Global Warming debate

[Stewart]

Across a few other forums, Climategate has taken its toll on those who would otherwise believe figures of authority.

Mainstream climate scientists have been purporting that it is a settled science, but when the real science is investigated there are huge questions: Urban Heat Islands affecting temperature recordings, the perversion of Peer Review ("we'll redefine it" said one infamous climate scientist), and "why should we show you our data when all you want to do is prove it wrong". You have to wonder why we trust them. As a result there were Freedom of Information requests. Guess what? They are trying to block them because they think that the work they do, from our tax money, is their own private property.

This is the mess climate science is in. And it's why our electricity and gas bills are going up.

 

[table38]

Having rebranded "Global Warming" as "Climate Change" once the warming failed to materialise, I see now they are starting to talk about "Climate Disruption" as there has been precious little overall change either. This is quite a clever move, as it allows them to associate any extreems of weather with climate change.

Apart from continually moving the goalposts, the other thing that annoys me is that the climate change lobby conflate "climate change" with "anthropogenic climate change".

The climate has always changed; look at the Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.

The question is, are we causing the changes?

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, most definitely yes. More than ever.

The science is actually very simple. But the planet is large, and weather fluctuates, so you don't see an even change everywhere all the time. No one ever said that temperatures would rise steadily and continuously everywhere (witness the UK's dismal summer). Remember those maths lessons where you had a wiggly line on a graph paper and you had to draw a straight line thought it to see the trend? It's the same with temperature trends.

In some parts of the world the summer has been unbearably hot. Look at the long term trend - upward temperatures since the industrial revolution.

Floods, droughts, famine, melting ice caps - we're on the Highway to Hell.

And let's also consider the ever-increasing reliance on the ever-diminishing fossil fuels.

On that cheery note I shall sign off. Goodnight.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is the mess climate science is in. And it's why our electricity and gas bills are going up.

No, it's because fossil fuels are running out and the energy companies are taking advantage of the battle for demand. Completely separate issue from climate change.

 

[table38]

But "Correlation does not imply Causation". As proper scientists like to say

Re the increase in fuel bills, it is also caused in part by energy companies passing on the cost of various new restrictions in how they provide that energy. Companies must derive a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources (which are few and far between hence expensive, or have been incentivised by high feed-in tarifs so are also expensive), or pay carbon tax to burn coal (which also pushes up the price).

You'd think this would apply to electricity more than gas; unfortunately gas is used in electricity generation, and as it's viewed as a cleaner source of electricity than coal or oil, that pushes up gas prices too.

Another factor is that as prices rise, it becomes economically viable to extract coal, oil or gas from more difficult locations, hence to say those fossil fuels are running out isn't strictly accurate.

 

[Oswyntail]

"Climategate" proved, or disproved, nothing. Just because some zealots cheat, that does not mean the whole argument is spurious. Climate change is happening, but, there again it always has. I do hate the way that those unconvinced by the recorded trend of global warming retort that "well it was bloody cold in Southend this summer" as if that disproves anything. Just as I hate the way that others like to throw everything they disapprove of into the pot - "Global Warming is the direct result of YOU having bought that Mr Blobby single".
What is undoubtedly true is that it makes good common sense not to over use resources, and to look after our environment. Let's just not get too righteous about it all.

 

[SS4]

Re the increase in fuel bills, it is also caused in part by energy companies passing on the cost of various new restrictions in how they provide that energy. Companies must derive a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources (which are few and far between hence expensive, or have been incentivised by high feed-in tarifs so are also expensive), or pay carbon tax to burn coal (which also pushes up the price).

Only a small part is due to cost, the rest is due to old fashioned private sector profiteering.
Agreed on the feed-in tariffs for renewables though (a policy hardly befitting the 'greenest government ever')

You'd think this would apply to electricity more than gas; unfortunately gas is used in electricity generation, and as it's viewed as a cleaner source of electricity than coal or oil, that pushes up gas prices too.

I'm confused. Exactly how is coal or oil cleaner than gas?

Another factor is that as prices rise, it becomes economically viable to extract coal, oil or gas from more difficult locations, hence to say those fossil fuels are running out isn't strictly accurate.

As long as they're being used faster than they are being replaced then they are running out.


If climate change were a religion it would be so much easier to suppress dissent...

 

[table38]

You'd think this would apply to electricity more than gas; unfortunately gas is used in electricity generation, and as it's viewed as a cleaner source of electricity than coal or oil

I'm confused. Exactly how is coal or oil cleaner than gas?

The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal

As long as they're being used faster than they are being replaced then they are running out.

That's a good point, but I'd say "depleted" rather than "running out"; in the sense that I'm not "running out" of petrol if I still have half a tank left

 

[90019]

In some parts of the world the summer has been unbearably hot. Look at the long term trend - upward temperatures since the industrial revolution.

And what about all those billions of years before the Industrial Revolution?

You can't use data from just 2 centuries to make a point about something that has been happening for billions of years. That's like seeing the temperature is a little less today than it was yesterday and using that to say it must have been getting colder over the last century.



As I said in the other thread recently, there is not enough evidence so far to prove either side of the argument as to whether humans are having an effect on climate change.
Using less natural resources and recycling materials where possible is just common sense. Many of the resources we use are finite, and the less we use, the longer they'll last.

 

[jon0844]

I'm not a scientist, but personally I'm not convinced - but hey, if you're able to secure a huge grant to do some study that doesn't prove anything conclusive, you're going to take it aren't you? And if you join a group of people that can make a good living, no wonder so many people want in.

I've always been more concerned about the simple fact we're going to run out of fossil fuels one day - or they'll become incredibly expensive to supply. That is going to cost each and everyone of us.

So, for different reasons, I'd like to see us working on reducing energy consumption to secure fuel for future generations (and keep prices down). I've done my bit as much as possible in the home, but admit that I've not done so with my car (but we do very few miles each year, around 4,000 tops, so the overall consumption is still low).

I do get frustrated when some people clearly don't care, especially if they can afford to be wasteful.

But, you don't get rich telling people to use less energy - well, unless you're able to get grant money to sell them things like solar panels. In which case you suddenly find loads of people getting in on the act, not to save the planet, but earn more easy money. I doubt many companies, who last cashed in on grants for LPG conversions, are thinking of the planet!

 

[YorkshireBear]

The climate has changed forever yes. We are not to blame for the trends we are seeing today.
I believe that we have contributed to the changes in climate change which is making them happen more quickly then they would have orignially.

But on a seperate note i believe becoming sustainable is needed regardless of whether we cause these changes or not. So i shall still cut my carbon and re use and recycle as much as possible.

all my opinion ofc

 

[Yew]

Not really, however it does help push towards cleaner technologies, which is always good

 

[Grantham]

Climate change is for real. In seventy gazillion years, the ocean will rise by an inch and a half. After the planet is destroyed by pollution, human greed and poverty, overpopulation and all our other faults, it will be half a degree warmer.

I'm really worried about it, the world's governments should fix it now, at the expense of all of our futures.

Mick

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The climate is changing - that has been proved. The question is, is whether the current changes are as a result of human activity or the natural cycle of the planet.

 

[Schnellzug]

What i don't get is how people who so enthusiastically talk about how Climate Change is Terrifyingly Real and, naturally, it's All Our Fault, seem to just gloss over the fact that, undeniably, the climate has seen very big changes in the past, not only in prehistory but in recorded historical times, and this was long, long before industrialisation on any kind of large scale. The Vikings, for instance, colonised Greenland round about 1000 AD* , when it was ice-free and reasonably hospitable (hence the name), but after a few hundred years or so had to abandon it because it was getting unbearably cold. But people still seem to insist that any change in global temperatures has to be a recent thing, and that, therefore, it's All Our Fault. Could it not be just a natural cycle, that over time the temperature graph heads upwards, and then after a few hundred years begins to head downwards? Why are people so absolutely certain that this is not a natural cycle? Is it just that people love to blame humanity for everything, I wonder? The "mankind is a parasite on mother Earth" school of thought?

*or CE, if you want to insist

Obviously, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and reducing dependence on them is only sensible, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was led to believe that Britain was in a cycle of Ice Ages and that Britain is currently in a warm period in-between two very cold periods. Cheshire, where I live, was under a very great depth of ice in recent geological times.

There is much mention of human intervention in climate change methodology, but there are natural activities such as volcanic activity, that can cause devastating events with regard to altering regional temperatures. There were some area climatic changes when the Mount St Helens incident occurred, but this will be as nothing if a supervolcano were to erupt. The last such occurrence was 74,000 years ago at Toba in the Sumatran region of the Pacific Ocean which created a global catastrophe. Much media interest has featured upon the supervolcano under Yellowstone Park that is said to be on an eruption cycle of 600,000 years. It is said that as the last such eruption occurred 640,000 years ago, the next occurrence is somewhat overdue.

All it needs is a similar repeat of the events caused by the entering of a large asteroid into the atmosphere and making landfall at Chicxulub at the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula in the central American area in the region of the Gulf of Mexico that led to the demise of the Dinosaurs, to make climate change discussion somewhat meaningless.

 

[Stewart]

Yes, most definitely yes. More than ever.

The science is actually very simple.

It's not. They don't even know what effect clouds have.

But the planet is large, and weather fluctuates, so you don't see an even change everywhere all the time. No one ever said that temperatures would rise steadily and continuously everywhere (witness the UK's dismal summer). Remember those maths lessons where you had a wiggly line on a graph paper and you had to draw a straight line thought it to see the trend? It's the same with temperature trends.

Quite convenient to talk about "wiggles" after 13 years of no global warming, when models that were published 13 years ago showed we would be hotter by now.

In some parts of the world the summer has been unbearably hot. Look at the long term trend - upward temperatures since the industrial revolution.

And downward since the Mediaeval Warm Period.

And even Climategate scientists accept that the warming we had before 1970 was entirely natural.

Floods, droughts, famine, melting ice caps - we're on the Highway to Hell.

These have always happened, look through any history book.

As for famine, every single continent is eating better than it ever has.

And let's also consider the ever-increasing reliance on the ever-diminishing fossil fuels.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

No, it's because fossil fuels are running out and the energy companies are taking advantage of the battle for demand. Completely separate issue from climate change.

Around 20% is added to your energy bills because of climate change legislation. Fossil fuels aren't running out - we've just found 200 trillion cubic feet of gas below Lancashire.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"Climategate" proved, or disproved, nothing. Just because some zealots cheat, that does not mean the whole argument is spurious. Climate change is happening, but, there again it always has. I do hate the way that those unconvinced by the recorded trend of global warming retort that "well it was bloody cold in Southend this summer" as if that disproves anything. Just as I hate the way that others like to throw everything they disapprove of into the pot - "Global Warming is the direct result of YOU having bought that Mr Blobby single".
What is undoubtedly true is that it makes good common sense not to over use resources, and to look after our environment. Let's just not get too righteous about it all.

What you'll generally find is that people who say "cold winter, global warming can't be real" do so ironically after all the scientologists who claimed a single hot summer was proof of global warming.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really, however it does help push towards cleaner technologies, which is always good

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It's plant food.

The problem with the climate change nonsense is that it has distracted from real attacks on the environment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Climate change is for real. In seventy gazillion years, the ocean will rise by an inch and a half. After the planet is destroyed by pollution, human greed and poverty, overpopulation and all our other faults, it will be half a degree warmer.

I'm really worried about it, the world's governments should fix it now, at the expense of all of our futures.

Mick

Overpopulation? What are you doing to help that?

 

[Grantham]

Overpopulation? What are you doing to help that?

I live in a country where there is an average of about one and a half people per thousand square miles, the rest of you should be exterminated.

Just look at overpopulated countries and tell me that they have smaller problems than "climate change", and suggest ways that you would like to see the problem fixed...:roll:

Mick

 

[NSEFAN]

The media is known for misreporting a lot of science. Climate change (or "Global warming" to use the media buzz word) is no exception to this. Misrepresentation of science to sell stories is a pet peeve of mine, as it damages the general public's understanding of what is actually being said by the scientific community. Sadly, gloom and doom sells better than a more positive, realistic attitude.

Yes the climate changes naturally over long periods of time, but it doesn't help when mankind decides to add significant amounts of additional CO2 and methane into the air and simultaneously remove a lot of forests. The problem with observing the effects is that they require geological timescales, so it is extremely difficult to tell what is happening when only looking at a timescale of 10-20 years.

Regardless of whatever effect our actions are having on this planet, I would much rather we source our energy by means that don't involve volatile politics and economics. I somewhat doubt that the sun will refuse to produce any more light until we pay it more!

 

[Schnellzug]

Fossil fuels aren't running out - we've just found 200 trillion cubic feet of gas below Lancashire.
?

So that's where the emissions from the Houses of Parliament are stored, is it.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As for famine, every single continent is eating better than it ever has.

It is not. With the population trends currently in the exponential phase, it will be food and water that become the limiting factors to force us into a plateau.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

A silly point. Nobody is saying that "no more oil, the world will end!". What will happen is we will suddenly have to find new ways of producing the things we need - plastics, petrol and tarmac all come from oil.

Around 20% is added to your energy bills because of climate change legislation. Fossil fuels aren't running out - we've just found 200 trillion cubic feet of gas below Lancashire.

Which isn't going to last forever.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It's plant food.

In the right proportions, yes. But CO2 just sitting around is damaging, and we are currently cutting down the forests that act as carbon sinks.

 

[table38]

It's worth knowing how much of our atmosphere is CO2. Is it 10%? 5%? Maybe only 1%?

No, it's actually 0.039%, of which possibly four-fifths is naturally occuring.

So you will find that the Climate Change lobby likes using large numbers like "billions of tons of C02" but rarely compare this with the weight of the whole atmosphere estimated at 4.41 million billion tons.

Probably also worth pointing out that without some "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere, (the most prolific of which is of course water vapour which is over 99% naturally occuring), we would all freeze to death.

 

[Greenback]

The climate is changing - that has been proved. The question is, is whether the current changes are as a result of human activity or the natural cycle of the planet.

Exactly. And we cannot know the answer with any certainty at all, either way.

Could it not be just a natural cycle, that over time the temperature graph heads upwards, and then after a few hundred years begins to head downwards?

Yes, it could. Or it could not. We have insufficeint data. It's a big gamble to take to say that humans have not had an effect on the climate of this planet and carry on as we have been for the last 170 years.

It is less of a gamble to say that it is possible anto take steps to mtigiate any effects humans have had. This is clearly the more logical approach.

Obviously, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and reducing dependence on them is only sensible, but that's a different issue entirely.

Is it though? Fossil fuels may have contributed to climate change, and they are also a finite resource. If we reduce our dependency on these types of fuel and look for renewable and cleaner alternatives it will help to conserve what fossil fuels are left as well as reduce any possible long term effects of using them. Surely the two issues are nextricably linked?

 

[exile]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

"The scientific consensus on climate change is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,"[38] and it "is largely irreversible"

So, it's still very much the majority opinion that human activity is changing the climate.

Anyone who denies this has to come up with some explanation of how a vast increase in atmospheric C02 can happen and it not affect the climate. Of course there are other influences on climate - volcanoes, solar activity and so on but the CO2 increase is superimposed on the other influences and is an upward trend rather than a variation around a long term mean.

Where I'm less convinced (but what do I know?) is about the actual effect in terms of, for example, ocean currents, storms and so on. This has to be a matter of prediction based on modelling, which by its nature is not very good at modelling conditions which have not happened in the past.

 

[Schnellzug]

Assuming that it is caused by Human activities and it's largely irreversible and so on, has anyone come up with any plausible suggestions as to why the climate varied in the past to, it would seem, a much greater extent than it is now, when there was not a fraction of the number of Humans on earth, and very few of them were consuming any kind of fossil fuels?

 

[Oswyntail]

..
All it needs is a similar repeat of the events caused by the entering of a large asteroid into the atmosphere and making landfall at Chicxulub at the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula in the central American area in the region of the Gulf of Mexico that led to the demise of the Dinosaurs, to make climate change discussion somewhat meaningless.

Hm, that is itself instructive. Though started by an apparently catastrophic event, the "sudden" disappearance of the dinosaurs took place over tens of thousands of years. The timescales of such events are massive, so any fluctuations over even a couple of centuries may be irrelevant.

 

[exile]

Assuming that it is caused by Human activities and it's largely irreversible and so on, has anyone come up with any plausible suggestions as to why the climate varied in the past to, it would seem, a much greater extent than it is now, when there was not a fraction of the number of Humans on earth, and very few of them were consuming any kind of fossil fuels?

Errr - yes - volcanoes, solar activity, changes in earth's orbit, etc, etc. What's happened is that humans have added another factor, one that causes the climate to be warmer THAN IT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN had humans not existed.

Imagine I'm in a room. Every so often someone opens a door and it gets cooler. Then they close it again and it gets warmer due to my body heat. This could be seen as a "natural cycle" such as variations in solar output. I then put the heater on. The warming due to me having the heater on is superimposed on the existing warming-cooling cycle due to the door being opened and closed.

 

[Stewart]

So that's where the emissions from the Houses of Parliament are stored, is it.

ha ha

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not. With the population trends currently in the exponential phase, it will be food and water that become the limiting factors to force us into a plateau.

Then why is every continent eating better than it ever has?

A silly point. Nobody is saying that "no more oil, the world will end!". What will happen is we will suddenly have to find new ways of producing the things we need - plastics, petrol and tarmac all come from oil.

The stone age didn't end because of a lack of stone.

Which isn't going to last forever.

Here's a stone.

In the right proportions, yes. But CO2 just sitting around is damaging, and we are currently cutting down the forests that act as carbon sinks.

How is CO2 damaging? We pump it into greenhouses to make vegetation grow faster. Think about it. Don't just listen to the government as they do not have your best interests at heart.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly. And we cannot know the answer with any certainty at all, either way.



Yes, it could. Or it could not. We have insufficeint data. It's a big gamble to take to say that humans have not had an effect on the climate of this planet and carry on as we have been for the last 170 years.

It is less of a gamble to say that it is possible anto take steps to mtigiate any effects humans have had. This is clearly the more logical approach.



Is it though? Fossil fuels may have contributed to climate change, and they are also a finite resource. If we reduce our dependency on these types of fuel and look for renewable and cleaner alternatives it will help to conserve what fossil fuels are left as well as reduce any possible long term effects of using them. Surely the two issues are nextricably linked?

I should point out that these clever renewable fuels nearly made the national grid go offline on 14th September due to excessive wind shorting the system.

But still, let's build more :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Then why is every continent eating better than it ever has?

Where's your source for that? In any case, it is an accepted fact amongst scientists that the lack of food (mainly to do with the poor energy transfers between trophic levels) will become a limiting factor for population.

The stone age didn't end because of a lack of stone.

I suggest you read my post.

Here's a stone.

Are you trying to be belligerent or do you really not understand the difference between an item in abundance that cannot be used as a power source and an item that is rare and is used as a power source?

How is CO2 damaging?

You go off and breath nothing but CO2 for a while and then come back and tell me it's not damaging. Oh wait, you'd be dead!

We pump it into greenhouses to make vegetation grow faster. Think about it

You clearly don't understand photosynthesis or the concept of limiting factors.

I should point out that these clever renewable fuels nearly made the national grid go offline on 14th September due to excessive wind shorting the system.

Really? Do you have a source for that?

 

[exile]

It's worth knowing how much of our atmosphere is CO2. Is it 10%? 5%? Maybe only 1%?

No, it's actually 0.039%, of which possibly four-fifths is naturally occuring.

So you will find that the Climate Change lobby likes using large numbers like "billions of tons of C02" but rarely compare this with the weight of the whole atmosphere estimated at 4.41 million billion tons.

Probably also worth pointing out that without some "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere, (the most prolific of which is of course water vapour which is over 99% naturally occuring), we would all freeze to death.

Where do I start? CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas, and a very effective one. Most of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, neither of which are greenhouse gases. So, your 1st argument has no validity. If I eat a pound of potatoes in which there is a gram of cyanide, does that mean the potatoes will kill me?

Water vapour is of course a greenhouse gas, and contributes about twice as much as CO2 to global warming. I've got news for you - that is also increasing, as warmer air can absorb more water vapour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Your last point is 100% correct - we do need greenhouse gases. But that doesn't mean we need MORE greenhouse gas.

 

[Mojo]

Even if it is not true, some things are for sure, and that is that a number of human activities which are said to contribute to climate change (eg. driving, flying, wasteful use of energy by leaving the lights on, etc.) are bad for humankind due to the associated negatives they produce, such as noise, air pollution causing medical conditions, social inequality, etc.