Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
08-08-2011, 17:48   #1
Macha
Moderator
 
Macha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,306
Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

The issue of climate change and how much humans are contributing is a subject that comes up frequently in this forum. The debate can take over other threads and so we are creating this megathread for all debate on the science of climate change. Discussion of the scientific consensus on climate change outside of this thread is not permitted and all other threads started for this purpose will be locked.

The current scientific consensus (as per the IPCC):

Quote:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
While the details of climate change science beyond this consensus are debatable, please keep this debate within this megathread or make use of the Environmental Science forum.

Last edited by Macha; 16-08-2011 at 13:55.
Macha is offline  
(5) thanks from:
Advertisement
08-08-2011, 19:12   #2
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 48,802
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Well thats the first point that always stuck out at me that seems to have since been rectified: When this issue came into the mainstream it was "Global Warming", and there were alarmists out there telling us about our Waterworld future and all this hyperbole. The science is still being substantiated and now it's called "Global Climate Change".

But of course! Reminds me of Sean Hannity over on FOX. That complete tardmuppet:



Of course in my observation we've been having record-high summers and record-low winters. See Snowmageddon; and this infograph showing the number of heat records shattered across the United States in July: http://gizmodo.com/5828421/july-brok...ry/1?preview=0
Overheal is offline  
09-08-2011, 17:32   #3
BryanF
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,288
great link
It does raise the issue of terminology, that's often mistaking posted in S&EI forum

Last edited by BryanF; 09-08-2011 at 17:34.
BryanF is offline  
31-08-2011, 00:17   #4
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 397
Very interesting video, a bit scary to be honest. But Rifkin has some good solutions, if only us humans could get our act together and see the big picture.


fizzycyst is offline  
02-09-2011, 23:43   #5
Ulysses1874
Registered User
 
Ulysses1874's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,777
Bit of a setback for the climate change sceptics

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574


It's not that big a story in its own right. The significant part is that the paper that delighted climate change sceptics by declaring that the IPCC's projections of temperature rise were too high has now been pretty much completely discredited.
Ulysses1874 is offline  
Advertisement
27-10-2011, 16:13   #6
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,279
Good news Ireland is fourth lowest risk country in World from climate change according to this anyway?

A new global ranking, calculating the vulnerability of 170 countries to the impacts of climate change over the next 30 years, identifies some of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, including India, as facing the greatest risks to their populations, ecosystems and business environments.
The new Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), released by global risks advisory firm Maplecroft, enables organisations to identify areas of risk within their operations, supply chains and investments. It evaluates 42 social, economic and environmental factors to assess national vulnerabilities across three core areas. These include: exposure to climate-related natural disasters and sea-level rise; human sensitivity, in terms of population patterns, development, natural resources, agricultural dependency and conflicts; thirdly, the index assesses future vulnerability by considering the adaptive capacity of a country’s government and infrastructure to combat climate change.
The index rates 16 countries as ‘extreme risk,’ including nations that represent new Asian economic power and possess significant forecasted growth. Bangladesh (1), India (2), Philippines (6), Vietnam (13) and Pakistan (16) all feature in the highest risk category and are of particular importance as they are major contributors to the ongoing global economic recovery and are vital to the future expansion of Western businesses in particular.
“These countries are attracting high levels of foreign investment from many multinational organisations,” said Principal Environmental Analyst at Maplecroft, Dr Matthew Bunce. “However, over the next 30 years their vulnerability to climate change will rise due to increases in air temperature, precipitation and humidity. This means organisations with operations or assets in these countries will become more exposed to associated risks, such as climate-related natural disasters, resource security and conflict. Understanding climate vulnerability will help companies make their investments more resilient to unexpected change.”
Other countries featuring in the ‘extreme risk’ category include: Madagascar (3), Nepal (4), Mozambique (5), Haiti (7), Afghanistan (8), Zimbabwe (9), Myanmar (10), Ethiopia (11), Cambodia (12), Thailand (14) and Malawi (15). According to Maplecroft, the countries with the most risk are characterised by high levels of poverty, dense populations, exposure to climate-related events; and their reliance on flood and drought prone agricultural land. Africa features strongly in this group, with the continent home to 12 out of the 25 countries most at risk.
------snip---
There are 11 countries considered ‘low risk’ in the index, with Norway (170), Finland (169), Iceland (168), Ireland (167), Sweden (166) and Denmark (165) performing the best. However, Russia (117), USA (129), Germany (131), France (133) and the UK (138) are all rated as ‘medium risk’ countries, whilst China (49), Brazil (81) and Japan (86) feature in the ‘high risk’ category.



http://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html
Cork boy 55 is offline  
22-11-2011, 17:52   #7
Turtwig
Censoring your opinion since you posted
 
Turtwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 24,613
Climategate 2.0

Here we go again. I realise there is a thread for Climate Change discussion so if the mods wanna move this they can but something tells me another full blown thread is on the line with these delicious quote mines.

Quote:
/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
Was that a big enough quote wall?
Turtwig is offline  
23-11-2011, 09:27   #8
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malty_T View Post
I just saw this on the BBC website - doesn't seem to be much to it, but I'm sure we'll see some creative interpretations all the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malty_T View Post
I realise there is a thread for Climate Change discussion so if the mods wanna move this they can but something tells me another full blown thread is on the line with these delicious quote mines.
We had a thread on the original "Climategate", but it's probably ran it's course by now. We'll leave this discussion here for the time being.
djpbarry is offline  
03-12-2011, 09:30   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malty_T View Post
Here we go again. I realise there is a thread for Climate Change discussion so if the mods wanna move this they can but something tells me another full blown thread is on the line with these delicious quote mines.



Was that a big enough quote wall?
It's interesting that no one has bothered to get into this, in the way that previously it would have generated a lot of debate. I suppose the evidence produced is so clear, that many here don't need further discussion.
easychair is offline  
Advertisement
03-12-2011, 13:32   #10
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by easychair View Post
I suppose the evidence produced is so clear...
Evidence of what exactly?
djpbarry is offline  
03-12-2011, 14:00   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Evidence of what exactly?
Thats up to each of us to decide for ourselves, I assume.
easychair is offline  
06-12-2011, 18:42   #12
Macha
Moderator
 
Macha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by easychair View Post
Thats up to each of us to decide for ourselves, I assume.
[mod]Enough of this guff. Either debate in plain English without descending into relativism or don't post please.[/mod]
Macha is offline  
Thanks from:
26-02-2012, 09:28   #13
analyst2
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 31
It has always seemed to me that the subject of climate change/global warming should be taken seriously, and if in doubt we should err on the side of caution. It has become increasing obvious, however, that some or many scientists involved and leading the case for climate change/global warming are not always as scrupulous, or as honest, as they should be, and in some cases have been downright dishonest to skew the facts and evidence to make their case seem more than it was.

The first concerns were raised with the exposure of the “hockey stick” graph, a graph on which many scientists based their predictions, and which was, essentially, shown to be worthless and created out of a small amount of virtually meaningless data. Then the Climategate emails were exposed, which showed how data was manipulated, and how scientists, men who were supposed to be impartial and interested in finding the truth, stopped at nothing to discredit anyone who challenged what they called, in the emails, “the Cause”. Scientists look at evidence, and when scientists manipulate evidence and discredit those who have different evidence, alarm bells start to ring.

Perhaps the most worrying of all was that the IPCC, a body entrusted by the world to find the truth, was exposed as a body who manipulated data and whose reports had not been based on science, but often on scare stories dreamed up by environmental activists.

A further example of this was the scandal that emerged last week, with the release on the internet of various documents from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago think-tank long vilified by the scientists who were making claims based on bogus data, for organising conferences attended by hundreds of distinguished scientists from across the world who dared to be sceptical of the orthodoxy.

Global temperatures have failed to rise as the computer models, upon which the whole scientific claims were based, said they would. The whole climate change/global warming argument is looking more and more shaky, and even if they are eventually proved right, those scientists who have manipulated data and used bogus evidence should be ashamed of themselves for bringing the whole subject into near ridicule.

My hope is that we can learn the lesson to “believe” less and know more.
analyst2 is offline  
27-02-2012, 08:25   #14
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by analyst2 View Post
...those scientists who have manipulated data and used bogus evidence should be ashamed of themselves...
Name one such scientist.
djpbarry is offline  
27-02-2012, 13:05   #15
analyst2
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 31
Dr John Christysaid: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
analyst2 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet