It's getting hot in here....

Muhammed_1 · 25-11-2016 4:19pm

The oil in the ground accumulated there over millions of years. Perhaps 300 million years or so.

We will use it all up in 300 years.

We use a million years worth of oil in a single year.

That's a million years of stored sunlight per year and we're releasing it all very quickly.

I'm aware that's not a scientific analysis but it's not totally incorrect either.

Special Circumstances · 25-11-2016 4:21pm

Somehow I respect the selfish "not my problem buddy, I'll be long gone" types more than the weird double thinky preachers.

"Behold, I make scary numbers appear and disappear to suit my argument!!"
Wow, they do look scary, what should we do about it?
"poooof, the scary numbers are gone, you shouldn't do anything to radical or immediate, it will all be fine"
Phew, you had me worried
"mwuhahaha why are you looking so relieved - ALAKAZAM and the scary numbers are back woooooooo it's going to be catastrophic"
Ah here, seriously what should we do?
"lightbulbs! Diesel SUVs! await further instruction closer to massive famines/plagues/migrations/floods/slightly uncomfortable summers woooo"

Help!!!! · 25-11-2016 4:21pm

If you really want to know what to do when the glaciers melt.....make friends with a guy called Noah, he'll know what to do

Galway_Old_Man · 25-11-2016 4:22pm

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

We will use it all up in 300 years.

Maybe so.

I do wonder what happened to all the predictions that Young Greens etc were shouting about when I was in college (lates 90s, early 2000s). Basically oil would never be under $100 a barrel again, countries by now would be clamouring over each other for what was left...

Help!!!! · 25-11-2016 4:29pm

Ask yourself this:
If this was true & all our leaders were so worried about it wouldn't they stop flying around the world in private jets? They could skype each other or go economy like the rest of us.
They would also stop driving around in fuel guzzling cars.
Until then cant see it being a big deal

sbsquarepants · 25-11-2016 4:37pm

Wibbs wrote: »

While he's a demigod to the nerd sphere his solutions are more like a band aid on a gunshot wound. Yes it is an improvement, but unless the leccy driving his cars is sourced from solar/atomic/wind then you're just moving the crap upstream. Out of sight out of mind. All too human a view. That's before the environmental cost of building the cars in the first place. And rocket launches aren't exactly clean. They're dirty as feck, but thankfully still rare events so…

.

I was thinking more of his new roof idea than the cars, that has the potential to make a real difference I think.

MonkieSocks · 25-11-2016 4:57pm

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

We will use it all up in 300 years.

37 of oil Years left, going by the site below.

http://www.worldometers.info/

Global warming has been happening for thousands of years, 10.000 thousand years ago Ireland was cover in ice, 1 mile in depth.

Glaciers went all the way to to the Mediterranean sea.

Good Video here explaining it all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5YU6BMpUQ

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 5:03pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So there wouldn't be any mass migrations and intense violent competition for resources? Few grants from SEAI be grand like?

Probably not. Thing is, it all depends where you live. We're fairly isolated from it thanks to our geography. We can probably expect more changeable weather, more fierce storms, more extreme events - that includes ridiculous amounts of rainfall in a short period, possibly heatwaves (less likely, but will happen from time to time) and cold snaps, such as winter 2012. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that year was absolutely, specifically caused by climate change, but it's the sort of unusual event that will become more commonplace for us. We better get used to flooding if we're not already!

Now, if you live in Australia, around the Sahel, or in midregions Europe, you're in for a rougher time. Heatwaves are becoming more commonplace and they kill. The 2005 heatwave killed something at least 35,000 people, and estimates have revised that up to closer to 70,000 due to lingering effects. And that's just from the heat. What do you reckon that sort of thing in the growing season will do to crops and food supplies?

A land rush is possible in countries where previously inhospitable land is becoming habitable (or exploitable). Siberia, Greenland, Canada, Alaska, but that depends too much on what people get up to and I'm more interested in the science of it.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Somehow I respect the selfish "not my problem buddy, I'll be long gone" types more than the weird double thinky preachers.

"Behold, I make scary numbers appear and disappear to suit my argument!!"
Wow, they do look scary, what should we do about it?
"poooof, the scary numbers are gone, you shouldn't do anything to radical or immediate, it will all be fine"
Phew, you had me worried
"mwuhahaha why are you looking so relieved - ALAKAZAM and the scary numbers are back woooooooo it's going to be catastrophic"
Ah here, seriously what should we do?
"lightbulbs! Diesel SUVs! await further instruction closer to massive famines/plagues/migrations/floods/slightly uncomfortable summers woooo"

I...don't follow any of that. What?

Austria! · 25-11-2016 5:36pm

ardinn wrote: »

Can you all take 5 minutes to shut up and watch this - this history of climate change on our planet.

For those who say "joe rogan - a stoner - wow great sauce etc" randall carlson is possibly world leading in this field - start at 15 minutes and watch for the bombshell at 20mins in - then come back.

Even better watch the whole 3 hrs and the other podcast (501) with randall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ

What field is that exactly?

"“Randall Carlson is a master builder, architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, explorer, and renegade scholar. For over forty years, he’s researched the interface between ancient mysteries and modern science."

Renegade scholar? You're out of line scholar, turn in your microscope. And the other one. Your Mass Spec privileges are revoked.

Grayson · 25-11-2016 5:39pm

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Now, if you live in Australia, around the Sahel, or in midregions Europe, you're in for a rougher time. Heatwaves are becoming more commonplace and they kill. The 2005 heatwave killed something at least 35,000 people, and estimates have revised that up to closer to 70,000 due to lingering effects. And that's just from the heat. What do you reckon that sort of thing in the growing season will do to crops and food supplies?

The middle of Europe is fecked. It gets all its water from glaciers in the Alps. Once they go rivers and lakes will dry up.

daheff · 25-11-2016 5:48pm

Firstly before I go any further I have to state that I do not think humans should be polluting the earth with all the hydrocarbons/methane/cfcs etc that we are.

But I'm not convinced about the (magnitude of) human influence on the global warming debate (or climate change as its now been renamed).

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Climate change, yet they always said things like this is hottest day since 1908 . So it was hotter back then eh ??????

Grayson wrote: »

This time they're saying hottest ever recorded. As they have been for the last year. If you want to find an example that's similar to this year you'd have to go back before humanity. To find a time when there's this much carbon dioxide in the air you'd have to go back millions of years.

Part of the problem is that we only have temperature records back to the late 1800s.

What was the average temperature of the Earth back when there were Dinosaurs roaming the lands? They were cold blooded reptiles (for the most part)....and if my zoology is any good cold blooded reptiles need hot sunshine to function. So by this example the temperature of the Earth was warmer than now in the past. But we also know that it was colder too (Ice ages & glacial lakes/valleys etc), so we can see it was also colder.

Maybe its a natural cycle that we are part of and haven't been around long enough to understand the length of the cycle yet?

Wibbs wrote: »

Or it could very easily go the other way. Fresh melt water pumping into the north atlantic drift that currently(ouch) keeps our weather extremely mild could shut off. Check out our latitude and compare us to places along a similar latitude. Warmer wetter summers and bitterly frigid winters would likely be in our future if that current slows or shuts down.

And maybe this is the Earths way or reregulating itself...more ice over the atlantic in winter would lead to suns rays being reflected off the surface of the earth and a slow down of global warming?

ardinn wrote: »

At one point during the last ice age where icewas 2 miles high over greenland - irelands shore on the west was 400 miles further out than at present - that was only 12,500 years ago! think about that for a second - 400 miles!!!

and where is this ice now? Stands to reason that the Earth has 'warmed' since then...and that can't be man-made...there weren't enough of us back then burning oil (or any).

Now personally, i think 10s of thousands of years ago comet strikes & large volcanic erruptions caused huge clouds to go into the atmosphere which reflected away the sun's rays -which led to cooling of the Earth. Not been so many large comet strikes lately...nor too many large volcanic erruptions (apart from that one in Iceland...and Krakatoa in late 1880s - both proven to have reduced the global temperature for a while).

Maybe the Earth is now moving back to where its natural temperature should be??

Austria! · 25-11-2016 6:03pm

daheff wrote: »

But I'm not convinced about the (magnitude of) human influence on the global warming debate (or climate change as its now been renamed).

Well fine, but you're disagreeing with all the experts, and clearly haven't even given the issue much thought.

"Hey maybe there's a natural cycle and we don't understand it."

That's a very interesting idea you just had. I wonder if any of the 1000s of scientists who work on the climate (and they are convinced about the magnitude of human influence btw) have ever had that idea and then found out anything about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Oh hey, turns out yes.

Wibbs · 25-11-2016 6:05pm

daheff wrote: »

Part of the problem is that we only have temperature records back to the late 1800s.

Not quite. We can see temperature and carbon dioxide levels going way back. For example with ice cores. Even art can tell us a lot, EG the paintings of the "little ice age" in Europe. The archaeological and paleontological record also shows us good indicators of average temperatures when we look at the flora and fauna of times past.

What was the average temperature of the Earth back when there were Dinosaurs roaming the lands? They were cold blooded reptiles (for the most part)....

Warmer on average and with higher oxygen levels(and most weren't "cold blooded".

Maybe its a natural cycle that we are part of and haven't been around long enough to understand the length of the cycle yet?

Nope again. We can look at the long natural cycles and see we have had an effect. For a start it looks like we influenced the ice ages cycle as we should be in one now if the previous cycles are anything to go by.

And maybe this is the Earths way or reregulating itself...more ice over the atlantic in winter would lead to suns rays being reflected off the surface of the earth and a slow down of global warming?

Eh…nope. The ice melts and releases huge quantities of fresh water into the oceans. This is not good. Never mind less ice reflecting less solar radiation back into space.

Stands to reason that the Earth has 'warmed' since then...and that can't be man-made...there weren't enough of us back then burning oil (or any).

It seems it was "man made" or enough to head off another cooling period and extend the interglacial. Burning oil not required. Europe was covered in forest from the arctic circle to the Mediterranean. Where do you think that all went? Answer we cleared it and burnt it in huge quantities since the neolithic(late stone age). When you see those story of Jesus films around Easter on the telly and they show him preaching the epistles to the apostles in dry arid near desert? When he was actually around it was far more covered in trees and shrubs. Go to Greece, especially some of the islands and you'll see large expanses of ancient terraces that once grew food, now barren and rocky. One of the biggest reasons the Romans kept expanding their empire was in the search for more timber for the empire. Their scholars wrote countless reports and books on the subject. They were increasingly running out of their own supply. The famous "cedars of Lebanon"? Only a small handful left. Humans have left a huge impact on the landscape and have been doing so for many thousands of years.

Special Circumstances · 25-11-2016 6:15pm

HellSquirrel wrote: »

I...don't follow any of that. What?

Ah, feigned incomprehension. Avoid the awkward bits. You relied to my earlier account of the last time I asked why the fck aren't we doing anything significant if we are on track for 6degrees in 80years time. You saw that I was met with vague vague answers on what will happen and what we should do.

I'm saying if it's so serious, why aren't we treating it seriously? It's either serious and we should do something, or its not and we can kick the can down the road.

Instead what we seem to have is high priests who like preaching to everyone out of a sense of self righteousness rather than any practical call to action.

It seems certain people want there to be """""climate deniers"""""" so that they can feel better about themselves without actually having to forego any comforts or conveniences.

Predicting temperature X for year Y is the difficult part to get right, the consequences should be much less vague than people on here make out- is it going to be catastrophic on global terms or not???? Will it make the current influx of refugees to Europe look like a trickle? Where will we put all these people? How will we feed them?

Dr Crayfish · 25-11-2016 6:19pm

No one is willing to give up anything or live with less stuff, so it's a pointless conversation at this stage. How can a politician get voted in if he promises that we'll need to buy less things or bring in population control?
We will keep going until all hell breaks loose and then try and plaster over the cracks, but eventually I believe this will lead to probably billions of lives being lost through war and starvation, and society taking many steps backwards until we learn to live in a new environment, and then doing it all over again until the planet is f*cked yet again.

gctest50 · 25-11-2016 6:32pm

daheff wrote: »

..........

And maybe this is the Earths way or reregulating itself...more ice over the atlantic in winter would lead to suns rays being reflected off the surface of the earth and a slow down of global warming?

.......

It's iffier than that afaik, the water up there is a halocline - water comes in the Bering strait and the rivers up there
and covers the warmer saltier water coming up from the Atlantic - like a cocktail made of layers of colouredy drinks - this keeps the deep warmer water away from the ice

proper screwed if all that goes wrong

.

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 6:34pm

There are a few misconceptions there though.

daheff wrote: »

Part of the problem is that we only have temperature records back to the late 1800s.

Not quite true; we have regular written records going back to the late 1700s (obviously the further back you go, the more hit and miss they are). We have further chronicaled records going back to the 1100s and before (mostly monks and diarists).

However, that's only a small part of it. And a human in 1690 can only address what he sees in front of him. We also have dendrochronology, which goes back many hundreds of years and in some places, even a thousand or more. We have palynology (the study of pollens), and smart sods can work out growing seasons from that (I never understood palynology that well). Ice-coring is important because as the water freezes, it locks in particles of the atmosphere. From that, it can be ascertained how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. There's a continuous ice core record from Antarctica going back some 800,000 years. And at a much broader scale, there's the geological temperature record which goes back millions of years. So the temperature record (which is just one part of the data available) is a lot more extensive than a couple hundred years!

What was the average temperature of the Earth back when there were Dinosaurs roaming the lands? They were cold blooded reptiles (for the most part)....and if my zoology is any good cold blooded reptiles need hot sunshine to function. So by this example the temperature of the Earth was warmer than now in the past. But we also know that it was colder too (Ice ages & glacial lakes/valleys etc), so we can see it was also colder.

Maybe its a natural cycle that we are part of and haven't been around long enough to understand the length of the cycle yet?

and where is this ice now? Stands to reason that the Earth has 'warmed' since then...and that can't be man-made...there weren't enough of us back then burning oil (or any).

Absolutely, regarding both the heat of the earth during the Cretaceous period (the peak and endpoint of the dinosaur dominant period) and previous ice ages. At a very large scale, the earth's climate is cyclical in nature. It's affected by several things, including planetary movement (how tilted on its axis it is, which results in some latitudes getting consistently more energy from the sun and some less), whether the point in its elliptical orbit around the Sun is closer to or further away from it, and its eccentricity (how circular is its orbit at the moment) all contribute to whether the earth is having a cold period or a warm one.

Currently, we're in an interglacial period. The last ice age ended 20,000 years ago. Eventually, the planet will enter another ice age, whether humans existed or not. However, all the signals from every known influence on these cycles indicate that we should be very slowly cooling from an averagely warm interglacial.

Instead, we appear to be driving multiple causal factors of warming unnaturally high over a very short time. These factors have their own feedback loops and if they hit a tipping point, can self-perpetuate.

And maybe this is the Earths way or reregulating itself...more ice over the atlantic in winter would lead to suns rays being reflected off the surface of the earth and a slow down of global warming?

It is, yeah. Some of them are negative feedback loops. And that some effects have a counterbalance on some others makes the pattern more complicated.

Now personally, i think 10s of thousands of years ago comet strikes & large volcanic erruptions caused huge clouds to go into the atmosphere which reflected away the sun's rays -which led to cooling of the Earth. Not been so many large comet strikes lately...nor too many large volcanic erruptions (apart from that one in Iceland...and Krakatoa in late 1880s - both proven to have reduced the global temperature for a while).

Maybe the Earth is now moving back to where its natural temperature should be??

Yes, that has been a forcing factor in glacial/interglacial periods before; it's strongly influenced by Milankovitch cycles, but they're by no means the only forcing mechanism. And bear in mind that the last ice age was by no means the first one; it's unlikely that the earth would have such a pattern of bombardment, the more likely reason is that there can be a number of causes.

In -this- case, the cause isn't a massive bombardment, or chronic sunspots or high eccentricity; the cause is the massive imbalance we as a species have caused, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, although on a smaller scale before that. Humans have artificially released an incredible amount of carbon in a period so short that the earth's natural balancing mechanisms couldn't cope with it. Instead of that carbon being kept out of the atmosphere, it's been added to it, and that has consequences in terms of the earth's climate.

Just because it happens normally over thousands of years doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about us doing it. This planet's pretty good to us as it is, it's a "goldilocks" planet. Fcuking around with that is ridiculously dangerous and right now, we're starting to see the consequences.

Sam Kade · 25-11-2016 6:37pm

Grayson wrote: »

It's nuts. A 20 degree increase. 20 fcuking degrees.

It's more bullsh1t than nuts.

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 6:54pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ah, feigned incomprehension. Avoid the awkward bits. You relied to my earlier account of the last time I asked why the fck aren't we doing anything significant if we are on track for 6degrees in 80years time. You saw that I was met with vague vague answers on what will happen and what we should do.

I'm saying if it's so serious, why aren't we treating it seriously? It's either serious and we should do something, or its not and we can kick the can down the road.

Ah, no, that was actually honest incomprehension. I didn't follow what you said. As for the rest, yeah, good questions. Why the hell aren't we doing something about it, when island nations are already having to evacuate because soon their country won't exist, or when heatwaves kill thousands across Europe and the US (and various other places, but given we're not reacting when it's at home..) Why the unholy hells are people in positions of power downright -lying- about this? How do these people get to smear scientists because they don't like what they're saying when a really unsurprising amount of them are heavily linked to the fossil fuel industries? What's this obsession with eternal economic growth at the cost of many of us being able to live on this planet? And the answer is fcuked if I know.

SEPT 23 1989 · 25-11-2016 6:58pm

I think Ireland will do very well out of this

Dr Crayfish · 25-11-2016 7:00pm

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Ah, no, that was actually honest incomprehension. I didn't follow what you said. As for the rest, yeah, good questions. Why the hell aren't we doing something about it, when island nations are already having to evacuate because soon their country won't exist, or when heatwaves kill thousands across Europe and the US (and various other places, but given we're not reacting when it's at home..) Why the unholy hells are people in positions of power downright -lying- about this? How do these people get to smear scientists because they don't like what they're saying when a really unsurprising amount of them are heavily linked to the fossil fuel industries? What's this obsession with eternal economic growth at the cost of many of us being able to live on this planet? And the answer is fcuked if I know.

How can they do anything? If the government said we've to use less oil or electricity or purchase less junk, the people would go nuts. As I said in my earlier post, how can a politician be popular if his policies are for us to have less stuff? Some kind of totalitarian state is required to get real results unfortunately which will probably happen as soon as people are starving.

LordSutch · 25-11-2016 7:13pm

Grayson wrote: »

So the arctic is 20 degrees higher than it should be for this time of year and we have republicans who don't believe in climate change going into government in the US. I wonder if this will change their minds? Probably not.....

Thing is I might also be called a climate change denier (even though I believe in climate change).

Let me explain.

Many people believe in climate change as pert of the natural cycle of the planet, yet these people are called "climate change deiniers" because they don't buy into the 100% 'man made' mantra. Personally speaking I dont believe that man is 100% responsible for this current global warming, because like many others, I believe that the current warming of the globe is a natural occurance as part of a natural cycle of planet Earth & the Sun 'enhanced' & speeded up by man made pollution. < Apparently this opnion makes me a climate change denier too.

K-9 · 25-11-2016 7:19pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I think Ireland will do very well out of this

Won't cost us a cent.

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 7:20pm

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

How can they do anything? If the government said we've to use less oil or electricity or purchase less junk, the people would go nuts. As I said in my earlier post, how can a politician be popular if his policies are for us to have less stuff? Some kind of totalitarian state is required to get real results unfortunately which will probably happen as soon as people are starving.

Honestly? Lie their socks off, which they have been doing for a solid thirty years. Like evolution, they tried to teach a controversy that just didn't damn well exist. With evolution, they pretty much failed, but at least that was just nonsense and not dangerous. They succeeded with climate change, because changing how we live on this planet is expensive and difficult. There was a lot more vested interest economically and politically in preventing a forceful push for alternative energy that didn't pump carbon into the atmosphere to the point of a chain reaction. Similarly tobacco big businesses kept the lie that smoking didn't cause cancer going for years after medical science proved it.

Dr Crayfish · 25-11-2016 7:22pm

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Honestly? Lie their socks off, which they have been doing for a solid thirty years. Like evolution, they tried to teach a controversy that just didn't damn well exist. With evolution, they pretty much failed, but at least that was just nonsense and not dangerous. They succeeded with climate change, because changing how we live on this planet is expensive and difficult. There was a lot more vested interest economically and politically in preventing a forceful push for alternative energy that didn't pump carbon into the atmosphere to the point of a chain reaction. Similarly tobacco big businesses kept the lie that smoking didn't cause cancer going for years after medical science proved it.

Wait what? You don't believe in evolution or am I picking you up wrong here?
What should the Government lie about to fix our planet??

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 7:26pm

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Wait what? You don't believe in evolution or am I picking you up wrong here?
What should the Government lie about to fix our planet??

No, didn't you ask how anyone could convince people not to do anything about it if it's so bad? And they have lied about it or else deliberately closed themselves off from the evidence and allowed lies and misinformation to spread. The government has to stop fcuking about with politicizing the climate change crisis and do something about it.

gctest50 · 25-11-2016 7:28pm

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Instead, we appear to be driving multiple causal factors of warming unnaturally high over a very short time. These factors have their own feedback loops and if they hit a tipping point, can self-perpetuate.

....................

Jakobshavn glacier got a bit bored in 2001 and decided to head off on it's holidays :

Between 1850 and 1964 the ice front retreated at a steady rate of about 0.3 km/yr, after which it occupied approximately the same location until 2001, receding 10km in three years.

10 meg image : http://go.nasa.gov/2goYOmr

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3806

Dr Crayfish · 25-11-2016 7:33pm

HellSquirrel wrote: »

No, didn't you ask how anyone could convince people not to do anything about it if it's so bad? And they have lied about it or else deliberately closed themselves off from the evidence and allowed lies and misinformation to spread. The government has to stop fcuking about with politicizing the climate change crisis and do something about it.

I said they can't do anything about it because the people just wouldn't have it. The only way we can help the planet is by consuming less stuff. That's the total opposite of how society works now, it's all about consumption.

Austria! · 25-11-2016 7:36pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Thing is I might also be called a climate change denier (even though I believe in climate change).

Let me explain.

Many people believe in climate change as pert of the natural cycle of the planet, yet these people are called "climate change deiniers" because they don't buy into the 100% 'man made' mantra. Personally speaking I dont believe that man is 100% responsible for this current global warming, because like many others, I believe that the current warming of the globe is a natural occurance as part of a natural cycle of planet Earth & the Sun 'enhanced' & speeded up by man made pollution. < Apparently this opnion makes me a climate change denier too.

Based on what? What scientific articles have you read saying that? What respected scientific bodies have published guides to global warming saying that?
Do you believe that's what's happening based on anything stronger than, sure why not?

You don't have to guess this stuff. There are 1000s of really smart people who's only job is to know these kind of things. Any disagreement with them by someone who isn't also an expert is hubris.

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 7:44pm

Well, no, he's right. Just he's not the only right. He's saying that there are causal factors to glacial/interglacial swings. The experts are pointing out that what we've been up to is one of them and it's working.

Permabear · 25-11-2016 7:44pm

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch · 25-11-2016 7:46pm

Austria! wrote: »

Based on what? What scientific articles have you read saying that? What respected scientific bodies have published guides to global warming saying that?
Do you believe that's what's happening based on anything stronger than, sure why not?

You don't have to guess this stuff. There are 1000s of really smart people who's only job is to know these kind of things. Any disagreement with them by someone who isn't also an expert is hubris.

You are totally missing my point.

Yes of course I agree with climate change/global warming, but what I am pointing out is that man is only partially responsible, while the rest is down to non man made factors, like the natural cycle of the planet.

Question 4u: Does the scientific community specify that man is 100% responsible for climate change?

SEPT 23 1989 · 25-11-2016 7:50pm

What Trump is saying is that why should the US be hamstrung with climate change regulations and taxes while China is banging out coal powered stations to beat the band

Austria! · 25-11-2016 7:52pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Question 4u: Does the scientific community spsecift that man is 100% responsible for climate change?

I don't know, and because of that I won't just guess. A complete guess is all you have to back up your claim that some of the warming is natural, right?

K-9 · 25-11-2016 7:53pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its a funny one, when I brought up the point that oil prices had dramatically dropped from 08 levels, it had nothing to do with Obama apparently!

It's the political pressures. Many involved in the oil industry are suffering because of those low prices while greener industries are booming.

HellSquirrel · 25-11-2016 7:53pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It goes to show the power of the industry and the vested interests of many politicians, in the case of the US, especially the Republicans, to keep levying to their own advantage. Maybe Obama should have fought it harder, maybe he did his best and failed, maybe in the short term he had to prioritise and hope later wasn't too late, dunno.

But this controversy is insane, it really is. It -has- been cynically manufactured and it is causing actual damage. I realise if you're still looking for lies this sounds a bit hysterical, but it is ugly enough to see the signs I studied in theory actually forming. It's a lot uglier to understand even the partial effect of the projected physical consequences. Some will be unpredictable. Others have already started to trend.

ardinn · 25-11-2016 8:20pm

Austria! wrote: »

What field is that exactly?

"“Randall Carlson is a master builder, architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, explorer, and renegade scholar. For over forty years, he’s researched the interface between ancient mysteries and modern science."

Renegade scholar? You're out of line scholar, turn in your microscope. And the other one. Your Mass Spec privileges are revoked.

You didnt watch is what your trying to say then yeah?

ardinn · 25-11-2016 8:22pm

Austria! wrote: »

Based on what? What scientific articles have you read saying that? What respected scientific bodies have published guides to global warming saying that?
Do you believe that's what's happening based on anything stronger than, sure why not?

You don't have to guess this stuff. There are 1000s of really smart people who's only job is to know these kind of things. Any disagreement with them by someone who isn't also an expert is hubris.

I posted a video on page 1 or 2 that gives you the exact science - but pick and choose your sauce accordingly there einstein!

Earthhorse · 25-11-2016 9:25pm

Obama happened to preside over the US during a time when fracking enabled the domestic industry to rapidly expand its production. Maybe he should have sought to curb that harder, I don't know, but it's not like the president is some omnipotent being who can halt all progress.

The important thing about the US position is they can act a s a leader on climate change. The Paris accord isn't enough but at least it's something to build on and Trump is already talking about ignoring it. The Republicans will almost certainly be worse on climate change too. To get some idea of how intractable they are read the following:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-01/jay-faison-s-expensive-maddening-quest-to-save-the-planet-and-the-gop

Of course climate change isn't a US only issue but they are hugely important in reversing or stalling the trend. China may well take over as the leader in this regard as it is not a political issue there, at least in part because the pollution problem they're facing acts as an everyday reminder so the issue seems less abstract to them.

RayCon · 26-11-2016 12:33am

Consumption (Consumerism - capitalism - the markets - economies) are in direct competition with conservation .... you can't have both and unfortunately no one wants to do without their "sh!t" .... lets consume ourselves to extinction.

Martin Luther King, Jr. 1967

we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Austria! · 26-11-2016 12:03pm

ardinn wrote: »

I posted a video on page 1 or 2 that gives you the exact science - but pick and choose your sauce accordingly there einstein!

ardinn wrote: »

You didnt watch is what your trying to say then yeah?

The guy on the video is not a scientist and not accurately reporting the scientific consensus.

He's a genuine crackpot. It's not even well disguised.

ardinn · 26-11-2016 5:13pm

Austria! wrote: »

The guy on the video is not a scientist and not accurately reporting the scientific consensus.

He's a genuine crackpot. It's not even well disguised.

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?

Which part of the specific 5 minutes I recommended is incorrect - or any of the 3 hrs where he explains everything you need to know on the matter.

It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work - Thats the main issue with this and other subjects such as the dating of the sphinx and lost civilizations in eygpt 12,500 years ago - which is funny because it is precisely related.

Thats whats happening with you - you were told something for years and you believed it - evidence now proves otherwise, yet you still believe it - because its all you know!

HellSquirrel · 26-11-2016 6:10pm

ardinn wrote: »

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?

Which part of the specific 5 minutes I recommended is incorrect - or any of the 3 hrs where he explains everything you need to know on the matter.

It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work - Thats the main issue with this and other subjects such as the dating of the sphinx and lost civilizations in eygpt 12,500 years ago - which is funny because it is precisely related.

Thats whats happening with you - you were told something for years and you believed it - evidence now proves otherwise, yet you still believe it - because its all you know!

Look at it from the other side, what makes you so certain that this one chap with his explanations are so much more convincing than the evidence that the status quo has been built on? Where did the sq go wrong? What points is he correct on and why? Why does it invalidate what other scientists see evidence pointing towards.

Etc.

I mean, you can just go on accusing people of not reading your links because something something sheeple, but maybe you need to critically assess your own links too.

ardinn · 26-11-2016 6:23pm

I follow him and a number of other "crackpots" some of whom have changed their views on matters, and a lot of geological and archeological scientists who tie in with these views on climate change. To me they make the most sense - So I am saying they are right - the same way you and yours are parroting the same stuff you have been hearing for years - we are both probably wrong - I just prefer the new twist - it seems more plausible!

Austria! · 26-11-2016 8:10pm

ardinn wrote: »

Nope - he isnt - but go on explain how he is wrong?

Which part of the specific 5 minutes I recommended is incorrect - or any of the 3 hrs where he explains everything you need to know on the matter.

It is very hard to get scientists who have studied and taught for 30 - 60 years in one particular pattern to change their beliefs or accept contrary evidence as it would invalidate their whole lives work - Thats the main issue with this and other subjects such as the dating of the sphinx and lost civilizations in eygpt 12,500 years ago - which is funny because it is precisely related.

Thats whats happening with you - you were told something for years and you believed it - evidence now proves otherwise, yet you still believe it - because its all you know!

Do you think it's only climate science and dating objects where scientists can't change their beliefs or is it all of science in your opinion? And if you don't trust scientists on issues who can you possibly trust? Non-scientists? Is that what you're saying?

Incidentally he's pretty much wrong from the part of the video you recommended onwards. He's talking about the temp fluctuations in one ice core as if they're the global temperature. Obviously the fluctuations of 2-4 degrees every 10 20 30 years (17.30 in your video), aren't what is happening globally (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#Tree_rings_and_ice_cores_.28from_1.2C000-2.2C000_years_before_present.29 ), so when he talks about how the modern temp change of 1 degree in the last century is small he's comparing apples to oranges.

25 minutes in talking about the 97& consensus. "Basically it goes to 3 or 4 pieces of research, some surveys that were sent out that were slanted right form the beginning."

Here's a simple link explaining the consensus.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Do you think he accurately describes the consensus when he talks about it at 25 minutes in?

And come on, listen to his description of himself
"master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar."

That is guaranteed crackpot territory.

SEPT 23 1989 · 26-11-2016 8:12pm

How is the antarctic doing?

Discodog · 26-11-2016 8:31pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I think Ireland will do very well out of this

Look at where we are compared to Canada. We should have their climate but we don't thanks to the Gulf Stream. There is evidence to suggest that an Arctic melt could slow or stop it & then we have months of snow every year.

ardinn · 26-11-2016 9:00pm

Austria! wrote: »

Do you think it's only climate science and dating objects where scientists can't change their beliefs or is it all of science in your opinion? And if you don't trust scientists on issues who can you possibly trust? Non-scientists? Is that what you're saying?

No - Where did i say the cant? They just tend to stick with the standard order. Changing habits is the most dificult thing to do!

Austria! wrote: »

Incidentally he's pretty much wrong from the part of the video you recommended onwards. He's talking about the temp fluctuations in one ice core as if they're the global temperature. Obviously the fluctuations of 2-4 degrees every 10 20 30 years (17.30 in your video), aren't what is happening globally (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#Tree_rings_and_ice_cores_.28from_1.2C000-2.2C000_years_before_present.29 ), so when he talks about how the modern temp change of 1 degree in the last century is small he's comparing apples to oranges.

1 ice core?? you serious?

Austria! wrote: »

25 minutes in talking about the 97& consensus. "Basically it goes to 3 or 4 pieces of research, some surveys that were sent out that were slanted right form the beginning."

Austria! wrote: »

Here's a simple link explaining the consensus.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

See my first point - consensus - from scientists brought up with old teaching models

Austria! wrote: »

Do you think he accurately describes the consensus when he talks about it at 25 minutes in?

Do you whole heartedly believe then general consensus to be totally true and that my point on aging research and the lack of interest in accepting new studies not to have an effect here?

Austria! wrote: »

And come on, listen to his description of himself
"master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar."

Thats not his description of himself!

Austria! wrote: »

That is guaranteed crackpot territory.

Graham hancock explains the way people dismiss new evidence and call people psuedo scientists and crackpots etc very well on Joe rogan in one of his podcasts - he is slowly prooving them all wrong tho. so if you dont want to even consider that that consensus is old and biased and there may be a fresh outlook on things then thats grand - I dont really care.

The problem is with the consensus, if scientist go against the grain, they get ostracized, lose funding, lose work, livlihoods - going against the grain and challenging what is in every case multi billion dollar industries isnt very easy - most people just keep going, stay quiet and get paid.

V_Moth · 26-11-2016 9:54pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How is the antarctic doing?

Lowest ever ice extent:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

If anyone doubts the 20 Degrees C claim, here is the on of the best temperature anomaly visualisations:

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/#T2_anom

The Arctic has been cooling slightly in the last few days so the temperature anomaly is down to only 5-10 Degrees C. The temperature anomaly has been in that latter range for the last few months so the Guardian article isn't reporting anything new. The only thing new was the sudden melting of around 70,000 square km's of ice last week.

Just for fun, a thought experiment on a scenario of achieving 10 Degree C global warming in a decade:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/2016/07/a-global-temperature-rise-of-more-than-ten-degrees-celsius-by-2026.html

V_Moth · 26-11-2016 10:06pm

Randall Munroe did a good illustration of temperature changes in the last 22,000 years:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

It's getting hot in here....

Comments