"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

_Redzer_

Celticfire wrote: »

It's well below 1%, its 0.04% at the moment .... up from 0.37% and we contribute approx 3% of that amount.

Yet that tiny increase is having an effect on global temperature which only lends to the point that the atmosphere is extremely fragile.

Do you think that just because it's not a massive 30% increase to the atmosphere means that it's not having any effect at all and is not worth bothering with? Baring in mind that if it were not for that tiny <1% or so of CO2 in the atmosphere we'd all be frozen over.

If you're just as keen on small percentages, every tablet you swollow actually has a minute percentage of an active drug in it, the rest is bulked up to make it easier to take. Yet that tiny, seemingly insignificant amount can still have a profound impact on you. Same applies to the atmosphere.
If you're dealing with tiny percentages it makes any increase to that all the more serious.

Hitchens

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

Hitchens

Hitchens wrote: »

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

Because some places stopped warming up, the changing weather patterns caused some places to cool down

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Solar irradiance is lower during the solar minimums and the magnetic fields are lower thus allowing more cosmic rays into the upper atmosphere where they produce more clouds thus reducing the solar energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Won't that depend on the type of cloud created though? Not all clouds cause the same effects

Turtwig

Hitchens wrote: »

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

They did it because of aliens. Or they never did it at all.

Hitchens

Deleted User wrote: »

Because some places stopped warming up, the changing weather patterns caused some places to cool down

wrong, see jernal's post above, 'they' never changed it but bandwaggoners always fall for it when you put the question to them

Turtwig

riffmongous wrote: »

Won't that depend on the type of cloud created though? Not all clouds cause the same effects

Clouds are an area of confusion. It was initially thought that clouds would contribute towards a cooling effect. (Not an overall climate cooling, just clouds for their part would contribute towards cooling the earth.) This became more complicated when at night time more warming was recorded than during the day. Then it got even messier when the various structures of clouds were analysed. Depending on the properties of the water vapour in the cloud they might actually add a warming effect. In short, it's not clear what effect clouds have, whatever it is it's not really going to be significant to change things either way.

kupus

If they just asked retired scientists instead of those that need to feed off the teat that feeds them, then I could be a little bit more subjective.

but until then I'll keep thinking global warming cooling whatever they call it these days is a pure money making racket.

And Al gore the saviour of the environmental left....... well did you know that before he became this great crusader he and his buddies were pumping money into green energy and environmental companies... Coincidence, maybe. Maybe not. I'll let you decide.
When it comes to money I dont believe in coincidence.

Mardy Bum

I find the sheer amount of conspiracy theorists in this thread alarming. Mention the Illuminati and you are rightly laughed out the door and on the other hand accept a scientific study conducted by a number of governments and you become a sheep!

_Redzer_

kupus wrote: »

If they just asked retired scientists instead of those that need to feed off the teat that feeds them, then I could be a little bit more subjective.

but until then I'll keep thinking global warming cooling whatever they call it these days is a pure money making racket.

And Al gore the saviour of the environmental left....... well did you know that before he became this great crusader he and his buddies were pumping money into green energy and environmental companies... Coincidence, maybe. Maybe not. I'll let you decide.
When it comes to money I dont believe in coincidence.

And what about oil companies breeding conspiracists because they fear people switching to other fuels? Oh that's right, you probably believe that doesn't happen at all, it's just all the scientists that want to keep a job. That must be the only explanation because that's not retarded thinking at all...

NuckingFacker

Hitchens wrote: »

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

Global sea ice increased by 60% last winter..which is an inconvenient truth... and plants love CO2, need it as it happens..and CO2 level were higher in Victorian times...and they're finding more oil constantly using new techniques... and when the last ice age happened, was that man-made as well? And the ones before? Climate changes, fact. People don't change it, it manages that all by itself, were flattering/fooling ourselves if we think we do. There's big money involved though, so lots of angles will be exagerated for gain. Me personally, I'm sceptical as to our impact. Cutting down the rainforests has more impact than any other factor, and that's still just a blip. Mankind as a species is just that, a species. We'll come and go, and the Planet will go on regardless.


The angles wrong. They should be concentrating on "the effects of climate change on mankind" and how we react to it. Crediting ourselves with somthing that will really mess up our days regardless of our action is backwards.. how we plan to cope on a practical, sensible level would be effort better spent. Seas rising? Raise defences, don't raise taxes on fuel.

kneemos

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Global sea ice increased by 60% last winter..which is an inconvenient truth... and plants love CO2, need it as it happens..and CO2 level were higher in Victorian times...and they're finding more oil constantly using new techniques... and when the last ice age happened, was that man-made as well? And the ones before? Climate changes, fact. People don't change it, it manages that all by itself, were flattering/fooling ourselves if we think we do. There's big money involved though, so lots of angles will be exagerated for gain. Me personally, I'm sceptical as to our impact. Cutting down the rainforests has more impact than any other factor, and that's still just a blip. Mankind as a species is just that, a species. We'll come and go, and the Planet will go on regardless.

The rain forest destruction is the real environmental disaster happening at the moment,yet there's seldom a mention of it anywhere.
Perhaps if there was more research money thrown at it we would hear more about it .

Turtwig

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Global sea ice increased by 60% last winter..which is an inconvenient truth... and plants love CO2, need it as it happens..and CO2 level were higher in Victorian times...and they're finding more oil constantly using new techniques... and when the last ice age happened, was that man-made as well? And the ones before? Climate changes, fact. People don't change it, it manages that all by itself, were flattering/fooling ourselves if we think we do. There's big money involved though, so lots of angles will be exagerated for gain. Me personally, I'm sceptical as to our impact. Cutting down the rainforests has more impact than any other factor, and that's still just a blip. Mankind as a species is just that, a species. We'll come and go, and the Planet will go on regardless.

Not 100% on the global sea ice. Obviously it grows in winter, though I think overall it diminishes year on year. (Some glaciers grow, others don't. Such is the way of things. On the whole, Ice is disappearing in the artic and appearing in the antartic ?)

C02 is good for most plants but not in excess and certainly not in excess for the environment surrounding plants.

C02 levels in the victorian ere were way way lower than they are now. Our current C02 levels are higher than they were in a few million years. Regarding Ice Ages they occurred for several different reasons. Orbital changes of the earth, solar output, natural catastrophes, and of course net accumulation of greenhouses gasses like methane and C02. The important thing to note for the latter is that the rate at which this occurred was really slow spanning thousands of years. In less than 150 years we've achieved what normally takes the planet 10,000 years! Our rate of C02 output is incredibly rapid for such a short duration and that rate is increasing!

PopePalpatine

Corkfeen wrote: »

Damn, you got there before me. Hitchens only by username.

More like Peter than Christopher IMHO. :rolleyes:

Gummy Panda

Is it because of the cows and their farting?

darkpagandeath

Are we not overdue an ice age by 2-4 thousands years previous to them happening is there not a lot of short long term climate/weather fluctuations ? with the amount of earthquakes and tsunamis going off surely that has released tones of stored C02 into the atmosphere. furthering the speed toward the eventual melting of the icecaps in turn pumping fresh water into the gulfstream and so on causing that water to cool off and sink to the bottom. That then stops warm currents globally furthering the rush towards the coming ice age. Or did people think that Ice ages only happen in films or only in the past and we will never have one again ?

Turtwig

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Is it because of the cows and their farting?

Not really but the gas they do emit is a really potent greenhouse gas. So reducing their farts would definitely help. Or a state of the art filtration system in pubs and other places where alcohol and smoke tend to mix. A better way of looking at is remove all artificial sources of GHGs and cows and humans would be able to fart to their hearts content for many centuries at a much higher volume than they do. (Or is actually healthy for them. What is the world record emission for a fart anyway?)

galwayrush

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Is it because of the cows and their farting?

Bacteria apparently by their sheer numbers do more damage than the cows.

riffmongous

You know there is money in other areas of science too, but somehow it's only the climate physicists who have become corrupted?

And you know there still isn't that many jobs in climate science really, especially compared to standard meteorology, and most of the people working in those jobs could also easily work in other areas of science too

Sh1tbag OToole

How much extra tax do I have to pay, or will I have to pay?

The issue is not that the earth is getting warmer or cooler, it was always going to be one or the other. The issue is that the government either wants our money or to limit our freedom so they might as well stop going on about the environment or global warming and get straight to the point

LordSutch

I am with the David Bellamy's of this world on this one. Yes we may be eperiencing global warming? (but if so, humans are only partially responsible) for what is the natural warming up and cooling down of the palnet over millennia. Of course, speaking out against the tide can get you into trouble if you are in the public eye, like David Bellamy used to be.

David Bellamy tells of moment he was "frozen out" of BBC. for daring to question "Man made" global warming.

"We’ve done plenty to smash up the planet, but there’s been no global warming caused by man. The UK Met Office this month downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.

Mr Bellamy insisted that he had no regrets about being so outspoken and had not changed his opinions about global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html

wexandproud

there was a very good documentary on the tv last week . i missed the begining of it but there is another group who say climate is realy happening and is just earth going through a natural cycle but is nothing to do with human activity. it is caused by a slight change in the angle of tilt of the earth which happens very slowly. it is caused by a wobble in the earths rotation after a colision with with another planet. they said thats why there has been several ice ages and warmer periods in history , they even had proof that where the sahara is, was once rain forest and they predicted it would be again

inocybe

riffmongous wrote: »

You know there is money in other areas of science too, but somehow it's only the climate physicists who have become corrupted?

And you know there still isn't that many jobs in climate science really, especially compared to standard meteorology, and most of the people working in those jobs could also easily work in other areas of science too

For a long time the best way to get funding in many different disciplines was to tag on something about climate. It's a gravy train, and I see some who travel almost nonstop to conferences, all over the world (but usually really nice places by coincidence). No worries for them about carbon emissions, their worst fear is the hysteria dying down.

Filibuster

inocybe wrote: »

No worries for them about carbon emissions, their worst fear is the hysteria dying down.

The IPCC loves hysteria. After Hurricane Katrina they reported in 07' the world would be inundated with similar hurricanes. Now they've dropped the claim because there was no basis for it. Likewise they reported the Himalayan glaciers would melt away in 30 years on the throwaway remark of a magazine article.

Sh1tbag OToole

Filibuster wrote: »

The IPCC loves hysteria. After Hurricane Katrina they reported in 07' the world would be inundated with similar hurricanes. Now they've dropped the claim because there was no basis for it. Likewise they reported the Himalayan glaciers would melt away in 30 years on the throwaway remark of a magazine article.

Also no fish in the sea by year ____. No set of dire predictions is complete without this thrown in

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

So a large volcanic eruption would be the end of us all then?

Chronic vs acute.

steddyeddy

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

darkpagandeath

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

whitch science the one that says its true
the one that says its not
the one that says it a natural cycle
the one that says its sun spots
the one that says its a coming iceage

i could go on

Filibuster

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

I missed Al Gore's sermon today, what was it about?? The virtues of carbon taxes or "capitalists are bad we need climate justice to repent our sins"??

steddyeddy

Filibuster wrote: »

I missed Al Gore's sermon today, what was it about?? The virtues of carbon taxes or "capitalists are bad we need climate justice to repent our sins"??

Do you see how an increase in CO2 would be a bad thing or do you think it's neutral? What happens when you mix CO2 with water for instance?

steddyeddy

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Also no fish in the sea by year ____. No set of dire predictions is complete without this thrown in

CO2 + H2O (the sea) = what?

Sh1tbag OToole

steddyeddy wrote: »

CO2 + H2O (the sea) = what?

Ballygowan sparkling. The fish don't like that stuff, can't afford it

_Redzer_

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Ballygowan sparkling. The fish don't like that stuff, can't afford it

It destroys the shells of molluscs, severely threatening their numbers. It also causes acid rain, damaging trees and plant life. All the excess CO2 needs to go somewhere. The plants can only absorb so much and they have a limit. They can't just keep taking in more and more CO2 as it rises, no more than we can take more and more vitamin tablets when there's a finite amount we can absorb.

People think more CO2 will be great for the plants, but if you knew anything about them you'd realise that's not exactly true when they can only use a set amount.

steddyeddy

Based on the above post you need to ask yourself has man caused an increase in CO2?

steddyeddy

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Ballygowan sparkling. The fish don't like that stuff, can't afford it

Carbonic acid. Fish don't like that stuff either.

smoking_kills

steddyeddy wrote: »

Based on the above post you need to ask yourself has man caused an increase in CO2?

Yes.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

kupus

Anything humans do, volcanos do better anything humans do volcanos do to. No they cant, yes they can no they cant yes they can
http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

Akrasia

Global warming denial is so 2001

The debate is over, global warming is real, humans are responsible, we need to figure out a way to solve this problem for our own sake and for future generations.

If you don't believe in global warming, you're not only a global warming denier, you're also a laws of physics denier.
The greenhouse effect is established physics.

The difference between venus and earth is the composition of the atmosphere. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system because the CO2 in it's atmosphere traps the suns heat.

http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/

on earth, we're changing the composition of our atmosphere by adding trillions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere

To all the pea-brains on here who think 'the government' are inventing this crisis so that they can increase taxes, How stupid are you? That makes absolutely no sense. Guess what, if governments want to raise taxes, they raise taxes. They don't need to invent a global conspiracy to justify it.

To all the idiots who think climate scientists are only in it for the money, there are oil industry lobby groups like the heartland institute who will drive a dumper truck of cash to the door of any respected climate scientist who can publish research that disproves global warming. Science does not work the way you think it does.

The conspiracies simply do not make any sense.

Akrasia

Potatoeman

Didnt the whole CFC thing work. People said that wasnt real too. That said its pointless unless you get the major and developing countries to agree.

C14N

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

group of people whose jobs depend on global warming say global warming is a continuing threat?


**** me, that's surprising

Group of people who would have a very hard time dealing with global warming denies it's real? Also very surprising.

It's one of those things where there is a huge public disbelief and I think that consensus causes a lot of people to feel justified in never quite getting on board with the idea, especially since it's not a nice one to deal with. The claims that we're not the problem and such almost always seem to come from armchair scientists and studies funded by conservative lobbies so I'm still having a hard time not believing we're the problem.

kneemos

Been hearing about global warming now for decades.Still no sign of it.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Been hearing about global warming now for decades.Still no sign of it.

there is none as blind as he who will not see

kupus

Akrasia wrote: »

there is none as blind as he who will not see

YEah do you have one that charts from the beginning of time or do you guys just cherry pick the dates that suit your point.

spank_inferno

Akrasia wrote: »

there is none as blind as he who will not see

Fcuk me!

1 to 2 degrees over 112 years!

Please.... Please somebody fix this by taxing more of my disposable income!

Because a 0.2 degree increase per DECADE will disapper once lobby groups take more of my money.

And I will know that johnny polar bear will sleep soundly as western economies become less competitive as they spend trillions fixing a 1 degree shift over a century.

Kev.OC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

Neither, actually. I understand the basic scientific principles involved in explaining climate change. And I do think there is a slow change in global temperatures.

Personally, my issue comes with the "global warming is real and it's solely the fault of humans" approach. I remember watching a programme on TV before about the earth. I believe it said something along the lines of;

"If we take the forming of earth as sunrise, and the death of the earth as sunset, it's currently 10:20 am and humans have only been around for one second."

Using the time scale above, if humans have only been around for a second, how long have we been measuring and recording temperature?

I think it is remarkably arrogant of us as a species to think that global warming is all our fault. Are we contributing? Yes, undoubtedly. But if all humans disappeared tomorrow, even though the cycle might slow, it would still go on without us.

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

there is none as blind as he who will not see

Why don't you post a graph of solar activity over the same period with that picture.

Akrasia

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fcuk me!

1 to 2 degrees over 112 years!

Please.... Please somebody fix this by taxing more of my disposable income!

Because a 0.2 degree increase per DECADE will disapper once lobby groups take more of my money.

And I will know that johnny polar bear will sleep soundly as western economies become less competitive as they spend trillions fixing a 1 degree shift over a century.

You really have no clue do you?

Most people would be embarassed to display such a level of ignorance in public

spank_inferno

Filibuster wrote: »

Why don't you post a graph of solar activity over the same period with that picture.

exactly.
If solar activity has also increased marginally over the last century then we have our ball game.

Then apologetic governments can refund all their "carbon" taxes.

Akrasia

Filibuster wrote: »

Why don't you post a graph of solar activity over the same period with that picture.

The full IPCC AR5 report will be published today and they will have a whole section on Solar radiation where they have examined the evidence and concluded that Solar forcing is not the major driver of the global warming experienced so far.

The debate about global warming is over, we seriously need to focus on what we're going to do about it.