn’t it?

    As for arguing about atmospheric/climate science I’ve had too many arguments to be bothered. Don’t feed the ignorant trolls. Go read some science and have a wee think.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    no matter much we arrogantly think we’ll leave any mark of significance behind either positive or negative is just so much egotistical cack

    I don’t think you quite understand why people are concerned. It’s not really about egotism, it’s the fact that we don’t want people to die needlessly.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 552 total)

The topic ‘Global warming update!’ is closed to new replies.