"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

The huge temperature increases we were due to experience.

That's not human influenced climate change.

bleg

This thread makes me sad.

My name is URL

It's mad how many people become fully fledged conspiracy theorists at the mere mention of climate change :pac:

bumper234

galwayrush wrote: »

The polar caps are a huge cause of global warming. The sheer volume of the ice creates heat as the massive weight and friction bear down. The larger they grow, the more heat that's created, eventually causing massive melting of the ice. Sea levels rise and the cycle continues.

What?

Filibuster

Red Kev wrote: »

From the same article, it seems that the locals have noticed something else....



Either way the Dail Mail is probably the last source we should be using in trying to discuss anything serious, Miley Cyrus's arse, yes; climate change, probably better to look elsewhere.

Nasa have only been tracking sea ice levels since the 1970's. Hardly enough time to make any sort of judgement. This year sea ice levels in the arctic were very high.

Indeed, in 1903 the arctic sea ice was so low it allowed Roald Amundsen to sail through the Northwest Passage. To mark the anniversary, 22 yachts tried to replicate the feat in 2013. They got trapped in the sea ice and had to be rescued by the Canadian Coastguard. It's a natural cycle and people shouldn't get into a arm waving flap about it.

Sir_Badshot

I cannot believe the morons here and in the world who deny that this is caused by human activity.

This position enables them to stick their head in the sand and absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Its sick. Our grandchildren will look back and curse us for these days.

Sir_Badshot

galwayrush wrote: »

The polar caps are a huge cause of global warming. The sheer volume of the ice creates heat as the massive weight and friction bear down. The larger they grow, the more heat that's created, eventually causing massive melting of the ice. Sea levels rise and the cycle continues.

Jeezuz.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not human influenced climate change.

It's what they predicted whatever you're calling it.

Corkfeen

IngazZagni wrote: »

Oh wow, one person has changed his mind. Big woop!

These guys have completely changed their predictions over the past couple decades. I haven't heard one of them say that it's a good thing that their predictions have not come true so far. Instead they say it's still coming, but we will have to wait longer...

Governments especially in Europe will love reports like these so they can increase their carbon taxes which is just an excuse for an additional revenue stream. Green energy, just like the oil industry, makes a **** load of money for a small amount of people. The difference being that money is primarily from Government subsidies and not from the product itself.

Think it's around 99% of the scientific community that support the existence of man made global warming. So yes, big woop! Produce peer reviewed research that strongly suggests global warming isn't man made, please. Scientific models on global warming are constantly advancing and becoming more accurate btw. Countries will likely see more and more intense extreme weather events as the year go on and idiots will continue to deny it.

You'll also find that carbon taxes and the likes have increased the fuel efficiency of European cars which is great since oil prices are constantly rising so in the long run the consumer benefits from that.

But with your immense knowledge on the subject, you should perfectly able to produce some peer reviewed research that disproves man made global warming. Thanks for that.

hansfrei

Way too much money tied up in this. Green taxation is another energy scam.
Making cheap green energy was the dream of the previous generation. Might even come true in a generation or twos time.

No sign of it happening anytime soon.

IngazZagni

steddyeddy wrote: »

Scientists don't arrive at conclusions because people tell them to. David Nutt was asked by the British government to conduct a study on drug safety and went against their wishes and said ecstasy is relatively safe. He later got fired for coming to that conclusion.

Did you just prove your own point wrong there? So he was under no pressure to arrive at a conclusion that the Government would support. However he was fired after publishing findings that the Government couldn't support?

That's a clear message to other scientists that if you don't publish results that suit us then you won't be asked to do research by us again and thus won't get another nice paycheck.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

The intergovernmental panel for climate change has agreed that global warming is real and humans are responsible. So are we going to waste time debating with the skeptics forever or are we going to do something about it.

Article below:

What do you suggest?
Quit burning fossil fuel and reverting to a 17th century lifestyle,
No cars, no electricity and nothing else that makes modern life so easy.

Even if we did something that dramatic, the CO2 levels would only stop rising, they won't fall back! (that would require the abandonment of agriculture)
Climate change will still happen, in fact the planet would cool if the solar predictions are correct and we're facing into a Maunder minimum type scenario.

steddyeddy

IngazZagni wrote: »

Did you just prove your own point wrong there? So he was under no pressure to arrive at a conclusion that the Government would support. However he was fired after publishing findings that the Government couldn't support?

That's a clear message to other scientists that if you don't publish results that suit us then you won't be asked to do research by us again and thus won't get another nice paycheck.

It's clear proof that the government sometimes don't like a scientists results it's also clear proof that scientists follow science to their conclusion not the wishes of the government.

galwayrush

bumper234 wrote: »

What?

Geothermal heat.

bizmark

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's clear proof that the government sometimes don't like a scientists results it's also clear proof that scientists follow science to their conclusion not the wishes of the government.

no it isnt its proof one guy had integrity it does not prove every one else on the planet who calls themselves a scientist has...Do you really believe other wise?

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you suggest?
Quit burning fossil fuel and reverting to a 17th century lifestyle,
No cars, no electricity and nothing else that makes modern life so easy.

Even if we did something that dramatic, the CO2 levels would only stop rising, they won't fall back! (that would require the abandonment of agriculture)
Climate change will still happen, in fact the planet would cool if the solar predictions are correct and we're facing into a Maunder minimum type scenario.

Pump large amounts of money into alternative to fossil fuels. That's what science is for. It's like saying keep using chemo or die of cancer. There's always the possibility of something else.

_Redzer_

I love how these threads sometimes play out. People saying it's all a money racket and not real. Yeah because us burning billions and billions of tonnes of fuel and releasing the same amount of a known green house gas of the same amount into the atmosphere isn't making any difference at all, sure it's all natural like!

Ffs. If people copped on a bit we might be able to progress at reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but no, it's all fake until the last minute until it's too big a problem to fix. Typical shite. It's how everything has played out. The hole in the ozone layer was the very same deal -Stick your head in the sand, say it's all BS until the problem becomes too big to deny or hide from. It's a terrible way of handling things.

Corkfeen

bizmark wrote: »

no it isnt its proof one guy had integrity it does not prove every one else on the planet who calls themselves a scientist has...Do you really believe other wise?

The advantage of the peer review process is that if data is falsified etc, it will be disputed(refused publication) and it could ruin your reputation in the scientific community. T'would be foolish to risk your career on it and it has ruined careers.

Strangely,I've asked people in this topic to provide such peer reviewed article and they have yet to do so.

IngazZagni

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's clear proof that the government sometimes don't like a scientists results it's also clear proof that scientists follow science to their conclusion not the wishes of the government.

Really. So it wasn't to send a message to future researchers to not bother publishing data that doesn't suit them? To me that's exactly what it sounds like. But with everything we can choose what parts of the story to pick apart and come to opinions that we want to.

riffmongous

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you suggest?]

Even if we did something that dramatic, the CO2 levels would only stop rising, they won't fall back! (that would require the abandonment of agriculture)
Climate change will still happen, in fact the planet would cool if the solar predictions are correct and we're facing into a Maunder minimum type scenario.

Is there any actual proof though of what the effect of a MM on the radiative forcing would be though?

steddyeddy

bizmark wrote: »

no it isnt its proof one guy had integrity it does not prove every one else on the planet who calls themselves a scientist has...Do you really believe other wise?

You seem to think the only physicists who support the hypothesis that humans are accelerating climate change are employed by an inter governmental body.

biko

http://www.d-intl.com/2013/09/28/un-climate-panel-goes-for-broke/?lang=en

The IPCC is desperately trying to buy time but if global temperatures still refuse to rise, it risks losing all credibility.

Without any documentation at all, the IPCC claims to be even more (95 percent) certain than before that man is responsible for the warming since 1950. It tries to hide that fact that this claim is not based on statistics but merely on an opinion poll among people connected to the IPCC.

steddyeddy

IngazZagni wrote: »

Really. So it wasn't to send a message to future researchers to not bother publishing data that doesn't suit them? To me that's exactly what it sounds like. But with everything we can choose what parts of the story to pick apart and come to opinions that we want to.

I'm sure governments don't like the results scientists come up with. Only recently a government adviser called badger culling "crazy". It happens all the time. I don't think that scientists falsify data on a large scale to satisfy someone else.

_Redzer_

galwayrush wrote: »

The polar caps are a huge cause of global warming. The sheer volume of the ice creates heat as the massive weight and friction bear down. The larger they grow, the more heat that's created, eventually causing massive melting of the ice. Sea levels rise and the cycle continues.

No they aren't. They actually reflect heat absorption because the vast area of white reflects nearly all light energy. The temperature is rising quickest at the poles because there's less and less ice to reflect heat and so the dark ocean beneath absorbs more of it. The quicker the ice melts, the quicker the temperature will rise. It has a knock-on effect on everything. It's not just the temperature rises at a constant pace and the ice melts at a constant pace, it'll rise much faster at the poles, and it already has by 3 degrees vs 1 degree the closer you get to the equator.

bizmark

Corkfeen wrote: »

Think it's around 99% of the scientific community that support the existence of man made global warming. So yes, big woop! .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/

Rubbish

steddyeddy

biko wrote: »

http://www.d-intl.com/2013/09/28/un-climate-panel-goes-for-broke/?lang=en

That makes no technical sense whatsoever. Climate change does not mean things get hotter every week for the next few years or century or whatever. It is an increase in the average temperature and often the standard deviation of temperatures.

Filibuster

biko wrote: »

http://www.d-intl.com/2013/09/28/un-climate-panel-goes-for-broke/?lang=en

Once the solar cycle starts going downhill (cycle 24 is a dud), the IPCC will revert to the 1970's position and state that humans are causing global cooling

Turtwig

There isn't really much to be said here.

Almost no climate scientist thinks AGW isn't true. That's quite significant in and of itself. It's brilliant though that there are a few who challenge it. Not in a contrarian fashion but through the rigours of scientific skepticism. What's rather sad is there are people who consider themselves scientists, most usually in non related fields, and then persist in producing the most ridiculous of strawmen to disprove something which they conveniently label as a religion, alarmism.

I guess the saddest thing of all is because how of counter intuitive science can be especially statistics most people are missing out on some incredible scientific observations being made by climatologists. It's a fascinating field that's is rather depressingly viewed in many public eyes as an ideological warzone. When it's anything but.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Pump large amounts of money into alternative to fossil fuels. That's what science is for. It's like saying keep using chemo or die of cancer. There's always the possibility of something else.

To reduce fossil fuel consumption by any real significant amount would require a huge investment, one that the 0.1% are reluctant to do as it won't provide a good return for them. It also means that many of the lower income groups would eventually be priced out of cars as fuel costs continue to rise.

At the start of the 21st century oil was $15 a barrel it is now $110 and has been this high for the past four years, alternatives will only appear when they're cheaper than oil.
When the next "energy crunch" arrives, it is likely to push oil up to another stable price point at between $150-$180 , then alternatives will be competitive.

Until that happens, "green" energy will be shunned by the average consumer as being too expensive.

IngazZagni

Corkfeen wrote: »

Think it's around 99% of the scientific community that support the existence of man made global warming. So yes, big woop! Produce peer reviewed research that strongly suggests global warming isn't man made, please. Scientific models on global warming are constantly advancing and becoming more accurate btw. Countries will likely see more and more intense extreme weather events as the year go on and idiots will continue to deny it.

You'll also find that carbon taxes and the likes have increased the fuel efficiency of European cars which is great since oil prices are constantly rising so in the long run the consumer benefits from that.

But with your immense knowledge on the subject, you should perfectly able to produce some peer reviewed research that disproves man made global warming. Thanks for that.

Why did they change the term "global warming" to climate change? That's because World temperatures have not risen at all over the past decade. That's fact. The models may be more accurate now with improved technology but how can we believe them considering their predictions were so wrong before? Extreme weather events will continue to happen. People like you will point to them as "evidence" of climate change despite the fact that extreme weather events have been happening for centuries. We don't have detailed statistics for the rate of their occurrences back that far however.

I completely disagree that carbon taxes have been the most effective way of making cars more efficient. To put it simply the cost of oil has been. Higher oil costs meant for car manufactures that a more efficient engine suddenly became a key part of making their cars attractable for consumers. That on top of healthy competition. It's the free market at work.