Floods-Climate change-Global warming-Causes-Outcome-Precidtions....

LordSutch

So there's floods everywhere, with storm after storm rolling in from the Atlantic in December, with heavy winter rainfall & strong winds, but what or who is to blame? The current trend of thought is that 'we' have created these weather patterns, we have created the high winds, the heavy rain and the floods, so its all our fault for burning fossil fuels ..... However, A cynic might say well 'ya know what' its winter so what do you expect??? The natural cycle of planet Earth? or our burning of fossil fuels/pollution?

I'm a cynic, what are you?

The Backwards Man

There'll be weather when we're all dead

kneemos

Grand and mild.

Bio Mech

The main thing to remember is that's its just one thing. We have to have this black and white. We all have to form strong opinions on what the cause is and then lobby that point.

There is no way its a complex combination of factors working together in a complicated and hard to discern pattern. No way.

It is, for sure, one single thing. We have to find the one thing and then stick rigidly to that so the masses can understand. That's the important bit.

Bio Mech

Where is the option for "Illuminati/Patriarchy/Lizard people/Reverse vampire plot"?

howdoyouknow

I blame the bad weather. We never get floods when the sun shines

NoCrackHaving

It's a mixture of issues. While natural climate variations do occur as a normal part of Earth's 'life' they never happen to quite the rapid extent we have seen since the dawn of the industrial revolution with the exception of massive one off events such as volcanic eruptions or asteroid strikes. To deny man made climate change is literally pissing into the wind at this stage, the amount of evidence for it is overwhelming. Eventually the Earth will reach an equilibrium and the climate will stablise but this takes millions of years.

Personally I feel we've gone too far in reversing the effects and can at best just mitigate and adapt. These weather patterns of severe flooding in northern Europe are likely to be the norm in the future.

c_man

I don't think there's any doubt we've had an impact on the planet's climate. At the same time, we should be more worried about our own survival. The Earth will get by just fine without us, and would recover in a geological blink of the eye from the damage. But overall I'm an optimist and think we'll sort something out in the next century.

seamus

Anyone who denies climate change is right up there at the same level of idiocy as anti-vaxxers.

There is no denying that climate change is occurring, and if it's not due to human activity, then it's a very big fncking coincidence that this once-in-60-million-years sudden change event happened at the same time that our CO2 emissions went through the roof.

smash

Where's the options for "Climate change is due to the natural cycle of the planet, but accelerated due to human activity"? Option 4 doesn't really fit.

SEPT 23 1989

Something is always needed to scare the sheep and keep them in line

c_man

Anything to be said for a further option: "Man made, but done under instruction of, and guidance from, alien species which want the planet transformed into a suitable habitat for their eventual colonisation"

All I'm saying is, it fits with a lot of the evidence.

LordSutch

smash wrote: »

Where's the options for "Climate change is due to the natural cycle of the planet, but accelerated due to human activity"? Option 4 doesn't really fit.

Option 4 is close enough for you, I mean you can't have every single 'nuanced' variation in the poll, so choose option 4 and explain your understsnding on the issue. Let's hear your take on the subject.

kneemos

c_man wrote: »

Anything to be said for a further option: "Man made, but done under instruction of, and guidance from, alien species which want the planet transformed into a suitable habitat for their eventual colonisation"

All I'm saying is, it fits with a lot of the evidence.

And if it doesn't fit sure just change it.

smash

LordSutch wrote: »

Option 4 is close enough for you, I mean you can't have every single 'nuanced' variation in the poll, so choose option 4 and explain your understsnding on the issue. Let's hear your take on the subject.

Na, I went with option 2 :P

I firmly believe it's the cycle of the planet, but that as a species we've rapidly accelerated the process, and that no matter how much talk there is of reducing the output of toxic gasses, this isn't what industry or governments actually want. If it's what they want then there would be fines in place, and not a system where you can trade your carbon vouchers, or whatever they're called.

lazybones32

It is nearly impossible to know but I think human activity has some impact on the weather we experience.

The St. Stephen's Day earthquake 10(?) years ago shifted the magnetic North Pole; that has to have some effect on the weather systems.

Akrasia

smash wrote: »

Where's the options for "Climate change is due to the natural cycle of the planet, but accelerated due to human activity"? Option 4 doesn't really fit.

2015 will be recorded as the hottest year since records began. Global warming deniers were falling over themselves pointing at an alleged 'hiatus' in global warming at the start of this year. (based on cherrypicked data as usual)

smash

Akrasia wrote: »

2015 will be recorded as the hottest year since records began. Global warming deniers were falling over themselves pointing at an alleged 'hiatus' in global warming at the start of this year. (based on cherrypicked data as usual)

I don't believe in Global Warming. I believe in Climate change though. There's a difference. :P

Akrasia

smash wrote: »

I don't believe in Global Warming. I believe in Climate change though. There's a difference. :P

Not really. They're both the same thing. Climate change is what happens because of global warming.

Most scientists will talk about 'anthropogenic global warming' which is the part of global warming that is attributed to human activity

The fact that the total energy budget on planet earth is increasing changes the climates of every region differently, so this is why both global warming and climate change are valid terms to use.

kneemos

Not much support for the global warming theory judging by the poll.

NoCrackHaving

Akrasia wrote: »

Not really. They're both the same thing. Climate change is what happens because of global warming.

Most scientists will talk about 'anthropogenic global warming' which is the part of global warming that is attributed to human activity

The fact that the total energy budget on planet earth is increasing changes the climates of every region differently, so this is why both global warming and climate change are valid terms to use.

It is a pain in the hole to explain to deniers why some regions of the world will get colder due to a varying energy budget while some will get hotter so I usually stick with climate change so I don't get pulled into the whole "well it's colder in xyz location now then it was 100 years ago so how is it getting warmer?" bull****.

riffmongous

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

It is a pain in the hole to explain to deniers why some regions of the world will get colder due to a varying energy budget while some will get hotter so I usually stick with climate change so I don't get pulled into the whole "well it's colder in xyz location now then it was 100 years ago so how is it getting warmer?" bull****.

I prefer (anthropogenic) climate change too, as the atmosphere is complicated enough that global warming could also lead to global cooling later through feedbacks

Akrasia

riffmongous wrote: »

I prefer (anthropogenic) climate change too, as the atmosphere is complicated enough that global warming could also lead to global cooling later through feedbacks

Calling it 'Climate change' leads the idiots to retort 'But the climate is always changing'

Which is in itself a betrayal of ignorance, because climate is supposed to be stable on human timescales, that's the difference between climate and weather

Climate only changes rapidly due to an abnormal event forcing a change (Astroids striking, large volcanic eruptions, humans pumping millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in only a few decades)

You can't win when you're talking to wilfully ignorant people

Austria!

A poll of the scientists would give a very different result. But what do they know?

c_man wrote: »

I don't think there's any doubt we've had an impact on the planet's climate. At the same time, we should be more worried about our own survival. The Earth will get by just fine without us, and would recover in a geological blink of the eye from the damage. But overall I'm an optimist and think we'll sort something out in the next century.

We are worried about our own survival. That's why we're worried about climate change.

smash wrote: »

Where's the options for "Climate change is due to the natural cycle of the planet, but accelerated due to human activity"? Option 4 doesn't really fit.

My understanding is that the Earth is in a natural cycle of cooling right now so there is no natural contribution to the warming we're seeing.

Samaris

It's always dangerous to ascribe one set of weather events to "climate change". It's a pattern that we need to look for. There is a strong El Nino event this year, and random strong events -do- occur. But scientists will always be very cautious in saying "this happened because of climate change" because it's just plain unprovable.

I would say that we -are- seeing an increase in extreme events in the last few decades, and that fits the pattern we would expect to see with a warming planet. We are also seeing an increase in strong El Nino events, and particularly strong Modoki events (a variant form of El Nino, where the warming starts at two distinct points rather than one warm patch), and that, along with resultant extreme weather events, may well also fit that pattern.

Part of the issue is that a lot of non-scientists that are following this in the news are understandably confused by what seems to be contradictory information, coupled with half-remembered geography lessons from long ago on natural cycles such as Milankovitch cycles, and ice ages.

I chose the first option, because from all available evidence, the sort of abrupt climate change that we're really worrying about -is- due to anthropogenic influences. Yes, there are slow natural changes in the climate over a long period of time. But..hm...okay, taking an analogy. One's weight naturally changes over one's lifetime. But when one puts on a stone suddenly, one doesn't talk about the natural weight shifting, one considers that it's probably due to the diet of fast food over the past couple of months! To argue about the natural cycles is a bit analogous to taking into account that one suddenly had their thirtieth birthday. Sure, metabolism slows down, but that extra stone was probably the pizzas!


Edit: Attempted to make my analogy a bit more fitting...

c_man

Which parts of Ireland will be underwater? Will the Irish be displaced and become a race of sailors/boat people forever chasing "the land" like the Smokers in Waterworld?

Samaris

c_man wrote: »

Which parts of Ireland will be underwater? Will the Irish be displaced and become a race of sailors/boat people forever chasing "the land" like the Smokers in Waterworld?

Cork!

ScumLord

The bad weather is due to failing Christmas magic because people like me don't believe in santa. When you believe it's snow, miracles and joy. When you don't believe it's floods and misery for all. Muhahahahah.

LordSutch

Warming up, and cooling down, warming up, we've been here before .......

All down to the natural cycle of the planet, with a little help from solar flares?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

wexandproud

ScumLord wrote: »

The bad weather is due to failing Christmas magic because people like me don't believe in santa. When you believe it's snow, miracles and joy. When you don't believe it's floods and misery for all. Muhahahahah.

it will hardly effect you anyway ..... zombies gonna get you first

Larbre34

There is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

It really is the natural cycle of the planet, but human history is such a narrow band within that, that we have never seen the entire cycle in action before - yet we know non-human induced extremes such as ice ages have been around lots before. The same goes for other planetary effects we have only seen a tiny aspect of, such as continental shift.

However, reducing carbon emissions is still a good idea, as the fuels that generate them are running out and certainly some cities suffer badly from pollution, so we do need to move to alternatives quite quickly. If that addresses the gripes of the climate lobby at the same time, so be it.

ScumLord

Larbre34 wrote: »

There is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

It really is the natural cycle of the planet, but human history is such a narrow band within that, that we have never seen the entire cycle in action before

That's not really true. We're not just working off recorded history we can get a very good idea of what weather was like going back thousands of years using the ice stored in the poles.

The bottom line is earth's ecosystem is a balance of chemicals, elements and stored energy. We can't assume that if we start moving millions of tons of those elements from one place to another that it will have zero effect.

LordSutch

c_man wrote: »

Which parts of Ireland will be underwater?

I guess many towns up and down the Shannon will be flooded.
Cork City centre too.

kneemos

Evelyn Cusack was on the wireless the other day and said there hasn't been any increase in yearly rainfall in Ireland.
Floods happen from time to time,sometimes more than others.

Harry Palmr

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98032573&postcount=42

Now might be a good time for Irish Water to push though that plan to use Shannon river water to supply Dublin.

That was mentioned in some media discussion, apparently the waterflow for that would be 12m³/sec. On a typical day 98m3/s at Athlone and 300m3/s at Limerick is pushed through the Shannon system which surely buries the idea that Dublin would be stealing the Weshts water, they should be glad to be rid of some of it!

LordSutch

David Bellamy frozen out by BBC, because he doesn't believe in 'man made' global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html

kneemos

LordSutch wrote: »

David Bellamy frozen out by BBC, because he doesn't believe in 'man made' global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html

The policy of burning the heretics just makes them look fanatical.

Samaris

LordSutch wrote: »

David Bellamy frozen out by BBC, because he doesn't believe in 'man made' global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html

kneemos wrote: »

The policy of burning the heretics just makes them look fanatical.

That is a shame; I don't think he should have been driven out, or frozen out. He's done a lot of good work, and he seems like a decent man. I don't agree with his position, it doesn't seem like he's looked very much into it, but not everyone will have the time or inclination to study the facts.

"heretics" and "fanatical" are both rather foolish words to use. There is no "believe", really. There is "the evidence shows" or "the evidence suggests" in cases of lesser certainly. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of scientific analysis. I've studied the evidence - hell, I've contributed to it! I don't "believe" in it any more than I "believe" in the sky. The evidence is there.

I have no doubt there -are- fanatics on the pro- side as well as the anti-side. There's fanatics for everything, and they're pretty ignorable. 'Course, one needs to decide just how much "disagreeing with you" = "fanaticism"!

Harry Palmr

Not sure how often David Bellamy has been seen on the BBC in the last 10 years....

Paramite Pie

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Personally I feel we've gone too far in reversing the effects and can at best just mitigate and adapt. These weather patterns of severe flooding in northern Europe are likely to be the norm in the future.

If we built on less flood plains, then we'd have less floods. I live in an area that never flooded until it was swarmed by industrial estates. Granted it's not the worst flooding in my case -- but it's clear that poor planning is usually the cause.

Overall, our annual precipitation hasn't changed within the last 15 years but we all know what did. Global Warming may well be bringing new storms (debatable - we have better reporting now so we notice more) but we've set ourselves up for more damage with our methods of construction.

kneemos

River management or lack of, bog cultivation along with bad planning could all be culprits.

Roger_007

seamus wrote: »

Anyone who denies climate change is right up there at the same level of idiocy as anti-vaxxers.

There is no denying that climate change is occurring, and if it's not due to human activity, then it's a very big fncking coincidence that this once-in-60-million-years sudden change event happened at the same time that our CO2 emissions went through the roof.

60 million years? Do our weather records go back that far?

Harry Palmr

I was walking into town (Waterford) from the suburbs the other day - I passed Millers Marsh and Kingsmeadow both of which are of course completely built over! Kingsmeadow was largely fallow land up until about 25 years ago before it was concreted over with 'ring road' type large shops and small industrial units. Predictably the roads flooded on a regular basis though remedial work has now largely beaten that issue. Of course it might have been better to have left it green and semi boggy but well inside the city limits it was always going to be developed I suppose.

fits

A meadow is a grassy field. It doesnt imply any flooding or wetland.

Harry Palmr

Do you know are area? If you did you'd know it floods (or did) thanks to Johns River.

LordSutch

Roger_007 wrote: »

60 million years? Do our weather records go back that far?

Dendrochronology + glacier core boring = palaeoclimatology!

jimgoose

Soft-ish for December. Farmers'll be delighted. Except in Athlone, obviously. Athlone is even more like Bangladesh than usual lately.

LordSutch

COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris.

...so we all agree to drop the planets temprature by 1.5 degrees C.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj5itS0ntfJAhVFtg8KHbV9DqgQqQIINDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-35084374&usg=AFQjCNHVjHhWOjr8x1vVxYWUk-Ghg9KTuA&sig2=yJEdDcWXyxNsNj9Z9sZ_CQ&bvm=bv.109910813,d.ZWU

Excuse me if I seem a little skeptical, but to me this looks like some kind of mass "King Canute syndrome" wherby people actually think that they can stop nature's way, in just the same way as the poor old King thought he could stop the tide coming in :cool:

Climate change/Global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and no amount of treaty signatures will change that. Rock on Bellamy I say.

Corpus Twisty

LordSutch wrote: »

COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris.

...so we all agree to drop the planets temprature by 1.5 degrees C.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj5itS0ntfJAhVFtg8KHbV9DqgQqQIINDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-35084374&usg=AFQjCNHVjHhWOjr8x1vVxYWUk-Ghg9KTuA&sig2=yJEdDcWXyxNsNj9Z9sZ_CQ&bvm=bv.109910813,d.ZWU

Excuse me if I seem a little skeptical, but to me this looks like some kind of mass "King Canute syndrome" wherby people actually think that they can stop nature's way, in just the same way as the poor old King thought he could stop the tide coming in :cool:

Climate change/Global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and no amount of treaty signatures will change that. Rock on Bellamy I say.

The planet may have other ideas. I think "we" flatter ourselves as to our influence. It's a bit like the flea claiming to be steering the dog.

Sh1tbag OToole

LordSutch wrote: »

COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris.

...so we all agree to drop the planets temprature by 1.5 degrees C.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj5itS0ntfJAhVFtg8KHbV9DqgQqQIINDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-35084374&usg=AFQjCNHVjHhWOjr8x1vVxYWUk-Ghg9KTuA&sig2=yJEdDcWXyxNsNj9Z9sZ_CQ&bvm=bv.109910813,d.ZWU

Excuse me if I seem a little skeptical, but to me this looks like some kind of mass "King Canute syndrome" wherby people actually think that they can stop nature's way, in just the same way as the poor old King thought he could stop the tide coming in :cool:

Climate change/Global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and no amount of treaty signatures will change that. Rock on Bellamy I say.

Nothing will really change. They'll layer some extra carbon tax onto us and China will keep sending plenty of coal up in shmoke to make cheap Chinese sh1te to send over to our part of the world in container ships.

Corpus Twisty

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Nothing will really change. They'll layer some extra carbon tax onto us and China will keep sending plenty of coal up in shmoke to make cheap Chinese sh1te to send over to our part of the world in container ships.

"I've a mad idea lads - let's tax carbon! We can tell them it's to save the world!"

"Don't be stupid, that idea will never work, people will laugh at us"

"Ah sure let's give it a lash, sure maybe they'll fall for it, they fall for everything else -even the hippies will support it.."

"Give it a go - I doubt it will work though.."