Global Warming

[Dr Gloom 22182]

of course it's not a fucking myth

 

thread over tbh

[Rob W 0]

maybe, maybe not

[Fop 1]

maybe, maybe not

 

 

It's not a myth the earth is currently warming, it's just not 100% that it is us (or just us) causing it.

 

It is hightly likely that is is predominantly us causing it, however and near certain that we're at least adding too it.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course the whole thing is irrelevent really as the very, very, very best estimates for global carbon reduction (if the whole planet start with hugely painful cutbacks - just never happen) is a reduction in CO2 output INCREASE of just 10% (from 40% increase to 30% over the next 50 years).

 

Best idea is to think about how to live with it thb.

[Renton 22007]

maybe, maybe not

 

What's that supposed to mean? Since you like it so much, here is an article on the Beeb website.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

Edited February 1, 2007 by Renton

[luckyluke 2]

I think Rob is a myth...he's certainly old enough.

[GeordieMessiah 2]

Read this and then you can either (1) shit yourself with fear or (2) laugh it off and pretend it's just pie in the sky la-la-land fantasy...

Edited February 1, 2007 by GeordieMessiah

[Rob W 0]

I think Rob is a myth...he's certainly old enough.

 

 

if only

[Rob W 0]

maybe, maybe not

 

What's that supposed to mean? Since you like it so much, here is an article on the Beeb website.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

 

 

well the New Statesman regurgitating other peoples work isn't the height of scientific argument

 

I posted this a while back http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...11164&st=40

 

which shows we MAY just be at the top of an Interglacial temperature-wise; its been as warm in the relatively (by geological standards) past

 

I think there is quite a bit of overeaction TBH right now; reminds me of CJD. Long term changes in behaviour and policy need to be brought in and thought through - like banning CFC's seesm to have worked - but it takes years

[Renton 22007]

maybe, maybe not

 

What's that supposed to mean? Since you like it so much, here is an article on the Beeb website.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

 

 

well the New Statesman regurgitating other peoples work isn't the height of scientific argument

 

I posted this a while back http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...11164&st=40

 

which shows we MAY just be at the top of an Interglacial temperature-wise; its been as warm in the relatively (by geological standards) past

 

I think there is quite a bit of overeaction TBH right now; reminds me of CJD. Long term changes in behaviour and policy need to be brought in and thought through - like banning CFC's seesm to have worked - but it takes years

 

The link I gave you is about the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (not the New Statesman), easily the most significant work ever done on climate change, and, despite erring on the side of caution, and alledgedly being cajoled by the oil companies to play down the significance of the results, have concluded that major change is immininent, man-made, and likely to be catastrophic. Still, I'm sure you know best.

 

Comparing it to CJD is absurd btw, and once again I see how you have mentioned CFC's, which have no significant part in global warming. Also the fact that temperatures have been higher before is of no comfort when you consider the present change is wholly unnatural and any natural change that happens on top might put us into a runaway greenhouse effect (another possibility you are keen on underplaying). Honestly, I thought increasing years bought wisdom, clearly not in your case.

[Fop 1]

There's two sides to this at the moment:

 

 

One side (mostly USA and oil companies) playing down everything saying it's just a natural variation (it still could be but it's a very, very tenous suggestion these days).

 

Interestingly this sides story has changed in the last 7 or so years, previously to that it simply denied ANY warming was occuring at all, but the sheer weight of emprical data has forced them to change this to admitting warming IS occuring, but disputing the cause.

 

 

 

 

The other side suggests it's 100% human driven and will destroy us all al la that Dennis Quaid movie.... which is again just as much hysteria, yes people will die (from drought and starvation) and certainly a lot of species will be made extinct (either locally or globally), but it won't "end the world" tm or anything like that.

 

 

 

 

The truth as is often the case is somewhere inbetween, although all the evidence suggests it's much more likely to be the latter view this is more correct (barring the global destruction).

 

 

 

 

 

 

and once again I see how you have mentioned CFC's, which have no significant part in global warming. Also the fact that temperatures have been higher before is of no comfort when you consider the present change is wholly unnatural and any natural change that happens on top might put us into a runaway greenhouse effect (another possibility you are keen on underplaying).

 

Aye CFC's whilst being a strong greenhouse gas were never really present in large enough volumes to really have much of an effect, they did of course do massive damage to the ozone layer in those levels, but that's a different issue.

 

The big problem is of course that banning CFC's was relatively simple, but reducing CO2 out put is frankly impossible in a world that is still industrialising and will have ANOTHER 3 BILLION PEOPLE in the next 50 years.

 

So short of a mass plague or a huge cull or WWIII there's probably nothing that can be done by try to make the best of the chances to come.

[Invicta_Toon 0]

the truth of the matter is, if the only solution the greenies have is to go against market economics, they will fail

[Renton 22007]

There's two sides to this at the moment:

 

 

One side (mostly USA and oil companies) playing down everything saying it's just a natural variation (it still could be but it's a very, very tenous suggestion these days).

 

Interestingly this sides story has changed in the last 7 or so years, previously to that it simply denied ANY warming was occuring at all, but the sheer weight of emprical data has forced them to change this to admitting warming IS occuring, but disputing the cause.

 

 

 

 

The other side suggests it's 100% human driven and will destroy us all al la that Dennis Quaid movie.... which is again just as much hysteria, yes people will die (from drought and starvation) and certainly a lot of species will be made extinct (either locally or globally), but it won't "end the world" tm or anything like that.

 

 

 

 

The truth as is often the case is somewhere inbetween, although all the evidence suggests it's much more likely to be the latter view this is more correct (barring the global destruction).

 

 

 

 

 

 

and once again I see how you have mentioned CFC's, which have no significant part in global warming. Also the fact that temperatures have been higher before is of no comfort when you consider the present change is wholly unnatural and any natural change that happens on top might put us into a runaway greenhouse effect (another possibility you are keen on underplaying).

 

Aye CFC's whilst being a strong greenhouse gas were never really present in large enough volumes to really have much of an effect, they did of course do massive damage to the ozone layer in those levels, but that's a different issue.

 

The big problem is of course that banning CFC's was relatively simple, but reducing CO2 out put is frankly impossible in a world that is still industrialising and will have ANOTHER 3 BILLION PEOPLE in the next 50 years.

 

So short of a mass plague or a huge cull or WWIII there's probably nothing that can be done by try to make the best of the chances to come.

 

I agree with this and as usual the middle ground is the most sensible view to take. However, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of a catastrophic runaway effect either, although it is unlikely and won't happen in our life times. It happened to Venus after all, bet those venuvians regret their 4x4s now.

[BlueStar 0]

Lastest report

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070202/D8N1AV0G2.html

IPCC: Global Warming "Likely" Man-Made and Unstoppable

The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

 

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

 

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

 

What that means in simple language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

 

The 20-page report, which was due to be officially released later in the day, represents the most authoritative science on global warming.

 

And the response:

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2004397,00.html

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

 

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Edited February 2, 2007 by BlueStar

[BlueStar 0]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,72672...ml?tw=rss.index

 

WASHINGTON -- Congress continued to probe allegations Wednesday that the Bush administration tried to muzzle government scientists on climate change and suppress scientific research, including a comprehensive report in 2000 on global warming's impact on the United States.