Global Warming

[wellsy 0]

It rained all day the other day here in the middle of January and then 2 days later it was sunny all day and 30 odd degrees. I cant remember the last time i saw it rained in mid summer here... and for all day aswell!

[Renton 22002]

The Earth's climate is constantly changing though..... we keep dipping in and out of ice ages... how do we know this is human-related "global warming" and not just the Earth's climate changing anyway??

 

There used to be hippos in North Yorkshire.  I bet they weren't whinging about global warming that millenium.....

82267[/snapback]

 

Because normally these changes happen over centuries or millenia, not over a few decades?

 

Because it was predicted and is scientifically plausible?

 

Because there have been no natural phenomena that could account for it over this time period (e.g. increased solar output, changed tilt of the Earth or whatever)?

 

A bit of a coincidence the Earth is rapidly getting hotter and this correlates almost perfectly with a rise in CO2, which in turn corresponds perfectly with the increased use of fossil fuels, don't you think?

82278[/snapback]

 

 

I'm with Lou on this one. We've gone from complete ignorance to hysteria and half-truths. Europe and North America had unseasonably cold winters for over a century in recent times, similar to some of the weather we're seeing now, but now everything is a sign of impending doom. Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about global warming and there is enough evidence there to take this very seriously, but it's just the latest soap opera.

82288[/snapback]

 

I used to share your viewpoint, but have since spent a lot of time reading about it, and I am now very concerned. This is certainly not a natural phenomenum in my opinion, although it is completely unpredictable what the outcome will be. However, it is always wise to err on the side of caution on these matters, and it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that we could have a run away effect leading to global catastrophe. We have the option of trying to do something about it, or crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.

 

The damage is already apparent - glaciers are disappearing as are the ice caps, especially the North pole. The Gulf of Mexico has significantly warmed, leading to ever more violent storms. And from personal anecdote, winter to me feels much warmer than it did - I can't remember the last time we had a decent snow fall over an extended period.

[adios 717]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

I haven't seen any evidence of that, if you have I'd like to see it. It's an issue I'm undecided on.

[Renton 22002]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

 

Much more hurricanes and more violent, no change in seismic activity though, as you'd expect.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

 

Much more hurricanes and more violent, no change in seismicactivity though, as you'd expect.

82306[/snapback]

 

Thats what i was thinking

[Renton 22002]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

I haven't seen any evidence of that, if you have I'd like to see it. It's an issue I'm undecided on.

82305[/snapback]

 

Last year there was a record number of hurricanes in the Carribean area, continuing a trend that has been observed over the past few years and decades. I haven't got time to give you links, but I'm sure Google will be enough if you're interested.

[adios 717]

I used to share your viewpoint, but have since spent a lot of time reading about it, and I am now very concerned. This is certainly not a natural phenomenum in my opinion, although it is completely unpredictable what the outcome will be. However, it is always wise to err on the side of caution on these matters, and it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that we could have a run away effect leading to global catastrophe. We have the option of trying to do something about it, or crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.

 

The damage is already apparent - glaciers are disappearing as are the ice caps, especially the North pole. The Gulf of Mexico has significantly warmed, leading to ever more violent storms. And from personal anecdote, winter to me feels much warmer than it did - I can't remember the last time we had a decent snow fall over an extended period.

82304[/snapback]

 

Any recommendations?

 

I agree we need to err on the side of caution, anecdotally there is plenty of pointers, both from others and myself, these are undoubtedly heightened by panic-mongers who, unfortunately, are probably doing this the only way possible, it does make it somehwat difficult to gather the facts in this shit-storm, though.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

I haven't seen any evidence of that, if you have I'd like to see it. It's an issue I'm undecided on.

82305[/snapback]

 

Just a passing comment spotbum, haven't got any scientific data to back it up, just my thoughts tbh, sorry!

[Mark 0]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

I haven't seen any evidence of that, if you have I'd like to see it. It's an issue I'm undecided on.

82305[/snapback]

 

Just a passing comment spotbum, haven't got any scientific data to back it up, just my thoughts tbh, sorry!

82311[/snapback]

 

 

Spotbum the most immature, but best insult ever tbh.

[Renton 22002]

Any recommendations? 

 

I agree we need to err on the side of caution, anecdotally there is plenty of pointers, both from others and myself, these are undoubtedly heightened by panic-mongers who, unfortunately, are probably doing this the only way possible, it does make it somehwat difficult to gather the facts in this shit-storm, though.

82310[/snapback]

 

Not really, I have got my info mainly from Journal articles which are either original research or opinion. My Dad's an amateur meteorologist with an interest in climatology, so I borrow his papers.

 

I would say that it is now accepted the Earth is warming, and the vast majority of scientists attribute this to human activity, principally CO2 emissions coupled with deforestation. An outspoken minority will disagree, but I'm skeptical they might have vested interests. What happens next is unpredictable and there are many conflicting theories. It has to be said though it really isn't looking good, and the predictions (based on more powerful computers and emerging data) are generally getting worse. The worst case scenario doesn't bare thinking about.

[rikko 20]

I study this in detail on my course and there is no concrete proof that it exists. However i think it is more likely then not that it does and we should err on the side of caution. Which is the way the environmental legislation is heading with the implementation of first the IPC and now the IPPC acts.

 

As for the recent trends how does one explain the 1960's blip where the average T dropped for about 7 years in a row despite industry being at an all time high then, and houses being fuelled with coal boilers which were far far worse then the current gas system.

 

The increase in temperature could easily be due to the increase in the suns activity over the past 200 years as solar flares and hot spots are becoming more frequent. There is alot of doomsday scenarios going on but most of them are using the most dubious statistics to make there assumptions. The more realistic standards are predicting a far more modest rise then the ones being published by the national press.

[Rob W 0]

Seems to be a lot more earthquakes and Hurricanes these days as well

82298[/snapback]

 

 

More hurricanes is a fact

 

More earthquakes doesn't appear to be true - just better and more meeja reporting

[adios 717]

Not really, I have got my info mainly from Journal articles which are either original research or opinion. My Dad's an amateur meteorologist with an interest in climatology, so I borrow his papers.

 

I would say that it is now accepted the Earth is warming, and the vast majority of scientists attribute this to human activity, principally CO2 emissions coupled with deforestation. An outspoken minority will disagree, but I'm skeptical they might have vested interests. What happens next is unpredictable and there are many conflicting theories. It has to be said though it really isn't looking good, and the predictions (based on more powerful computers and emerging data) are generally getting worse. The worst case scenario doesn't bare thinking about.

82316[/snapback]

 

10 years ago a small minority were talking about it and the rest scorned,now that's flipped, so either the vast majority were wrong then or are wrong now, therefore the number of scientists supporting it doesn't impress me.

 

It's not controversial to say that the minority have a vested interest, but maybe the other side have a vested interest in renewable energy, or a more realistic alternative, nuclear power?

 

What's the worst case scenario? Is Jake Gyllenhaal envolved?

Edited January 20, 2006 by DotBum

[Renton 22002]

I study this in detail on my course and there is no concrete proof that it exists. However i think it is more likely then not that it does and we should err on the side of caution. Which is the way the environmental legislation is heading with the implementation of first the IPC and now the IPPC acts.

 

As for the recent trends how does one explain the 1960's blip where the average T dropped for about 7 years in a row despite industry being at an all time high then,  and houses being fuelled with coal boilers which were far far worse then the current gas system.

 

The increase in temperature could easily be due to the increase in the suns activity over the past 200 years as solar flares and hot spots are becoming more frequent. There is alot of doomsday scenarios going on but most of them are using the most dubious statistics to make there assumptions. The more realistic standards are predicting a far more modest rise then the ones being published by the national press.

82317[/snapback]

 

You seem to have missed the point in your studies - we are talking about an accumulation of gases over time, a graph that keeps going upwards. The 1960s are towards the bottom of that line, their output of gas is not really relevant. Besides, with the emergence of China and India as industrial soceities, and the continued high consumption fossil fuels by the Americans, emissions are at an all time high.

 

You describe it as a blip, well blips happen but that doesn't alter the trend. As it happens, almost every meteorlogical record known has been broken in recent years. Also, I don't accept it has anything to do with the sun unless you can provide solid evidence of this.

[Rob W 0]

I study this in detail on my course and there is no concrete proof that it exists. However i think it is more likely then not that it does and we should err on the side of caution. Which is the way the environmental legislation is heading with the implementation of first the IPC and now the IPPC acts.

 

As for the recent trends how does one explain the 1960's blip where the average T dropped for about 7 years in a row despite industry being at an all time high then,  and houses being fuelled with coal boilers which were far far worse then the current gas system.

 

The increase in temperature could easily be due to the increase in the suns activity over the past 200 years as solar flares and hot spots are becoming more frequent. There is alot of doomsday scenarios going on but most of them are using the most dubious statistics to make there assumptions. The more realistic standards are predicting a far more modest rise then the ones being published by the national press.

82317[/snapback]

 

 

Well the guy who runs BP and has access to all the top experts seems to be pretty certain its happening - and he has no reason to support it unless its the truth

[Renton 22002]

Not really, I have got my info mainly from Journal articles which are either original research or opinion. My Dad's an amateur meteorologist with an interest in climatology, so I borrow his papers.

 

I would say that it is now accepted the Earth is warming, and the vast majority of scientists attribute this to human activity, principally CO2 emissions coupled with deforestation. An outspoken minority will disagree, but I'm skeptical they might have vested interests. What happens next is unpredictable and there are many conflicting theories. It has to be said though it really isn't looking good, and the predictions (based on more powerful computers and emerging data) are generally getting worse. The worst case scenario doesn't bare thinking about.

82316[/snapback]

 

10 years ago a small minority were talking about it and the rest scorned,now that's flipped, so either the vast majority were wrong then or are wrong now, therefore the number of scientists supporting it doesn't impress me.

 

It's not controversial to say that the minority have a vested interest, but maybe the other side have a vested interest in renewable energy, or a more realistic alternative, nuclear power?

 

What's the worst case scenario? Is Jake Gyllenhaal envolved?

82321[/snapback]

 

Scientific opinion changes according to the evidence accumulated, which is much greater than it was 10 years ago. Not many climatologists will have a vested interest in renewables, I wouldn't compare them with the oil industry - they are tiny in comparison. The worst case scenario is a run away effect which would be literally the end of life, but I would think this is very unlikely. I am fairly sure there will be significant changes though, and they are unlikely to be good.

[spongebob toonpants 4134]

I think global warming is a bit of a red herring, climate change is happening, but it always has and gives the big corporations an easy taarget to argue against. We should be tackling polution for polutions sake, its what we breathe for christs sake. If we sort out the air we wont have to worry about whether we are causing climate change or not.

[Rob W 0]

98% of oil companies outside the USA believe global warming IS happening and it HAS accelerated

 

They're spending a lot of money on figuring out ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and get it back in the ground wher eit can do no harm

[adios 717]

Scientific opinion changes according to the evidence accumulated, which is much greater than it was 10 years ago. Not many climatologists will have a vested interest in renewables, I wouldn't compare them with the oil industry - they are tiny in comparison. The worst case scenario is a run away effect which would be literally the end of life, but I would think this is very unlikely. I am fairly sure there will be significant changes though, and they are unlikely to be good.

82325[/snapback]

 

You don't think energy leaders are looking at the where the next trillion will be made? I think there'll be some very serious interest in swaying public opinion to nuclear energy, and I believe the campaign may already have started.

 

The bit I've highlighted, fatalism or science?

[Bombadil 0]

Quite an interesting topic of debate - personally, I think the amount of ignorant people who still promote a head-in-the-sand attitude is shocking. See Bush, George W.

 

 

"Global warning is a myth!"

[adios 717]

Quite an interesting topic of debate - personally, I think the amount of ignorant people who still promote a head-in-the-sand attitude is shocking. See Bush, George W.

82331[/snapback]

 

I think you're info's out of date, the Pentagon labelled it a bigger threat than terrorism a couple of years ago. The "global warming myth" lot are now the crazies.

Edited January 20, 2006 by DotBum

[Rob W 0]

Not so - serious scientific bodies (the Royal Society, The Geographical Society, Scott Polar Research Institute, the Geological Society) agree on this one

 

Nuclear power is another issue - if you are happy to depend on Mr Putin and his gas pipleine there is no need for them.................

[Renton 22002]

Scientific opinion changes according to the evidence accumulated, which is much greater than it was 10 years ago. Not many climatologists will have a vested interest in renewables, I wouldn't compare them with the oil industry - they are tiny in comparison. The worst case scenario is a run away effect which would be literally the end of life, but I would think this is very unlikely. I am fairly sure there will be significant changes though, and they are unlikely to be good.

82325[/snapback]

 

You don't think energy leaders are looking at the where the next trillion will be made? I think there'll be some very serious interest in swaying public opinion to nuclear energy, and I believe the campaign may already have started.

 

The bit I've highlighted, fatalism or science?

82330[/snapback]

 

I would say its common sense really. If you upset the natural balance, the consequences are unlikely to be good. And an inevitable consequence will be rising sea water - bad news if you're dutch or from the Maldives....

[Renton 22002]

Not so - serious scientific  bodies (the Royal Society, The Geographical Society, Scott Polar Research Institute, the Geological Society) agree on this one

 

Nuclear power is another issue - if you are happy to depend on Mr Putin and his gas pipleine there is no need for them.................

82336[/snapback]

 

Personally I think nuclear power is the only proven technology we can use to stop emissions. The problem is though, that no matter what the UK does, or even Europe, it will have a neglible effect if the US, China and India don't act. Which they won't.

[rikko 20]

I study this in detail on my course and there is no concrete proof that it exists. However i think it is more likely then not that it does and we should err on the side of caution. Which is the way the environmental legislation is heading with the implementation of first the IPC and now the IPPC acts.

 

As for the recent trends how does one explain the 1960's blip where the average T dropped for about 7 years in a row despite industry being at an all time high then,  and houses being fuelled with coal boilers which were far far worse then the current gas system.

 

The increase in temperature could easily be due to the increase in the suns activity over the past 200 years as solar flares and hot spots are becoming more frequent. There is alot of doomsday scenarios going on but most of them are using the most dubious statistics to make there assumptions. The more realistic standards are predicting a far more modest rise then the ones being published by the national press.

82317[/snapback]

 

You seem to have missed the point in your studies - we are talking about an accumulation of gases over time, a graph that keeps going upwards. The 1960s are towards the bottom of that line, their output of gas is not really relevant. Besides, with the emergence of China and India as industrial soceities, and the continued high consumption fossil fuels by the Americans, emissions are at an all time high.

 

You describe it as a blip, well blips happen but that doesn't alter the trend. As it happens, almost every meteorlogical record known has been broken in recent years. Also, I don't accept it has anything to do with the sun unless you can provide solid evidence of this.

82322[/snapback]

 

 

The time line of temperatures on my studies starts at thousands of years ago with predictions taken for ice cap drillings. The 60s are an anomoly with no explaination. We only have good accurate recordings for the past century and better still the past 50 years. These do fall within the error readings placed on the predictions from thousands of years ago. That is why there is no proof, if you look at the long time scale we are at the moment in a "blip" an anti ice age if you will.

 

The gases (the most damaging ones C1-C4 hydrocarbons (methane is 24x worse per tonne then CO2, with the others worse again still) do slowly degrade over time. You seem to have missed the point. THe fossil fuels being burned now are no where near as bad as those from the 60's and 70's. While we may be burning more they are pumping less damaging shite into the atmosphere then those of 30-40 years ago. A factory from that era would not be allowed to operate pretty much anywhere in the world now.

 

China certainly and India to lesser extent have green technologies and are infact better in that then the majority of British ones as they have already met the likes of the ISO14001 standards for environmental management as they believe (probably rightly) that if they didn't they would face a mass ban on importing thier goods from western countries due to a large environmental load.

 

As for all records being broken, that works both ways. Hot and COLD. The weather is becoming more extreme our systems more robust and accurate statistically speaking you expect a really hot/cold time every 100 years or so...

 

Rob,

 

As for BP supporting it, its what the public wants to hear so it makes both good PR and marketing sense. I do agree that it exists, i never once said i didnt think it was. All i said was the doomsday scenarios being predicted are little more then scaremongering by the press, which lets be honest is what they do best.