to think climete change is a pile of bollocks?

(299 Posts)
moogy1a Thu 27-Dec-12 22:57:39

Summers in Britain to get colder and wetter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20758780

earlier this year," oh no, they're going to get hotter and drier"
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit.
If you start looking into reports, they are a huge mess of completely contradictory results.
I also like the way the term"global warming" has been quietly ditched in favour of climate change as it became increasingly obvious the world wasn't hotting up.

DoubleYew Thu 27-Dec-12 22:59:17

Rubbish. My mum is one of those scientists. Are you insulting my mum? ARE YOU?

kim147 Thu 27-Dec-12 23:00:22

The average global temperature is getting warmer.
This will have a lot of effects on the climate, ice, the gulf stream etc leading to more unpredictable weather.

Unpredictable being the word.

moogy1a Thu 27-Dec-12 23:01:03

Possibly. Is she one who's saying we're heating up or cooling down( or staying roughly the same?)

YABU to base any assumption that is based on scientific research on reports pulled from popular media outlets.

Also, global warming & climate change are not interchangeable terms.

Put simply for the cheap seats, it could go one of two ways.

1. We retain the Gulf Stream = warmer and wetter, sea levels rise

2. We lose the Gulf Stream and freeze to fucking death but the world overall gets warmer

Conclusion - we're fucked either way.

Hth

moogy1a Thu 27-Dec-12 23:03:52

lots of researchers now say the average global temp. isn't increasing; some say it's decreasing, some say it's about the same it's always been.
I think there's a huge bandwagon of funding/politics happened in the last 20 years or so that lots of people have jumped on with little concrete evidence .

moogy1a Thu 27-Dec-12 23:05:22

YABU to base any assumption that is based on scientific research on reports pulled from popular media outlets
they're reporting scintific conclusions, not doing the researcg themselves in the newspaper offices!

FestiveWench Thu 27-Dec-12 23:05:35

You do know that science and journalism are different things, right?

WorraLorraTurkey Thu 27-Dec-12 23:06:51

I have my own theory...based on fuck all but it's still my theory grin

I think everything goes full circle...weeks, months, seasons and extremes in climates.

The weather was probably like this thousands of years ago and now it's come full circle again.

Like I say...based on fuck all but there you go grin

Ifyoulike Thu 27-Dec-12 23:07:16

I'm no expert, but I do think its very difficult to get a sense of context, when as far as I can tell, the planet has been changing dramatically since day one.

Having read Bill Bryson's 'A Brief History of Everything', and a few visits to the Natural History museum (pretty much the extent of my climate knowledge), it seems to me like planet Earth is as climatically bipolar as it is possible to get... swinging from one extreme to the other at random, over random time periods, wiping out masses of species in the process just for kicks.

I don't know why anyone thinks the weather should be predictable!

moogy1a Thu 27-Dec-12 23:07:27

I worked in science research for many years. How it works is sciencey type people release statements to the press who print them.

tigerdriverII Thu 27-Dec-12 23:09:08

Well what is the evidence from the UK in the last, say, 3 years. It's wet and fucking freezing most of the time....

Tweasels Thu 27-Dec-12 23:10:59

Science though int it.

That's the point. People continually experiment/investigate and report back. It's ongoing, continual, therefore changing all the time.

Very often misrepresented in the media, thems the ones who cherry pick.

You cannot seriously dismiss climate change based on 2 media reports. I don't doubt there will be some political agenda at times but the research itself is not to blame it's how the findings are used.

jessjessjess Thu 27-Dec-12 23:12:07

I think you should ask the polar bears what they think of your "argument".

LineRunner Thu 27-Dec-12 23:12:12

OP, you know you wrote 'climete' in your thread heading? It doesn't look great tbh.

MerryLindor Thu 27-Dec-12 23:20:38

I don't know enough about this to make any pronouncements other than to say that most of the leading climate scientists agree that the climate is changing.

I'm reading Mary Robinson's book at the moment and she writes very convincingly about the issues facing our planet - and we are not talking of polar bears.

I think too many people read half arsed articles in the press and base their opinions on that, rather than taking the time to research an issue properly.

kim147 Thu 27-Dec-12 23:22:44

Interesting Today programme today - guest editor was the Head of the Royal Society. There was an interesting debate on the reporting of science in the media.

Good talk about the MMR vaccine - scientists who could not be definitive vs anxious mums. Who wins?

MerryLindor Thu 27-Dec-12 23:23:21

if you want to read up on this I found this helpful. Am working my way through it.

Pandemoniaa Thu 27-Dec-12 23:31:48

they're reporting scintific conclusions, not doing the researcg themselves in the newspaper offices!

Well no. Speaking as a former sub-editor, it is highly likely that a press release has been cut and pasted into however many column's worth it'll fit. Which can lead to interesting but not necessarily scientifically valid conclusions.

Also, YABU in not recognising the difference between weather and climate.

analogue Thu 27-Dec-12 23:35:39

The climate probably is changing just as it has always done. The Sahara was only created 4000 years ago and we're still apparantly in the last ice age. A couple of hundred years of burning coal is probably not the culprit this time round either!

TuftyFinch Thu 27-Dec-12 23:35:40

I don't think it's a 'load of blocks' (are you my dad?) but the world is constantly changing.
if it didn't change we wouldn't be here and dinosaurs would still be roaming about.
but.
it is changing and soon it will eat itself and US with it.
The poor old polar bears will either adapt. or die.
Once upon a time there were no polar bears. Soon there may be no polar bears again.
I don't think that's bollocks.
Some people dedicate their lives to working out how we can stop sucking it all up.
Unfortunately not enough people listen. Or care.

Meglet Thu 27-Dec-12 23:35:59

They said that if the Gulf Stream shifts then we'll get a wetter / colder climate didn't they. IMO it's already happened.

Ifyoulike Thu 27-Dec-12 23:36:33

Oh god <facepalm> , I just used weather and climate as interchangeable. Its horrible when you are the source of your own annoyance!

cutegorilla Thu 27-Dec-12 23:36:52

Yes of course, the press never mis-represent scientific findings. Nor do they report bad science as fact. Ever*.

* I might not be telling the truth

ShellyBoobs Thu 27-Dec-12 23:37:21

I'm with worra.

The climate will do what the fuck it wants, when the fuck it wants.

I'm also somewhat concerned how incredibly entwined politics and science have become with regards to CC.

It seems there's too much riding on environmental/carbon taxes for the goverment to back down now whatever any research might say.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange Thu 27-Dec-12 23:39:00

I like this graph. Most of those scientists can spell climate as well.

Ifyoulike Thu 27-Dec-12 23:39:49

On a more serious note, I genuinely believe that mankinds only hope for long-term survival is space-travel and colonisation of other planets... Earth really just is too volatile to 'put all our eggs in' if survival is the game.

NaturalBaby Thu 27-Dec-12 23:40:12

Well the earth is hardly going to stay exactly the same year in year out is it?
There is change, you can't deny that.

kim147 Thu 27-Dec-12 23:40:34

I find it fascinating to know that the ice cores record the temperature and CO2 concentration up to 400,000 years ago. From an ice core which is upto 100m deep.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

kim147 Thu 27-Dec-12 23:41:29

I feel the need to mention Gaia and James Lovelock now.

The world will adapt and carry on.

Will we be part of it?

LineRunner Thu 27-Dec-12 23:41:57

A lot of the energy efficiency measures being brought in by local government still make sense, though, because of the rapidly soaring cost of energy. Flood defences make sense, because there is more flooding of properties now.

Ifyoulike Thu 27-Dec-12 23:43:15

kim147 I reckon its up to us to fight for survival if we want it, because the planet is certainly not here just for us, or our amusement (and is probably about to shake us off like a bunch of troublesome fleas). grin

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Thu 27-Dec-12 23:44:09

Marking place for when I've not consumed home brew.

pictish Thu 27-Dec-12 23:46:27

shamelessly place marking

Ifyoulike Thu 27-Dec-12 23:47:02

I'm only posting because of the brew!!! grin

Fakebook Thu 27-Dec-12 23:48:07

Climate change doesn't specifically mean it's going to get just hotter or just wetter. It's a change in the behaviour of the climate. Flash floods, droughts, we had both this year. That is climate change. Yabvu and a bit naive.

CuttedUpPear Thu 27-Dec-12 23:49:45

YABU, you can't spell and you seem to have not stepped outside in the last three years.

cumfy Thu 27-Dec-12 23:55:33

Whilst it is incontrovertible that CO2 is warming the Earth, it is still a very open question what the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration is.

I think there is a very real likelihood we will reach peak oil in the next 30 years or so without having had any disastrous consequences from GW.

Then the shit will hit the fan.

kim147 Thu 27-Dec-12 23:57:20

Peak oil - interesting times ahead.

autumnlights12 Thu 27-Dec-12 23:57:49

YANBU. But the climate change industry is a massively funded industry, shitloads of money invested in proving that climate change is a recent man made phenomenon and not something which has been occurring naturally to this planet for millennia.

Dottiespots Fri 28-Dec-12 00:02:34

I have to agree with Worra. It all goes full circle and the planet will do whatever it wants and it will still be there when we are long gone. We are only tenants.

sooperdooper Fri 28-Dec-12 00:02:45

The climate has always changed over millions of years, and it'll continue to do so, Ive always failed to understand why people think that's so unexpected, although pollution etc is obviously an issue we can't control the planet or the weather as a whole, it's bigger and more powerful than humans are and I think maybe that's what people struggle to comprehend

sooperdooper Fri 28-Dec-12 00:04:36

To add, that's why the find fossils of seashells at the top of mountains for example, because sea levels have risen and fallen over millions of years with or without humans

LineRunner Fri 28-Dec-12 00:06:05

Erm...

Ifyoulike Fri 28-Dec-12 00:08:53

sooperdooper Amen!

Thats why I'm already starting work on my audition video, or would be if I could convince Dh !

Mars One project

peaceandlovebunny Fri 28-Dec-12 01:29:20

its killing you. and everyone else, unfortunately.

Alisvolatpropiis Fri 28-Dec-12 01:42:12

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

TenPercenter Fri 28-Dec-12 01:42:43

Whether the Earth is heating up or cooling down I think it's highly egotistical to think we are the sole factor controlling this. I'm sure the burning of fossil fuels on a large scale will have some kind of effect, but to think this is the only factor, and the earth as a whole will not have some kind of counter effect to this is madness.

It's patently obvious that the climate/weather will do what the fuck it wants and we don't understand it in the slightest.

I'm sure that our industrialised societies will have some kind of effect on the atmosphere, but no idea what kind of effect and to what degree.

Lets face it, the earth will survive, we won't, exactly when humans will die out is up for grabs. There is no way that people will voluntarily go back to the stone age, so I guess it will just play out.

Lueji Fri 28-Dec-12 01:51:54

Well, you know what they say.
There's lies, damned lies and weather predictions. grin

The weather is a chaotic system. It's very difficult to predict accurately, particularly past a couple of days.

And what Tenpercenter said.

misterwife Fri 28-Dec-12 06:54:44

Human civilisation is up a gumtree. Read 'The Upside of Down' by Thomas Homer-Dixon.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 08:57:56

Well 97% of climate scientists say that the earth is getting warmer due to our actions and we are sleepwalking into eventual disaster.
Over 90% of politicians on the far right say either it isn't or that it doesn't matter if the world does get warmer. I know which group I am more likely to believe.

Morloth Fri 28-Dec-12 09:02:35

Heres the thing, the planet is going to be OK.

When people talk about 'saving the planet' what they really mean is 'saving the planet for humans'. The planet doesn't give a fuck about humans, it is going to do it's thing and we are a part of it, so we can adapt or we can die.

That's the way it goes. I do not intend to lose any sleep whatsoever about it.

FloatyFlo Fri 28-Dec-12 09:09:48

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OpheliasWeepingWillow Fri 28-Dec-12 09:15:44

What's a climete?

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 09:22:28

What I find laughable is that the climate change deniers say the motivation they give to people who believe in AGW. Apparently it's because we want to see taxation increased. Yes of course we all want to see our taxes go up and are not really concerned about what is happening to the earth hmm.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Fri 28-Dec-12 09:36:08

Sorry, guys, those of you saying it doesn't matter because the climate changes naturally are v. v. wrong as well.

The climate changes naturally by a few degrees over millennia, not over a few decades like is happening now. It's totally different. I realise geological timescales are tough to get your head around but it's really crucial in this case.

And like Morloth says, the issue is more how many people can be supported on the planet after we've finished fucking with it.
It doesn't really matter if the planet was much hotter in the time of the dinosaurs; they weren't trying to grow wheat in the Mid-West. Or if they did, they left no fossil evidence of it.

iismum Fri 28-Dec-12 09:37:34

Aggh, I can't believe there are so many ignorant morons out there! I can't believe how many people on here say stuff like the climate is always changing and always has, so what's the problem. Of course it is always changing! Obviously it was massively different when the dinosaurs were around. But the rate of change is completely unprecedented; there's overwhelming evidence in the ice core as other places that climate change has never happened at anything approaching the current rate. And as for thinking that it's vain to assume we can influence the environment enough to alter the weather ... I'm sorry, what? What are you talking about? The impact of man on the environment is overwhelming; there isn't a place on earth unaffected. We know what the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is and we know how we are affecting it. The specific impact this will have on the weather is very hard to predict, but the fact that this will change everything dramatically is not.

As for someone who said that lots of scientists now believe the world is getting cooler and staying the same. Um ... references, please? Because this is total bullshit. Please see elegant pie chart linked to above. 98% of scientists believe the world is getting hotter at an unprecedented rate due to human activity.

And the whole 'it's not the earth that needs to be saved, it's us' argument. Well, obviously! I don't think anyone is claiming the planet itself is going to fall apart. Saving the world refers to the things that live in the world - not just humans but every other kind of animal and plant. Some will survive major climate change but an awful, awful lot will be screwed.

Honestly, it's so depressing. The evidence is out there, easy to understand and overwhelmingly convincing. It's the fact that this amount of wilful ignorance still exists that ensures we are all totally fucked. Sobs quietly to self.

Morloth Fri 28-Dec-12 09:47:23

Humans are jumped up monkeys at best.

We are part of the organism.

Species come and go.

merlottits Fri 28-Dec-12 09:51:27

You worked in science research for years and can't spell climate?

Morloth Fri 28-Dec-12 09:52:38

Perhaps the ignorance is an in built self destruct and we deserve to be totally fucked?

hermioneweasley Fri 28-Dec-12 09:53:31

Well, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of warm, dry summers, so I think it's bollocks (as in disappointing, not that it's not happening)

hackmum Fri 28-Dec-12 09:56:19

inde: "Well 97% of climate scientists say that the earth is getting warmer due to our actions and we are sleepwalking into eventual disaster."

But let's face it, inde, what do they know? They are just people with degrees and Ph.D.s in science, who have dedicated years of their life to studying and researching climate change. Compare that to people on Mumsnet, who are able to come up with devastating observations like the climate is always changing innit, and it's been darn wet these past few winters, and humans don't really have that much impact, do they, and quite frankly these so-called climate scientists wouldn't stand a chance.

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 09:56:19

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit

If you had the slightest fucking idea how science worked, you'd understand what total bullshit you're talking.

I bet you don't believe that evolution is a fact either, do you? hmm

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 09:57:01

There is a logical fallacy in the op anyway. The difference between the two newspaper articles is not cherry picking. Our climate might well get much warmer in the future. At the moment though the Arctic ice melt is causing the jet stream to move south which is giving us colder wetter summers due to low pressure systems coming in off the Atlantic. That is not cherry picking. Both outcomes are caused by AGW.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 09:58:39

My take on it is that there is no doubt that climate change is happening at an unprecedented rate in the planets history. The only thing that has changed in the last century or so that could provoke such a rapid change is mankinds activities.

However, what is in doubt is exactly how the rise in global average temperature will affect different regions. Whilst we can measure what the temperature changes that have happened so far, predicting what will happen as a result is tricky. There is no doubt though, that the temperature will have a change and given how tightly balanced our agriculture etc is, the change is unlikely to be a positive one for mankind.

badguider Fri 28-Dec-12 09:59:11

Has anybody who is saying 'natural variation' actually seen the graphs??? They wiggle up and down like a snake for millennia then shoot for the sky since 1850. This is nothing like the rate of any previous natural variation ever!!
And if you understand the basics of the carbon cycle you will know that you can't add co2 to the atmosphere without dire consequences. Prior to the industrial revolution carbon trapped in the ground was mainly released by volcanic activity and in minuscule amounts compared to burning fossil fuels.
And yes, the planet will survive what we do to it but do you really want to suffer the war and famine that will follow the mass dislocation of populations and food crop failure? Really? We're already seeing suffering due to this.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 10:02:00

That should read 'the temperature change will have an effect'.

Morloth Fri 28-Dec-12 10:03:35

I don't actually believe it is reversible at this point.

We won't do anything until we have to and as most of the people in the West are cushioned from the effects to some extent whilst simultaneously being the major cause of the problem, humans are screwed.

So, we adapt or we die. We are not outside the natural order of things. There is nothing we can do that is 'unnatural', we are part of the nature.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 10:07:24

We won't do anything until we have to and as most of the people in the West are cushioned from the effects to some extent whilst simultaneously being the major cause of the problem, humans are screwed

Unfortunately Morloth, I think you are right.

Morloth Fri 28-Dec-12 10:08:18

I usually am. grin

JesusInTheCabbageVan Fri 28-Dec-12 10:14:43

Did you mean that to soundquite so idiotic OP?

Humans are responsible for increased CO2 emissions. There is a proven link between increased CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures. Rising global temperatures are leading to climate change. It's not rocket science; it really isn't.

I'm really weary of all the tiresome wankers out there who go "So much for global warming, it's raining again today hur hur hurrr." People who think they know better than the scientific mainstream are often part of the problem, because they don't see any point in recycling, cutting their own carbon emissions or taking any of the small steps that might help to make a small difference.

Well anyway, we may not be fucked just yet but our children will be. People in developing countries are already fucked, but who cares about them, eh OP? If you can't get out there in your shorts and sunglasses then it must be bollocks.

emmac52000 Fri 28-Dec-12 10:17:10

I can't believe there are still people out there who don't believe scientists about climate change. Do you remember in 1986 (I think) the first big storm in so many years. It was really weird and never seen before by many. Do you remember when boscastle had their first flooding. Now this happens all of the time. Do you think that over farming of prawns in Indonesia to meet our demand for cheap prawns for example is a way to keep the world as it should. This practise has stopped the people of Indonesia having fruit and vegetables and has no natural flood defences. This is a real life practice which are stripping our earth of being able to provide a home for our children and their children. To protect resources we need to live within our means. Simple. Portion control, organic veg, turn lights off, don't drive everywhere etc etc. nowt crazy at all smile

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 10:19:23

I usually am. grin

I'm sure you are. grin
I have to say it's good to see this being discussed in a sensible manner. As opposed to posters on the Daily Telegraph website. According to them the 97% of climate scientists who believe the earth is warming are left wing lunes who just want to see their taxes increased.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 10:19:27

People need to realise that the reason that so many politicians choose not to believe in climate change is because our whole society is based on the economics of consumerism, which isn't compatible with reducing our carbon foot print in the long term.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 10:21:04

This in general is a very refreshing thread to read smile

moogy1a Fri 28-Dec-12 10:23:24

To all who think a typing error is more significant than an opinion on scientific research, my apologies. I was typing one handed whilst bf'ing teeny 2 week old.
Ellie wtf has evolution got to do with my views on climate change? I have never questioned the theory of evolution as from what I can see, there is overwhelming evidence that it's fact, as opposed to clim*a*te change.
Who remembers the fuss a year ago about the BBC not showing any viewpoints from scientists who disagreed with the whole climate change theory? They ended up admitting that they only allowed the one viewpoint to be aired. perhaps that's why so many people think 97% of the scientific community share the view. The opposers aren't allowed a voice.
In fact, here's a report on it
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365640/BBC-blasted-over-climate-change-bias-
yes yes, I know it's a report from a newspaper which some of you seem to disapprove of, but without access to a whole symposium of scientists to give a real time, personal opinion, I can only go on what's reported ( as does evrybody)

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 10:33:07

I'm sorry Ellie but if you are getting your "facts" from the Express then you are just proving our point.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 10:33:49

That should be Moogy not Ellie. Sorry.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 10:34:09

From the article "The GWPF describes itself as “open?minded on the contested science of global warming” but “deeply ­concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies ­currently being advocated”."
As I said above, its the economic implications of acting on climate change that has many politicians concerned'. unfortunately they are wrong, the economic impilcations of not acting on it will be catastrophic.

moogy1a Fri 28-Dec-12 10:36:08

Well I think so far I've got the reports from the BBC, Telegraph, and now the Express. I'm sure I could get the whole spectrum of political bias but I don't think it would make much difference as they are all just printing the press releases given to them.

So , opinions on the BBC's bias towards climate change believers?

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 10:41:47

Perhaps the BBC is biased in favour of science. That is the way it should be. On the other hand you have the Daily Mail that prints articles saying that the Met office has quietly released a report showing that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. Except the Met office say that there has been no such report and the earth is warming. I would prefer the BBC telling the truth to newspaper lies any day.

moogy1a Fri 28-Dec-12 10:44:54

But the BBC have admitted they are not giving the airtime to scientists who disagree with the opinion that there is unprecedented climate change.
Not very scientific to ignore all evidence and opinions from a large number of climatologists, is it?

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 10:46:45

There are some people, who claim to be scientists who dont believe in evolution. How much airtime should they get?

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 10:46:48

In my experience, moogy people who start ranting about scientists with political agendas and other such crap usually feel the same way about the evidence for evolution.

Science is ALL about data & evidence. Yes, of course individual scientists have their biases, but the scientific method is designed to bypass this. A scientist cannot simply proclaim something as a fact all by themselves, they have to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of all the other scientists in the field through an extremely important process called peer review.

If someone was trying to slant their findings in one direction, it would be sussed very quickly indeed. There is a reason that the vast, vast majority of scientists believe in climate change - that's because the evidence supports it. If you believe you have grounds to show that they are wrong, then present your evidence, open it to peer review & win yourself a Nobel Prize if you're right.

Sorry, but you are presenting yourself as very ignorant here.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 10:47:01

I think the BBC is saying they are not giving them equal air time. Giving them anything more than 3% is disproportionate.

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 10:49:12

I tend to agree with you, OP. Earth's climate is changing because it always does. CO2 levels have been at least as high as they are now, at several periods in the planet's history, entirely without the help of combustion engines and so forth. I think it's typical human arrogance to assume we control the climate; not unlike people of old who reckoned they controlled it via rituals and sacrifices.

There's so much crap on this thread it's laughable. Sea levels have been rising for at least 12,000 years. Sea-bed fossils at the tops of mountains are there because of the mountains rising, not falling oceans. Polar bears sit on ice floes to sunbathe and fish, they were not homeless.

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 10:49:28

There's nothing wrong with being biased towards science.

If I wanted to know what was going to happen with the stars next year, I would listen to Brian Cox not Mystic Meg. I am biased in favour of facts, as is the BBC. Thank fuck.

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 10:51:35

Sea-bed fossils at the tops of mountains are there because of the mountains rising Er....familiar with the term "plate tectonics"?

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 10:51:54

If someone was trying to slant their findings in one direction, it would be sussed very quickly indeed

Oh, come off it. People who should know better believed that polar bear story. The world's governments sat down to throw money and power at a problem which had been misrepresented to them - they were looking at a chart of rates of change, believing it showed actual temperature changes.

I don't know whether those folks are thick or just pretending to be thick in order to push their agendas.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 10:52:34

Met office have a superb guide to climate change including temperature records if anyone wants to read further.

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 10:52:56

Ellie, somebody said upthread that fishy fossils up mountains show sea levels have fallen dramatically. They don't show that at all.

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 10:54:16

And that story was refuted was it, garlic? Who by?

That's right. Scientists.

badguider Fri 28-Dec-12 10:55:07

The bbc doesn't give equal airtime to flat earth believers either or alien abduction believers.
Same situation.

BunFagFreddie Fri 28-Dec-12 10:56:51

I'm not sure, but environmentalists certainly cause a lot of smug. grin

sinpan Fri 28-Dec-12 10:59:09

The evidence for man made climate change is extremely strong and it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field as other posters have noted.

Climate change predictions are liable to change because they are based on statistical models, which are complex and sometimes flawed, and which have to be adjusted as more data becomes available.

Science reporting in the mainstream media is generally pretty poor as noted n the Leveson submissions. Climate change reporting is especially bad as it's frequently informed by misinformation campaigns by climate change deniers. There are some well-funded, mainly US based groups; the money trail always goes back to business interests which are incompatible with a world where man made climate change is a given.

You can believe man made climate change is a load of nonsense if you like, but you have to accept it's just that, a matter of belief, and not evidence. The details of how climate change will affect us are less clear but that's because predictions are always uncertain.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 11:00:10

Do you not think that climate scientists do not take all that into account garlicbaubles? They call it Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming because of course there can be warming due to other causes. The science suggests the planet is warming due to our actions.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 11:00:14

I dont think smug is a term I'd associate with most environmentalists. Concerned is a more apt term.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 11:00:55

well put sinpan.

happybubblebrain Fri 28-Dec-12 11:01:19

I don't know if the climate is changing or not, or whether us humans are doing thing impact on it. I'm no scientist.

But I do know we are being asked to do things in the name of the 'environment' which have no impact on the environment whatsoever. These things are a scam.

As an example - how does saving water impact on the environment.? We are asked to turn the tap off and using less water. The water we let run down the tap just goes back into the system. You can't waste water.

And recycling - that has no impact on the weather either. It just saves someone somewhere money.

Paying for plastic bags?

We are fed some complete nonsence and most people buy it without question.

happybubblebrain Fri 28-Dec-12 11:01:49

*doing things to impact on it.
Ooops.

autumnlights12 Fri 28-Dec-12 11:05:08

the reason many top scientists aren't allowed an opposite opinion to fe climate change evangelists is because the industry is massively massively funded to the tune of billions. They have a vested interest in promoting the idea of man made climate change. There's plenty of evidence out there to show that much of what the IPCC puts out is flawed and exaggerated. And no, I'm not 'in denial', perhaps you've been 'brainwashed'?

Himalaya Fri 28-Dec-12 11:05:45

What badguider said:
"...., the planet will survive what we do to it but do you really want to suffer the war and famine that will follow the mass dislocation of populations and food crop failure? Really?"

I agree.

I sounds all philosophical to say "of course the climate changes, humans will just have to adapt" but what that means in practice is millions of people loosing their homes and livelihoods, and the wars and conflict that go with that.

There is no ethical justification not to act now to prevent that as far as we can.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 11:06:02

I don't know if the climate is changing or not, or whether us humans are doing thing impact on it. I'm no scientist.

But I do know we are being asked to do things in the name of the 'environment' which have no impact on the environment whatsoever. These things are a scam.

As an example - how does saving water impact on the environment.? We are asked to turn the tap off and using less water. The water we let run down the tap just goes back into the system. You can't waste water.

You do realise that it uses power provided mostly from non renewable sources to get the water to your tap?

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 11:07:36

Stop tilting at windmills, Ellie. I haven't claimed any better sources than science. The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 11:09:12

the reason many top scientists aren't allowed an opposite opinion to fe climate change evangelists is because the industry is massively massively funded to the tune of billions. They have a vested interest in promoting the idea of man made climate change. There's plenty of evidence out there to show that much of what the IPCC puts out is flawed and exaggerated. And no, I'm not 'in denial', perhaps you've been 'brainwashed'?

Do you have anything to back that up. There is plenty of evidence that industry, particularly the petroleum industry funds climate change deniers. Not the other way round.

happybubblebrain Fri 28-Dec-12 11:09:16

I think cars are using up most of the power from non renewable sources. The power to get water to the tap is tiny and insignificant by comparison. The non renewable sources are going to run out. In our lifetime probably. That is going to impact on us humans massively. But it's unlikely to impact on the environment.

autumnlights12 Fri 28-Dec-12 11:11:45

the IPCC is not a reliable source of impartial information on climate change. It's big big business. Huge.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 11:16:09

The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras.

Which proves nothing really except that global warming can be caused by forces other than greenhouse gases.

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 11:19:02

Stop tilting at windmills, Ellie. I haven't claimed any better sources than science. The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras

That's really not the point. The planet goes through all sorts of changes, this we know. We are, in fact, just coming out of the end of an ice age, so you could use that as an explanation of why things are getting warmer.

But that doesn't take into account things like the rate of the warming & the nature of it. It's staggeringly simplistic to say things like "Well, it was this warm 12,000" years ago and that wasn't our fault". Indeed not - but natural climate change is much, much slower than what we're currently seeing & there is an immense body of evidence that demonstrates the role we are (very, very likely to be) playing in this.

I strongly suggest you read the actual data, garlic and familiarise yourself on exactly why it is that almost all scientists (you know, those people who have PhDs & have devoted their lives to research) are convinced that we are, at the very least, partly to blame.

Himalaya Fri 28-Dec-12 11:21:20

Garlicbaubles - but the point is that human civilisation has grown up in an era of climate stability. Anthropic climate change is endangering that. Yes the earth has had hotter periods, but not while supporting a human population of billion.

Is it human arrogance to that people matter, maybe, but the alternative is worse.

MeeWhoo Fri 28-Dec-12 11:23:36

happybublebrain, in a way I think the exact opposite to you. Even if there was no such thing as human driven climate change ( which I don't believe), surely it still makes sense to do the things we are being asked to do. I think everyone can agree thAt things like petrol and industry fumes are not great for anybody's health, nobody wants new landfill sites to be built next to their home or to have water cuts or even electricity cuts when they could have been avoided, etc., etc

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 11:24:35

It is patronising to assume that no-one who disagrees with you is capable of reading source data. It's also typical of those with gigantic agendas to pursue, who do whatever they can to suppress data that does not support their case.

happybubblebrain Fri 28-Dec-12 11:27:58

MeeWhoo - but our running out of non renewable fuels cannot be avoided. They are going to run out, especially at the rate we are going. And that won't have an impact on the enviromment.

You don't have to do everything you are told. Always question it.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 11:28:04

It is patronising to assume that no-one who disagrees with you is capable of reading source data. It's also typical of those with gigantic agendas to pursue, who do whatever they can to suppress data that does not support their case.

I think the people arguing that AGW is happening would much rather it wasn't. What do you think is driving our agenda?

iismum Fri 28-Dec-12 11:28:52

The planet isn't yet as warm as it was 12,000 years ago. There were no humans causing the previous warm eras.

For fuck's sake, is this a serious opinion? What exactly are you arguing here? Noone is denying that the climate of the earth changes for all sorts of reasons, and that over the course of millennia it changes significantly. Also, species become extinct over time, because they fail to adapt quickly enough to the changes. This is normal an natural.

What is happening at the moment is a hugely accelerated version of this, and whilst there are all sorts of reasons why this may be happening, te evidence overwhelmingly supports human activity as the cause of this unprecedented acceleration. The effect of this change will be the same as any natural change in climate - many species will fail to cope and after a period of decline will become extinct. But because the rate of change is so extreme, the number of species that will be affected will be vast. It's going to be chaos.

And even if we consider that extinction and environmental change is normal (albeit not at the current rate), it's still pretty rubbish if you are the species suffering. The planet will become smaller due to rising sea levels, water supplies will become unpredictable, agriculture will be extremely difficult in an unpredictable climate. Millions/billions of people will starve; global wars will be started over resources; it's going to be horrible. Not to mention all the wonderful diversity of life that will also be wiped out. Why would you want this to happen? Why would you not take steps to try to prevent this? Why just say 'oh well, these things happen naturally, so let's not worry about it'?! Even if there is doubt that we are causing it (and there really isn't), surely we should ere on the side of caution, because if we do take steps it's only a smallish effort that is needed, and if we don't it could be catastrophic.

I don't care if the world was uninhabitable for humans millennia ago; I don't want it to be uninhabitable now.

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 11:30:59

It is patronising to assume that no-one who disagrees with you is capable of reading source data

I didn't say you were incapable of reading it, I'm suggesting you haven't bothered. I'm basing that on your comments about polar bears & how warm it was 12,000 years ago. Try familiarising yourself with the science before trying to refute it, eh?

Himalaya Fri 28-Dec-12 11:34:11

Happybubblebrain -

Non renewable fossil fuels are also used for the electricity supply - coal and gas fired power stations, as well as for heating in homes (gas), it is not just cars.

You are right, turning off the taps in the uk is fairly marginal, but still it is not a hardship to reduce waste in this way (or to design plumbing systems to recycle grey water...).

In many places there are real water shortages. And in dry places where they do a lot of pumping and desalination water supplies are a big energy user.

iismum Fri 28-Dec-12 11:34:24

It's also typical of those with gigantic agendas to pursue, who do whatever they can to suppress data that does not support their case.

I don't understand what you think these agendas are? The agendas of climate-change deniers is clear; there is a massive investment in tr status quo; the oil industry, car industry, etc., etc., are massively wealthy and powerful and are seriously compromised by the problem of climate change. Who is benefitting on the other side? Renewable energy companies? Not sure they really have the resources to effect this amazing fraud of getting 97% of scientist to pretend to believe in AGW. Who exactly do you think is doing this? It makes no sense at all!

EllieArroway Fri 28-Dec-12 11:36:03

They are going to run out, especially at the rate we are going Good grief, bubblebrain - listen to yourself.

Yes, we are running out of renewable fuels. THAT'S why we need to conserve rather than waste energy. We do not have a viable alternative yet, so let's be careful with what we have until we do! That's logic, surely.

And yes, I agree, question everything. But ignoring masses and masses of scientific evidence is ignorant.

Oh - and we need to limit our usage of plastic bags because they don't degrade very quickly. They end up in the sea causing harm to other creatures. Again, not hard to figure out that it's not a good idea to keep using them, huh? hmm

Himalaya Fri 28-Dec-12 11:38:59

Illsmum "I don't care if the world was uninhabitable for humans millennia ago; I don't want it to be uninhabitable now." Exactly!!

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 11:45:13

iismum said: Who is benefitting on the other side? Renewable energy companies? Not sure they really have the resources to effect this amazing fraud of getting 97% of scientist to pretend to believe in AGW.

Exactly!

badguider Fri 28-Dec-12 11:46:13

I went to see a film last night called chasing ice about a group who set up time lapse photography to monitor receding glaciers between about 2005 and 2009. I opened this thread today and I want to cry at the blinkered ignorance and weird belief that this is a political 'left wing' hobbyhorse.
sad unbelievably sad

moogy1a Fri 28-Dec-12 12:01:51

badguider was it filmed each Spring by any chance?!!And without sounding like I'm pigeonholing you, we all have our opinions, and I think someone who goes out to see a film such as that will have their very own strong views on climate change and is quite unlikely to listen to the opposite view.

cumfy Fri 28-Dec-12 14:21:40

The precautionary principle
Imagine that there was a 50/50 split between climate scientists between doom and "normality".
Would any sane person choose to take the risk ?

But human civilization is not sane.sad

cumfy Fri 28-Dec-12 14:29:22

Oh and BTW it was a lot colder 12000 years ago.
6000-7000 years ago was the likely Holocene Thermal Maximum, and it was a little bit warmer then.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Fri 28-Dec-12 15:14:35

Moogy, going back to your op. where is the evidence youve seen that the earth isn't warming up?

cumfy Fri 28-Dec-12 17:57:46

<Waits for HQ to move thread to the new Sciencey topic they promised mooted mentioned>grin

Alisvolatpropiis Fri 28-Dec-12 17:59:56

My first ever post deleted by MNHQ! shock

I only asked a question as well grin

cumfy Fri 28-Dec-12 18:15:19

What happened Alisvol ?

I didn't see anything deletable.

Alisvolatpropiis Fri 28-Dec-12 18:21:00

I'm not really sure. It was a bit of a sarcastic question granted. OP must have asked for it to be deleted?

nooka Fri 28-Dec-12 18:28:12

Wow. I thought that mumsnetters were a fairly intelligent bunch, but the jury is really out isn't it. Climate change isn't a theory any more. It's a fact. The earth is getting hotter and weather is becoming much more unpredictable. I live in Canada and we've noticed that even the Americans (traditionally 'nothing to do with us' believers) have stated to accept that yes there is something really going wrong, mainly on the evidence of a large increase in extreme weather events (Hurricane Sandy being only the most recent) floods, droughts, wildfire, hurricanes are all on the increase. The impact is already being felt in things like increases in food prices so it's unwise to imagine that the affect won't be felt by our generation.

youngermother1 Fri 28-Dec-12 18:44:59

You have to be careful with a number of these things. CO2 has been proven to cause heating in lab conditions but not in the real world. Food prices are rising as the third world get richer and demand more food.
My concern is that the climate change models cannot accurately reflect actual climate experienced over the last few centuries (ie if you set them at 1800 with the same assumptions and inputs as actually occurred, they do not reflect the current climate) - therefore they cannot be reliable for the future.
The answer to me is a risk/cost/benefit analysis - ie, what will it cost to change things, what is the risk if we don't and what is the benefit if we do. We will always have different personal positions on this graph, but society needs to see where it wants to be.
I am not convinced the cost will lead to sufficient benefit for the risk that has been shown.

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 19:23:22

The answer to me is a risk/cost/benefit analysis - ie, what will it cost to change things, what is the risk if we don't and what is the benefit if we do. We will always have different personal positions on this graph, but society needs to see where it wants to be. I am not convinced the cost will lead to sufficient benefit for the risk that has been shown.

Hear hear, youngermother.

drizzlecake Fri 28-Dec-12 19:26:19

I don't think that scientists pick and choose their information. I think the daily mail media pick and choose whichever climate headline sounds the most scary.

youngermother1 Fri 28-Dec-12 19:54:29

Scientists often pick and choose the information as they write the press releases. Other times the press releases are written by pressure groups who cherrypick the headlines.

15 cigarettes cause a gene mutation I know this is a different story but the all the actual research has shown is that there are 23,000 genetic mutations in one cancer patient - it has not shown that a 15 a day smoker causes one change a day, and this is very unlikely.
There are many other explanations and no-one is sure how cigarettes cause cancer.
This headline was, however, a quote from the scientist. This is because they rely on stories to get more funding and the story 'lung cancer gene has 23,000 differences to a non-cancerous cell' would not be printed.

drizzlecake Fri 28-Dec-12 20:00:59

I'm with nooka on the changes causing more extreme weather events.

We need to stop burning oil and coal and stop chucking plastic in the sea/rubbish tips - but that would make life much less comfortable than it is so won't happen.

GrrrArghZzzzYaayforall8nights Fri 28-Dec-12 20:05:39

The debate is not whether or not the climate will change. Climate is continuously changing - it has been far hotter and far colder than it is now. The Thames river used to freeze yearly hard enough for markets to take place on it. If we get too hot, vast melting will occur, the gulf stream will slow, and this will trigger an ice age where it would freeze back up again. Has happened, would happen.

The questions are "Is man making the climate change more drastic and/or in a different fashion and can we change the course if we do things differently?" and, more importantly, "As the climate is changing, what can we do to ensure we (humans) can thrive through it?". People interested in global social justice will question how recognizable patterns within climate change such as the drought in East Africa and floods in Southeast Asia are being ignored, why provisions aren't being put in place to help people and why Western corporations are taking resources out of those areas which make these preventable tragedies even worse. But the science behind climate, and the archaeological science around climate over millions of years, is solid.

[note: I am not an archaeological scientist, just married to one who rants about this a lot].

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 20:12:21

youngermother1 said "You have to be careful with a number of these things. CO2 has been proven to cause heating in lab conditions but not in the real world. Food prices are rising as the third world get richer and demand more food".

I'm not sure where you got the information from that CO2 is not proven to cause warming in the real world. Few would dispute that it is a greenhouse gas.

From Nasa's website http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
*Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute*:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Varya Fri 28-Dec-12 20:16:14

Its just a 'vehicle' to tax us more and more on motor and domestic fuel by the millionaires supposedly meant to run the country.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 20:25:21

Its just a 'vehicle' to tax us more and more on motor and domestic fuel by the millionaires supposedly meant to run the country.

Climate scientists are not the government and I doubt they want to be taxed more, any more than you or I do. If the politicians want to tax us more they will. They don't need an excuse.

EmmaBemma Fri 28-Dec-12 20:27:57

It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue with climate change conspiracy theorists! Seriously guys - those of you fighting the good fight - you are wasting your time.

GrrrArghZzzzYaayforall8nights Fri 28-Dec-12 20:31:56

youngmother1 - Your comments about poor countries and rising food prices is very problematic. It really isn't about them demanding more food, it is us in rich countries demanding more food at their expense.

For example: Bolivians traditionally eat Quinoa, it's one of the few foods that grows well in their climate/altitude. The Spanish colonizers despised, it was referred to as poor people much. Then the rich West found out about it's rich protein structure and now it's found in most high street shops in the UK at a high price. What was once poor people much is now too expensive for Bolivians to eat, they are forced to export it (by need for funds and by need of governmental force, as was true when the Indian famine happened - they grew plenty but were forced to export it to Britain).

As I said before, the East African famine was entirely predicted. We knew it was going to happen, it's part of a cycle, but instead of supporting their governments in storing up supplies, we take instead and several groups exploit the shock for their own benefit. It's disgusting, but we keep blaming them for the issues that we keep creating/refusing to prevent.

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 20:36:44

It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue with climate change conspiracy theorists! Seriously guys - those of you fighting the good fight - you are wasting your time.

I like a challenge. grin

wonderstuff Fri 28-Dec-12 20:39:39

Climate change is real, we have measured it, it is definitely happening and is so closely related to CO2 levels that really there isn't room for dispute.

What hasn't been agreed on is exactly how that climate change rise will affect the weather, weather is, as we all know, very complex and difficult to predict, the worlds most powerful computers are working on it. None of the models look good really, we really need to cut our pollution. Unless the supervolcano erupts first then we're all truely fucked

Lueji Fri 28-Dec-12 20:54:19

Happy,

>As an example - how does saving water impact on the environment.? We are asked to turn the tap off and using less water. The water we let run down the tap just goes back into the system. You can't waste water.

It doesn't easily go back into the system. It is usually released to the sea and there is increasing pressure on fresh water reserves. More acute during droughts.
It may eventually come back as rain. Or not...

>And recycling - that has no impact on the weather either. It just saves someone somewhere money.

Recycling may not impact on the weather directly but on other things, such as forests, use of petroleum, and mining.
The Earth has a limited supply of oil and metals. Forests take time to grow.

>Paying for plastic bags?
This is to reduce waste of plastic products (made from petroleum) and damage to wildlife, particularly seabirds, but also turtles, etc.
If you have to pay, you're more likely to reuse.

cumfy Fri 28-Dec-12 20:55:35

Climate change isn't a theory any more. It's a fact.

But nooka this is the problem.

Yes CO2 is warming the Earth.
But we don't know how much, nor are we predicting the secondary effects.

We can't account for where all the heat that should be building up (in theory) is going.

And the huge reduction Arctic sea-ice was not generally predicted.

We're guessing.

Dereksmalls Fri 28-Dec-12 20:56:39

Recycling reduces waste going to landfill where it emits methane as it decays. Methane can be gathered for burning from landfill sites but capture isn't very efficient. Even incineration is better than landfill - CO2 is a less potential GHG so at least breaking down methane helps in addition to providing some support to non-renewable fuel supplies.

youngermother1 Fri 28-Dec-12 21:59:55

new draft IPCC report here
It concludes AGW but the consequences don't appear that bad to me and they also conclude the damage is done

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 22:10:26

*new draft IPCC report here
It concludes AGW but the consequences don't appear that bad to me and they also conclude the damage is done*

The website you have linked to is a climate denial site. You might as well link to Fox News. How can the damage already be done if we are putting more and more greenhouses into the atmosphere?

youngermother1 Fri 28-Dec-12 22:22:26

the site is a climate change sceptic, but the report linked on the site has been confirmed as the genuine IPCC report, that is what i linked to, not his comments on it.
Also disagree with the use of the word denial, not used elsewhere where there is disagreement on something, except one special case

badguider Fri 28-Dec-12 22:29:07

No moogy the glaciers retreating film was not fucking filmed in spring! It was a longitudinal study over years. obviously. What the hell makes you think that a glaciologist who devotes their life to trying to understand glaciers would be stupid enough to not understand the very basics of how they behave on a yearly cycle and that you know better? That is just so bloody insulting!

inde Fri 28-Dec-12 22:44:13

the site is a climate change sceptic, but the report linked on the site has been confirmed as the genuine IPCC report, that is what i linked to, not his comments on it.
Also disagree with the use of the word denial, not used elsewhere where there is disagreement on something, except one special case

So which parts of the report suggest we don't need to be concerned about climate change? Quoting from the actual report not WUWT.

garlicbaubles Fri 28-Dec-12 23:47:18

I'm kind of curious to know - and these are questions, not digs - whether equal amounts of money, political will & effort are being put into mitigation of the effects of climate change (wrt human populations) as into supposedly reducing the change itself.

Carbon trading provides opportunities for massive international financial scamming, but offers dubious benefits (to put it mildly) to the Earth's gas mantle. Giant alternative power projects have already proven to be a giant waste of money but funding continues to flood in. There've been no convincing answers to criticism of the Desertec project, which among other things could threaten the sub-Saharan aquifer and cause increased desertification. Trying to stop climate change is sexy, expensive and (I maintain) plays into the hands of global enterprises wishing to secure control of power & water.

Building floating cities, transport and food production is just as expensive but affords comparatively less opportunity for global control. I'm only aware of small-scale charitable projects creating schools & hospitals on ships in Bangladesh, for example, yet the technologies developed through such projects could be used for large-scale solutions to flooding. Some previous posters have referred to inequalities in food distribution. Given that humans are confident of conducting oil, gas, electricity and water across continents & oceans, how come these abilities aren't being used to ensure efficient food distribution? Why are we under such pressure to adopt 'smart metering' for power - which will hand over control of our homes to global corporations - but hear nothing about any smart resource balancing for drinking water and food?

It's all about money, surely.

AloeSailor Fri 28-Dec-12 23:53:00

Yay! A real flat earther.

youngermother1 Sat 29-Dec-12 00:57:59

So which parts of the report suggest we don't need to be concerned about climate change?

The below is a quote from page 17 of the summary for policy makers.

Global mean sea level rise will very likely continue beyond 2100, with ocean thermosteric sea level rise to continue for centuries to millennia, unless global temperatures decline. The few available model results indicate global mean sea level rise by 2300 likely to be less than 1 m for greenhouse gas concentrations below 500 ppm CO2-equivalent scenario but rise as much as 1–3 m for concentrations above 700 ppm CO2-equivalent{13.5.2, Figure 13.10, Figure 13.11}.

Below is a map of areas inundated in a 3 metre scenario (ie max expected by 2300 at high CO2 concentrations)

map

This doesn't seem worth the money the government are aiming to spend.

nooka Sat 29-Dec-12 02:08:39

The trouble with trying to take a risk based approach is the level of uncertainty is very significant and the time scales unknown (NB I am a risk manager, so generally hugely in favour of risk based approaches). Plus the costs are huge. As an example, an event like Superstorm Sandy was predicted as a possibility well in advance. Scientists have been discussing the impact of this type of combination of weather plus increases in sea level on the New York area for many years. But the cost of mitigating the anticipated flooding was in the billions. So very little was done (apart from commissioning further research). The damage caused (just in NYC) is expected to be in excess of $40bn, and there is still a need to spend further billions on flood protection because the likelihood of another storm with similar or greater impact is gradually increasing over time.

I get news services from a couple of insurance brokers and the number of weather events, and the costs entailed are seriously increasing. The amount of money being invested in either attempting to reduce pollutants or address the anticipated effects is very small (certainly nothing in comparison with the amount of money/time/resources being spent on finding new sources of oil or even developing new consumer goods). The trouble is that in general our political systems are not designed to look at the long term, especially where there is a short term cost.

youngermother1 Sat 29-Dec-12 02:56:22

agree the level of uncertainty is huge, so why spend huge amounts? the IPCC report suggests no increase in hurricanes.
The cost of reducing CO2 in Europe is huge with no great benefit, as the worst case scenarios do not appear too bad and the rest of the world is not joining in, so no reduction in worldwide production - why beggar ourselves for no benefit?

moogy1a Sat 29-Dec-12 05:49:00

alivsol I didn't ask for it to be deleted. in fact, I was just wondering how a reply could have been deleted on what is a pretty uncontroversial thread!

Himalaya Sat 29-Dec-12 08:36:50

Hi Garlic -

In the language of climate change finance, "mitigation" is the label given to investment to reduce emission growth (through renewables, energy efficiency, tropical forest conservation etc..), investment to prepare countries and industries for higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more extreme weather events is called "adaptation", and there is now also talk of money needed to deal with "loss and damage".

Overall best estimates are that around 98 billion dollars worldwide went into mitigation and adaptation in 2011 (or around 1/6 of the US millitary budget) - and you are right more money went into mitigation than adaptation.

Both money for mitigation and adaptation are needed - and it is cheaper to avoid problems than to deal with them down the line.

If you want to avoid "human arrogance" I would avoid fondly thinking that humans will be able to smoothly adapt to climate change unprecedented in our history by building floating cities and food production systems. More likely are huge numbers of climate refugees, resource wars and extinctions.

There are big business interests on all sides - it is not like power and water are cottage industries!. There is much more investment tied up in extracting and burning fossil fuels than in finding low-carbon solutions.

As for your last question about why we can't have better food distribution systems - it's a good question - but you seem to be confusing efficiency and equity (fairness). Yes we can confidently transport oil, gas, electricity and food long distances, but still many people have no electricity, not enough food etc....

inde Sat 29-Dec-12 09:29:49

Below is a map of areas inundated in a 3 metre scenario (ie max expected by 2300 at high CO2 concentrations)

Thanks for providing the links. The map only tells part of the story IMO. I dread to think of the effect on the UK of rises in the ocean of 1M or more coupled with more frequent storms of greater intensity than we have had in the past. We can already getting more extreme weather than in the past. We are having unprecedented rainfall at the moment with no sign of it ending. Almost certainly caused by a shift in the jet stream and higher ocean temperatures.

agree the level of uncertainty is huge, so why spend huge amounts? the IPCC report suggests no increase in hurricanes.
The cost of reducing CO2 in Europe is huge with no great benefit, as the worst case scenarios do not appear too bad and the rest of the world is not joining in, so no reduction in worldwide production - why beggar ourselves for no benefit?

Well we don't actually get many hurricanes in the UK but we are already experiencing extreme weather. Anyway the way I read it they are saying that they have less confidence in saying there will be an increase in hurricanes than they have in predicting other extreme weather events. This is only part of the story anyway. Temperate increases of the magnitude expected are likely to have a devastating effect on agriculture or instance.

inde Sat 29-Dec-12 09:32:29

can=are in the third sentence.

moogy1a Sat 29-Dec-12 10:15:08

Great storm of 1703, great storm of 1874.
recent storms are no different and no more or less severe than storms and flooding which have occurred periodically since man has been on the planet! ( actually, they may have been worse a few thousand years ago for all I know, but since we began making a note of such things).
And yes, there were other incidents between these dates, and before / after I'm just choosing 2 at random as examples.

inde Sat 29-Dec-12 10:34:43

This year is England's wettest year since records began in spite of us being in drought for the first three months. Six of the 10 wettest years in the UK have now occurred since 1998. Storms are likely to increase in intensity and frequency as the oceans warm.

drizzlecake Sat 29-Dec-12 10:50:06

What would save us is a great plague (or what would save the earth) . Something that wipes out half the population then our fuel demands would half and we could get back to a more balanced demand on the earth's products.

Binkybix Sat 29-Dec-12 11:01:45

I'm rubbish at geography, but given that many of the world's major cities are on the coast, couldn't that map still mean a pretty hefty impact in terms of upheaval, disease etc and money needed to re-build/relocate?

Himalaya Sat 29-Dec-12 11:28:39

Youngermother -

I think the map is quite alarming. As Binkybix says many major population centres are in costal regions.

The top ten cities at risk by value include New York, Miami, Calcutta, Dhaka, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Bangkok.

Each of the little red dots means multiple Huricaine Sandy, Catrina type events, gradually making large parts of cities uninsurable and unlivable, subsidence and landslides disrupting transport, power and water systems, lives lost, homes and businesses destroyed, millions of people becoming climate refugees. Not to mention drought and extreme heat events that won't just take place in low lying coasts.

I really don't know how you can shrug and say it is just too expensive to do anything to prevent these things happening.

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 15:02:06

I'd just like to thank Himalaya, Youngermother and nooka for your recent posts. I'm quietly reading now as it makes a pleasant change to witness a rational, informed discussion of this problem from various points of view smile

You're right about 'extreme' weather events, afaik, moogy. I'm old enough to recall many surprise weather onslaughts, occurring before climate change was blamed for them all! At school we were told extreme weather tends to happen in 30-year cycles, meaning each generation thinks it's the first! I've no idea whether there's any truth in it.

I have spent time in the Amazon, which floods by approx 10m every year. Was fascinated by the adaptations (sorry for using the wrong word, Himalaya) routinely employed - a combination of high builds and pontoons, mostly.There are floating petrol stations on the rivers. Floating gardens are commonplace (for veg & chickens.) I understand deep, adaptable flood barriers - bunds? - are also used for things like oil and water storage.

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 15:16:15

Himalaya, are there no potentials for adapting to change rather than preventing change? Isn't adaptability supposed to be our species' strength? Would the costs of moving or changing New York, Tokyo, etc, be significantly greater than trying to stop the events, and/or less likely to work?

inde Sat 29-Dec-12 15:40:17

It's not just rich countries and cities like New York and Tokyo that will be affected. Nor is it just flooding. Africa for instance is expected to experience more droughts, more famines and increased exposure to diseases like malaria.

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 15:47:26

i've often thought that africa should just relocate - how many of its problems might be solved this way. just put it on a pontoon and float it to safety

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 15:55:47

If you think my questions are stupid, chibi, would you mind explaining the issues instead of being facetious?

Himalaya Sat 29-Dec-12 16:10:45

Garlic - yes we can and must adapt. Even the level of climate change which we are already committed to by current emissions (around 2 degrees) will mean some serious adaptation will have to take place.

But we shouldn't think that it will be cheaper/easier to adapt to 4 or 6 degrees than it will be to shift from fossil fuels and last century technology to renewables and smart systems. The Stern report lays out the dry economics of it. The Mark Lynas book 6 degrees is a bit more vivid about what the impacts of climate change in practice will mean. It isnt pretty.

Avoiding catastrophic climate change and beconing more resilient in the face of weather extremes requires a new industrial revolution - new industries and technologies replacing old, new ways of doing things, organising cities and food systems etc...human adaptability and creativity are all important!

For the UK the question I think, is will it become "yesterday's country"; clinging onto declining industries while others invent radically more efficient approaches , or will it be able to be a leader in green innovation.

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 16:28:58

i don't know how to explain why relocating cities, especially meagcities like tokyo (20 million or something like that) is not a realistic or possibly even feasible option confused - where are these people going to go? what about the infrastuctures that currently support them?

to me, saying 'let's just move tokyo' is just one step short of saying 'let's just colonise the moon'

i suppose that might seem like a viable option to some as well

inde Sat 29-Dec-12 16:29:59

Excellent post Himalaya. I still wonder how poorer nations are going to cope though. They haven't got the money to put into place the changes needed. How does Africa cope with the extremes of temperature they are likely to experience? Or the flooding that highly populated countries like Bangladesh will have to deal with?

ChasedByBees Sat 29-Dec-12 16:55:01

Ahhh this really pisses me off <twitches>

I'm not going to deal with all the stupid POVs expressed here as it would make me far too ranty for my relaxed twixmas evening so I'll just raise a couple of points:

1) for those of you that think we are being really arrogant to assume that humankind can affect something on a macro scale like the weather, do you think that Europe or the US looks pretty much undisturbed by humans? Or perhaps, does almost every square mile show some signs of human intervention, from man made fields for cattle to vast industrial, commercial and residential constructions? You wouldn't deny those because you can see them very clearly. You can't 'see' the climate so it's very easy for people to be armchair philosophers and make claims which are based on absolutely nothing but their own ignorance. Now that's arrogant.

2) I've worked with a particle accelerator which does materials research. They do research into climate science, aeronautics, magnetic storage devices, pharmaceuticals and everything inbetween. I expect you're happy to trust airplanes will fly, the medicines you take won't poison you, that your computer will store your data. Why are you so opposed to believing the climate scientists? Are you scared that the results need some personal responsibilty and a vast cultural shift that you're not prepared to take? Is it guilt?

amicissimma Sat 29-Dec-12 16:58:18

YANBU, OP.

The pro AGW 'climate scientists' tend to be government-paid, the anti, tend to be independently funded.

The 'green' economy is worth billions of $, not least in taxes. The costs fall hardest on the poorest.

The 'scientific facts' tend to be predictions, based on models. As the famous hockey-stick debacle proved, such predictions are only as good as the figures and calculations used in the modelling.

Many scientists believe that CO2 level rises follow temperature rises, rather than the other way round. Stern said so in his first report. (Yes, I read the whole thing when it came out.)

The 'rise' in global temperature is claimed to be 'as much as' 0.7°C in 150 years. Just how accurate were thermometers around the world 150 or even 100 years ago? is less than 1°C an issue? Pick any two dates and you will almost certainly get a rise or a fall over the intervening period.

What is 'global temperature'? How is it measured? Importantly, where is is measured. A few years ago it was pointed out that at the end of the last century there was a huge increase in measurements from (artificially warmer) urban sites and a decrease in measurements from (cooler) rural sites. One was found to be taken by the outlet of an airconditioner! The Bolivian government claim that they have released no temperature figures in the last 20 years. How can temperatures be 'global' if the area of a whole country has produced no data?

CO2 makes up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. Human activities are responsible for less than 5% of emissions. How likely is it that such a tiny amount of what is actually plant food will have an effect on the earth's climate, when the influence of the sun upon earth is so great? In 19th century Herschel managed to accurately predict the next year's harvest by studying the activity of the sun.

Sea levels are rising in some areas. In others they are falling. Perhaps this could be explained by movements of the tectonic plates. Likewise, ice thickness is less in some areas (NW antarctic peninsula) and greater in others (SW antarctic).

Myself, I would be extremely worried if the climate stopped changing.

hattymattie Sat 29-Dec-12 16:58:21

This thread makes me want to cry sad. I think the arguments for climate change are very clear and have been eloquently reiterated here. I think many educated people, good friends of mine included, find it convenient to ignore or deny climate change so that they can continue with their current lifestyles until they are brought nose to nose with the reality of the situation.

For what it's worth - I know it's not necessarily based on climate change but I feel the movie "The Road" pretty much sums up the future.

ChasedByBees Sat 29-Dec-12 17:02:46

Government funded scientists are extremely unbiased. UK research is funded by arms length bodies - the research councils. This is to give some independence from government pressures. UK research cherishes the Haldane principle to ensure independence:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle

To imply that government funded researchers are on some mission to help governments increase taxes is bonkers.

ChasedByBees Sat 29-Dec-12 17:04:51

Actually - a better link than Wikipedia on the Haldane principle. I'm obviously starting to froth:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/168/16807.htm

ChasedByBees Sat 29-Dec-12 17:09:02

UK scientists decide which science should be funded through independent, expert peer review which is designed to ensure the best science gets funded (I hadn't made that clear).

Alisvolatpropiis Sat 29-Dec-12 18:37:22

moogy

Oh! That's really odd then! Granted my reply ended on a slightly sarcastic note, it was only about three sentences long,I didn't think it was offensive (I don't deliberately set out to offend) .Very strange!

inde Sat 29-Dec-12 18:58:10

The pro AGW 'climate scientists' tend to be government-paid, the anti, tend to be independently funded.

So the pro AGW scientists who are very much in the majority are lying through their teeth because they are government funded? The antis who are "independent" are OK because they are paid for by benevolent philanthropists who just want the antis to tell the truth?
Why are these hundreds of government funded scientists from all over the world lying then? Do their governments tell them to lie even when their is a change of government? It really does sound uncomfortably like a conspiracy theory doesn't it.

EdgarAllanPond Sat 29-Dec-12 19:08:16

i think anthropogenic climate change is what you are actually talking about.

i think it is questionable, particularly where it comes to predictability. we don't know the possible global effect - local effects are fairly predictable though (urban heat island etc)

consequently: we don't know that it would actually be a bad thing. or a good thing. or what sort of thing it would actually mean on a year to year basis (considering that weather is already unpredictable, and is at times extreme anyway, the 'extreme weather' thesis is one of the most questionable claims of the green movement)

i think a great deal of 'green' taxation falls unfairly hard on the poorest (particularly motor fuel taxation), and some of the 'green' initiatives are only accessible to the wealthy (home ownership is a minimum requirement for many schemes to be any use to you).

some green measures are definitely worth taking even without any 'global' benefit claim. oil is too precious to burn, rainforests are peoples homes, monoculture threatens human health and welfare as well as possible intangibles, and wildlife. however the great ideas that solve these problems will not come from government blunt-instrument taxation.

think about it: the animal rights movement didn't invent the combustion engine, but it saved an awful lot of horses from exploitation.

crescentmoon Sat 29-Dec-12 20:01:24

"In the media landscape there are climate change deniers and believers, but rarely are those speaking about climate change actual climate scientists"

climate scientists rap about the dangers of climate change

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 21:55:05

some green measures are definitely worth taking even without any 'global' benefit claim

Interesting post, Edgar, and I agree with this statement although I might take issue with some of your subsequent ones. Monoculture is a big issue - highly damaging to the people and wildlife in land-based economies, unhelpful to local climates, cynically instigated and exploited by financial institutions, and significantly assisted by 'green' interests. Palm oil, for example.

Landfill has to be worth limiting because of ecological concerns - though there are little-explored arguments in its favour, if sea levels are going to rise! - and seafill, one of GB's mucky moneyspinners, is a disaster playing out as we write. Chemical waste should be more efficiently neutralised and waste technology (ship, fridge and tank graveyards, for example) should be recycled as they are unexploded ecological bombs. But this is all about not poisoning our resources more than we can help; the climate warming thing is a different question as I understand it.

Got to repeat, though, I'm learning from this discussion now and appreciate the thoughtful posts ... thanks for starting it, moogy smile

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 22:09:04

Oh, I keep meaning to ask this thread - has the currently ongoing polar shift absolutely nothing to do with the currently discussed climate change? I've read some things saying ohh, nooo, it's all happening in our outer magnetic fields, has no effect on gas mantle ... but I'm sceptical. When it reaches critical, the polarity of all the molecules on the planet's surface will reverse. As we're concerned about the climactic effects of man-made irritations to the planet, I find it hard to believe we may safely ignore such a fundamentally significant mutation.

Nobody seems to agree on whether the current shift is "fast" (one or two thousand years) or "slow". We know that magnetic storms on the sun and/or passing electrical events in space cause weather events here on Earth. How come we're supposed to discount our planet's own magnetic alterations?

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 22:14:03

garlic what do you mean by the polarity of all the molecules on earth etc etc? Do you mean a magnetic polarity? electrical polarity? I am confused confused

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 22:30:41

Heh, chibi, me too wink

OK, we know the planet weaves on its axis like a drunk in very slow motion. We know that every so often, it tilts and the magnetic polarity changes. Evidence of this lies in strata on the earth's crust, in which molecules are aligned N -> S (according to current poles) and then S -> N. We're in a polar shift at the moment. Jury's out on how long it will be before your compass points S for North. The actual shift won't make everything fly off the surface of the planet, solid things to melt or any other sci-fi effects, though it may possibly cause some electrical equipment to short out.

NASA explains it better than me, I'm sure grin

I am sceptical of the received (by me) view that this isn't affecting our atmosphere at all.

Flicktheswitch Sat 29-Dec-12 22:41:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alistron1 Sat 29-Dec-12 22:44:08

Anyone who thinks that the amount of CO2 chugged out over the past 150 years hasn't contributed to climate change is an eejit.

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 22:53:26

Hmm, alistron, well there is this: "while Earth's magnetic field can indeed weaken and strengthen over time, there is no indication that it has ever disappeared completely. A weaker field would certainly lead to a small increase in solar radiation on Earth – as well as a beautiful display of aurora at lower latitudes -- but nothing deadly. Moreover, even with a weakened magnetic field, Earth's thick atmosphere also offers protection against the sun's incoming particles."
From NASA educational page linked above.

CO2 is the 'dense' component of Earth's atmosphere. Without it, we'd be irradiated by demon sun rays. Swings and roundabouts?

ninjasquirrel Sat 29-Dec-12 22:56:08

YABVVVU. I just discovered this thread as going to bed, and will be back on it tomorrow probably! Do you know how long it's been since global temperature for any month wasn't above the average for that month during the 20th century? 27 years that's how long. That's global warming. And it's man-made, because we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and also cutting down forests). And the consequences will not be good. At all. There is a great website that answers lots of questions like 'isn't it the sun?' etc etc: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Flicktheswitch Sat 29-Dec-12 23:05:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alistron1 Sat 29-Dec-12 23:05:33

Garlic, that's got nothing at all to do with the vast amounts of CO2 humans have been pumping out for the past 150 or so years!!

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 23:05:42

Another ignoramus question (promise I'll stop for the night now!) ...

If carbon dioxide causes earthly hotness because of its density, how come volcanic/nuclear debris causes coldness? Wouldn't they both have the same effect? Well, clearly not, but why?

Links will do; I'll read smile Thanks.

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 23:08:53

Lol, Flick!

Thanks for answer, ali, but not good enough. Perhaps more CO2 might actually be protective right now?

I am not espousing one view over another, btw, my questions are really questions.

Going to bed now, anyway; somewhat grateful for unseasonable warmth as can't afford much heating blush

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 23:14:13

Was confused about the polarity as it was my understanding that not everything is kagnetic, neither do all molecules have an electrical polarity. the idea that things without a polarity are changing their polarity just seemed really confusing and contradictory.

maybe you had a specific molecule(s) in mind?

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 23:17:38

the density of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with its behaviour as a greenhouse gas; this is down to how its chemical bonds absorb and emit infrared radiation

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 23:20:14

what's the point of asking questions if respondent uses them as opportunity to take the piss. glad there are posters here capable of explanation

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 23:21:07

to chibi. hope you're not a teacher of any sort

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 23:24:11

whoops omit the emit - just absorb IR.

other molecules have chemical bonds that are v good at this, carbon dioxide is not unique here, but is present in higher concentrations than (most? not sure!) ofhther greenhouse gases

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 23:26:34

i guess you are referring to me taking the piss. i am not. i was trying to understand what you were talking about, i was unsure what you meant. sorry.

merrymouse Sat 29-Dec-12 23:27:40

What would save us is a great plague (or what would save the earth) . Something that wipes out half the population then our fuel demands would half and we could get back to a more balanced demand on the earth's products.

Agree drizzlecake, or maybe another ice age? It's true that the climate has varied greatly over the years, but I was of the understanding that, historically, swift changes in weather conditions on planet earth have usually resulted in quite a lot of unpleasantness for the occupants...

Adapation might work in the long run, and it might be advantageous for the population to be trimmed a bit from time to time, but not if you are one of the trimmed.

Could we perhaps assume that with almost 7 billion people on the earth, it wouldn't take a dramatic shift to cause quite a lot of unpleasantness?

garlicbaubles Sat 29-Dec-12 23:32:49

thanks, chibi

Himalaya Sat 29-Dec-12 23:34:15

Flicktheswitch

"What pisses me off is the assertion that it is man made."

... It's not an assertion, it's a scientific conclusion with a high level of certainty. I don't like it that smoking causes cancer. It doesn't make it less true.

What pisses me off is people being all cod-philosophical about climate change as if there is nothing to be done "A lot happened before we came along, and a lot will happen after we're all gone" etc...

What we are talking about here is an avoidable impact that will cause misery, death and poverty for millions of people mainly in poor countries, in our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes -- as well as massive economic costs the world over.

Our lack of ambition to face up to that pisses me off.

chibi Sat 29-Dec-12 23:40:03

the people who will be most affected by climate change will be thise least equipped to cope; poor, and likely to live in places that do not have the resources (in any sense) to either mitigate the effects of these changes or help their populace to adapt.

it might be really shitty for people caught up in floods here (and honestly i am not trying to minimise) but we have a nationalised response- relief agencies can be mobilised, there are resources to accomodate displaced people etc etc. I am not trying to make flooding sound like a wheeze, it is devastating, but not devastating in the way a superhurricane is for a country like haiti.

Flicktheswitch Sat 29-Dec-12 23:44:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Himalaya Sat 29-Dec-12 23:48:07

Merrymouse, drizzlecakes - are you seriously hoping for half the world's population (half the mothers, fathers, children, doctors, teachers etc. . Half your children, friends etc.....) to die off in some natural or man-made calamity? !? shock

This would be really, really shit.

Seriously.

Proposals to deal with climate change are to agree ambitious targets, reflect climate change costs in fossil fuel prices, invest more in renewable energy and energy efficiency and more efficient farming and transport, reduce waste, protect tropical forests, provide funding and technology to support developing countries to adapt and mitigate. It's not that painful.

Why wish for an apocalypse instead?

GoldQuintessenceAndMyhrr Sat 29-Dec-12 23:49:16

Well, clearly then. Pillocks is happening.
Good night.

Himalaya Sat 29-Dec-12 23:54:06

Flicktheswitch - do you take the link between smoking and cancer, or the theory of evolution as assertions, or do you accept scientific consensus in these cases?

crescentmoon Sat 29-Dec-12 23:55:14

Something like the richest 20 per cent of the worlds population consume 75per cent of its resources. It is over consumption not over population that is the worlds major problem.

The poor countries are disproportionately feeling the effects of climate change though they are not the major producers of greenhouse gases. bangladesh produces less than 1per cent of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions but is the country most suffering the effects of man made climate change. What's the carbon footprint of the average Bangladeshi child compared to the average British child? Compare the oil consumption of the average American adult with the average Bangladeshi adult?

Mass die off / Plague of the worlds poor would have a negligible effect on the greenhouse effect- it is the worlds rich that need to resolve to live within their means if the whole planet is to be saved.

Flicktheswitch Sat 29-Dec-12 23:55:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crescentmoon Sun 30-Dec-12 00:01:02

The scary thing is what to do if the rest of the whole world population regards this over consuming capitalist culture as a beacon of progress. What if the rising Indian middle classes and the Chinese middle classes also want to have two cars per household and exotic fruits out of season and meat everyday for example. What if the worlds poor also think that is the peak of success? Or that there is no value in anything except materialism and over consumption.

EugenesAxeChoppedDownANiceTree Sun 30-Dec-12 00:07:33

The term global warming is, in my opinion, more likely to have been ditched to prevent fuckwits people poopooing the fact that lowering emissions is important, because its not conventionally hotter where we live.

Reports I've seen often acknowledge the effect of mini ice ages but also show that man is having an influence on climate over and above this.

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 00:10:27

Flicktheswitch -

Science doesn't prove things.

Scientists come to conclusions based on the evidence. The scientific consensus is that manmade climate change is significant.

cumfy Sun 30-Dec-12 01:33:24

Hmmm...I wonder how the last ice age ended without our carbon emissions...?

Milankovitch Cycles

The Earth's orbit changes over 3 cycles (21,000 year precessional, 41,000 year tilt, and ~100,000 year eccentricity) which interlace with each other.

The end of the ice age and current warm Holocence period was essentially caused by the Northern Pole receiving a significantly greater amount of solar insolation during the summer melt season than for 120,000 years (since the last interglacial). A catastrophic collapse of the ice sheets occured raising sea-levels 120m, and humans spread around the globe.

merrymouse Sun 30-Dec-12 07:49:21

No, Himalaya you missed my point (although I admit maybe I should have used hmm).

I do not want half the world's population to die (and assume neither does drizzlecakes), but assume that those who argue that climate change has always happened and that man can always adapt are quite happy with this kind of adaptation.

seeker Sun 30-Dec-12 07:55:46

Am I being unreasonable to wonder why people who believe stupid things often can't spell?

Morloth Sun 30-Dec-12 08:23:50

You don't have to be happy about something to accept it as inevitable.

I just don't think anything will be done, I believe on of the reasons for this is because we can't do anything, because we are part of the cycle not outside of it.

We will bring about our own destruction, we can't help it, it is part of the design.

Believing this doesn't make me happy, I just accept that it is life, life isn't fair or even pleasant mostly, it just is.

theplodder Sun 30-Dec-12 09:07:35

Sadly, the planet is in the middle of a mass extinction not seen since the dinosaur times. We are pushing thousands of species over the edge. Your children if they are young are only ever likely to see many animals in captivity due to their being wiped out in the wild/ cornered only in small reserves. This is real and happening now. Global warming is just the icing on the cake. Yes we are just part of nature however we have wreaked huge change and destruction in the world. With another 3 bn people in the next 50 years its plain to see where this is heading. I am generally an optimist on day to day things but longer term, theres little to be cheerful about.

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 10:12:48

Merrymouse, ah, fair enough.

Depresses me how this discussion always seems to flip between disbelief and fatalism, without ever stopping on "it's real, it's scary, lets solve it".

I think there are political and technological solutions that don't involve going back to the dark ages. Three billion more people also means three billion more problem solvers, not just three billion more mouths to feed. I do think human creativity and cooperation can get us out of this, but it will take more ambition.

moogy1a Sun 30-Dec-12 10:25:58

seeker yes YABU.
Some people who make typing errors do so as they are bf'ing 2 week old babies.
AIBU to think a simple typing error is not very relevant to the discussion?
AIBU to think respondents should read the whole thread where I have already explained my heinous crime of using an e instead of an a?

merrymouse Sun 30-Dec-12 14:38:04

Yes, himalaya, agree that it is better to try to find ways to ameliorate the situation (and try to plan how we might deal with greater demands on fewer resources) than just think "we are all going to die" or more accurately "nevermind, they are all going to die".

cumfy Sun 30-Dec-12 14:42:53

"it's real, it's scary, lets solve it"

Himalaya, but this is the problem; that very few people think like this.
Certainly not enough to form a critical mass in a democracy.
And threads like this are a highly effective demonstration of democracy in operation wink; everyone's opinion is equal.

Witness how we are dealing with this, relatively speaking, minor financial downturn. Everyone running round like headless chickens shouting "more growth, more growth" as though we were living in the Dark Ages in 2004 (or whenever it last was our economy was at an equivalent level).

So in 30 years time, we still won't be solving the real problems, everyone will be running round in circles shrieking "more growth, more growth, we haven't seen Dark Days as this since the hand-to-mouth existence of 2012".

Which is one of the reasons why I really hope that sensitivity to CO2 doubling is less than currently estimated.

seeker Sun 30-Dec-12 14:50:10

Wow- a climate change denier with a two week old baby! Let's hope you're right for his sake then, eh?

garlicbaubles Sun 30-Dec-12 15:41:47

it's real, it's scary, lets solve it

I do love your posts and agree a more constructive attitude would be very helpful. It seems, however, that we can't agree on the likely cause or the likely consequences, therefore are unlikely to come up with an agreed solution!

I wish we could & would, though. Also what you said about economic flapping, cumfy. I know Himalaya and I would come to a similar agreed disagreement standoff over that, sadly confused

Wouldn't be so bad if it were limited to posters on a forum but, evidently, those with real power also disagree.

Flicktheswitch Sun 30-Dec-12 16:47:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Flicktheswitch Sun 30-Dec-12 16:56:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

skaen Sun 30-Dec-12 17:02:28

YABU op. The consensus amongst scientists who actually know what they're talking about and aren't being paid by oil companies to spread scepticism amongst people who like their science in nice soundbites from the daily mail is that climate change is happening, more quickly than anticipated and is very substantially manmade.

I would much prefer people started to tackle this generally anyway - to decrease the amount of energy required and up the renewables which could provide this with subsidies to help poorer families so that we can gradually start to adapt and hopefully avoid an 'On the Road' type situation. That could also have the side effect of actually encouraging green industries and helping people get into work.

I'm not optimistic.

Flicktheswitch Sun 30-Dec-12 17:03:06

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

inde Sun 30-Dec-12 17:17:12

Perhaps you could tell us the sources of information that make you sceptical Flicktheswitch. Just saying the climate has always changed tells us nothing we don't already know. I have watched videos by Lord Monckton and seen them thoroughly debunked by the likes of Prof. John Abraham and others like Peter Hadfield.

youngermother1 Sun 30-Dec-12 18:04:55

Do renewables actually reduce CO2 though?

LineRunner Sun 30-Dec-12 18:57:59

Yes

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 19:06:46

Youngermother - no renewables don't reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere, but they reduce the amount emitted in future by substituting for coal, gas and oil. Unless and until carbon capture and storage becomes much more efficient, cheaper and safer fossil fuels have to stay underground if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. So other sources of energy are needed.

garlicbaubles Sun 30-Dec-12 19:13:11

fossil fuels have to stay underground if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change
You are assuming the use of fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change, Himalaya. I suspect it isn't.

It's obviously a good idea to develop alternative energy sources anyway. But your statement above doesn't necessarily make logical sense. We might develop alternative sources and still undergo catastrophic climate change.

Actually, taking past events into view, I'd suggest it's almost inevitable.

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 19:37:01

Garlic -
I'm going with the IPCC on this one, not the tin foil hat brigade.

EugenesAxeChoppedDownANiceTree Sun 30-Dec-12 19:52:58

seeker - grin

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 19:54:01

Flickthelightswitch -

I grouped tobacco/cancer, evolution and manmade climate change in the same bucket because they are all issues where some people would tell you there is a scientific controversy where there isn't.

In the 1950s, 60s and 70s tobacco industry executives sought to cast doubt on the mounting evidence linking cancer and smoking. There are advocates of intelligent design who are calling for school science lessons to "teach the controversy" over evolution. They could both point to scientists whose views challenged the consensus.

Of course scientists should be free to research all avenues, submit to peer reviewed journals etc... But at some point policy makers and the public have to say "there is enough evidence to take action" rather than give into the delaying tactics of incumbent interests.

garlicbaubles Sun 30-Dec-12 20:01:03

If the world were to use only nuclear power (OK, we'd have to give up combustion-driven transport, as well), would that then arrest climate change?

NuclearStandoff Sun 30-Dec-12 20:17:46

74% of carbon emissions are attributable to energy.

Therefore, switching from carbon-intensive fossil-fuel generated energy to zero-carbon renewables and nuclear power has the potential to make a big difference to carbon emissions. Of course, we all need to learn to use less energy as well.

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 21:22:34

Garlic . i think nuclear is part of the answer. But it is only one part.

A couple of scientists have set out a useful shopping list of options to reduce emission reduction over the next 50 years using existing technology.

They came up with 15 "wedges" each delivering 1 billion tonnes of avoided emissions by 2060. To get onto a safe emissions pathway we would need to fully exploit 9 of these wedges.

These are the wedges:

Improve energy generation efficiency x2

Double fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg.

Increase Wind power by 10x = 200 million large windmills

Replace 1400 coal fired power stations with gas (still a fossil fuel but less emissions per watt)

Increase solar electricity generation x 100

Hydrogen powered cars (based on additional solar or wind power to split water)

Carbon Capture and Storage for 800 coal electric plants.

12x Increase in ethanol = 1/6th of world cropland to biofuels

Double global nuclear capacity.

Eliminate tropical deforestation.

Adopt conservation tillage in all agricultural soils worldwide.

Decrease the number of car miles traveled by half.

Boost efficiency in all residential and commercial buildings.

Produce hydrogen from coal at six times today's rate AND store the captured CO2.

Capture carbon from 180 coal-to-synfuels plants AND store the CO2.

None of them are easy. Some are no brainers and others have big issues, but it gives you an idea of the options and scale of ambition needed. You could also substitute other options in e.g. If people ate a lot less meat that could be one wedge.

www.climatecentral.org/blogs/wedges-reaffirmed

garlicbaubles Sun 30-Dec-12 21:27:01

Why? If Himalaya's right, that climate change will stop if we stop using fossil fuels, surely we can use as much nuclear energy as we damn well like?

I should say I think the proposition itself is full of holes, but am honestly interested to learn how this thinking goes.

And I said nuclear rather than wind/solar/wave because the more 'natural' means of power generation can cause instant damage to climates & environments - and, on a big enough scale, probably to the global climate.

garlicbaubles Sun 30-Dec-12 21:28:11

Last post was in reply to "Of course, we all need to learn to use less energy as well."

Am reading yours now, Himalaya.

inde Sun 30-Dec-12 21:53:32

There isn't an unlimited amount of the elements needed to create nuclear fuel, also the spent fuel has to be disposed of. Until they manage to harness fusion power (probably never) it is still a good idea to learn to use less energy.

NuclearStandoff Sun 30-Dec-12 21:59:00

the more 'natural' means of power generation can cause instant damage to climates & environments - and, on a big enough scale, probably to the global climate.

what is the source of your information on this, garlicbaubles?

Doesn't Fukushima show that the potential environmental damage from nuclear power is much greater?

cumfy Sun 30-Dec-12 22:44:34

The real lesson of Fukushima is that when multiple risk evaluations of your nuclear plant identify the back-up generators as being at high risk from flood in a tsunami:

Then.Move.The.Generators

They didn't.

labtest Sun 30-Dec-12 23:02:36

Why do people jump on obvious typing errors here. Smug arseholes.

Himalaya Sun 30-Dec-12 23:26:06

What Inde said re: nuclear, plus building new nuclear power stations takes time, while other options like energy efficiency can be done quicker and more cheaply.

youngermother1 Mon 31-Dec-12 01:24:28

So to all the people who believe amelioration is the answer - what is your annual fossil energy usage, because today it is possible to have all your energy as green (an expensive option, but possible) and not have a car (except an electric car) - so who has followed their comments here with action?

merrymouse Mon 31-Dec-12 07:50:22

All the major oil companies will agree that we have had a pretty major effect on the availability of fossil fuels over the last few few years, and that's just over a few decades of use by a very small percentage of the earth's population. Co2 or no co2 I don't think there is a 'carry on as you were' option.

Himalaya Mon 31-Dec-12 08:37:06

Youngermother - I do have a green energy tariff, but we also have a (petrol) car. I don't own any shares in fossil fuel companies.

There are things that individiuals can do, but the level of ambition required depends on governments taking action - energy policy, carbon pricing, city and transport planning, R&D support, international collaboration etc...

skaen Mon 31-Dec-12 09:29:08

Youngermother, we have led lights, very efficient appliances and a ground source heat pump going in next year so will generate a fair amount of our own heating.

We drive less than 5000 miles per year - generally cycle or use public transport and last flew 5 years ago so we do try...

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 10:01:45

Youngermother: I have no car, am parsimonious of gas & electricity, own few hi-tech devices, am a low-level consumer and never fly. This is because I'm very poor. As a corollary, there's no hope of my purchasing any independent heat- or power-producing equipment; my home leaks heat all over and is damp; I can no longer afford to worry about how my groceries were farmed. I have an illness that demands a high-protein, high-nutrient diet. I've already had to sacrifice adequate heat for adequate food this winter; it hasn't even got very cold yet.

I've little hope that this will help anyone understand why my perspective is more cynical than it was when I considered these issues from within a comfortable environment and a lifestyle that involved choice. But here you go anyway.

How's your own carbon footprint?

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Mon 31-Dec-12 10:03:30

Sukarno where do you get your led lights? We have one but find it very directional. I'd really like to find some that cast light wider.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Mon 31-Dec-12 10:04:18

Doh, silly iPad!! Skaen, not Sukarno!

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 10:07:28

LED strips are nice smile Cheap on ebay. Also, have you thought about LED tube lights and rope/fairy lights?

With 'normal' light fittings, the shape of the beam depends on the style of bulb. There are loads of different reflector patters (the shiny foil parts.) Have a read to find out what you need where.

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 10:07:55

*patterns - not a mysterious technical term!

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Mon 31-Dec-12 10:10:57

I've had a really good look garlicbaubles, but will keep looking smile I think the issue is making them bright enough so that a decent diffuse can be used. Of course, making them brighter uses more power. I'd like to be able to swap out our CFLs directly as I struggle to see with them.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Mon 31-Dec-12 10:11:21

Diffuser, not diffuse. Silly fingers.

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Mon 31-Dec-12 10:11:44

grin

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 10:15:49

I loathe fluorescents! I've got them, but I don't like 'em.

LED technology isn't yet good enough to give the same sort of all-over light you get from 'normal' bulbs. The answer is to use more LEDs - get your diffusion from horizontals, point your directionals at highlight spots, use reflective backgrounds. It's a bit more effort but, as a bonus, you can achieve fabby designer-looking interiors while burning less fuel.

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 10:20:17

I put LED-studded ceilings in my last flat. Looks a bit corporate but does the job nicely. You add depth with your additional lighting. It was really economical - I bought multi-lamp kits from Wickes and made a fake ceiling with plasterboard.

I will shut up about this now before I ramble off into interior design! blush grin

OhyouMerryLittleKitten Mon 31-Dec-12 10:22:25

Wow! I'm impressed! grin we have the interior design/DIY skills of a peanut in this house.

theodorakisses Mon 31-Dec-12 12:31:07

I hate those bulbs. We can only get normal ones here. I respect the views expressed on here and obviously there is a scientific basis for these things. I don't think people who care are smug. I can honestly say though, that could not care even a little bit about it, I am going to be gone before anyone can make me drive a hydrogen car.

cumfy Mon 31-Dec-12 14:09:56

theodora grin, am really glad you are honest about it.

I get the impression that some older people have a very self-serving "Humph, what nonsense" approach, because they're not going to be around when the shit hits the fan.

AllFallDown Mon 31-Dec-12 14:41:43

I do love the people who talk about the incredible power of the climate change scientists, about how they are able to bend governments to their will, how they have pulled the wool over the world's eyes with their incredible lobbying power.

Which completely ignores the fact that all the financial and political power lies with those who deny climate change - the massive fossil fuel conglomerates, the oil and coal producers, the heavy industries.

Even if you can't be bothered to read the research, the fact that underpaid scientists with no political apparatus behind them have managed to convince most of the world they are right should be a sign that they haven't got it completely wrong.

skaen Mon 31-Dec-12 15:23:33

I think we got the lights from simply led. I tend to google and see who's cheapest for warm colour bulbs of whatever fitting we need.

I do sympathise Garlic. It seems to me that one of the relatively easy and straightforward things for the govt to do is to tighten up building regs and impose restrictions on letting property so it has to meet a certain performance level - poss combined with rent control so that houses should be easier to keep warm without leaking energy everywhere.

Sorting out gas and electricity tariffs so you pay a lower rate if you use less might also be a good idea.

Theodora- if there was a hydrogen car which was effectively free to run would you really continue to use a diesel/ petrol one? We need to get to a point with the various technologies coming through that they are cheap and therefore the default.

amicissimma Mon 31-Dec-12 15:53:21

I have read and read and researched and researched and have yet to find any evidence produced that
a) "global temperatures" (whatever that actually means) are consistantly rising
b) increased CO2 levels are causing an increase in global temperatures
c) human activity is definitely responsible for an appreciable rise in CO2 levels.

What I do see, however, which concerns me very much, is that energy prices are rising way beyond the cost of the raw materials, to pay for useless windmills (conventional power stations have to keep running regardless of whether or not the wind is blowing) . Much of this money is paid to wealthly landowners, eg Sam Cameron's dad, at the expense of energy users, eg garlicbaubles (sorry to single you out - you post was nearby) and, of course, industry, on which people's livelihoods depend.

emmac52000 Mon 31-Dec-12 15:54:28

There are sustainability standards which must be adhered to for all social housing (including shared ownership) and all public buildings. Breeam and code for sustainable homes. This even stretches out to refurbishments.It's the rest of new builds and small scale refurbishments that are the problem. I'm liking b&q as they mostly sell low energy bulbs and are signed up to 1 planet living who promote it actively in their stores.

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 16:03:29

Single me out as much as you like, ami smile Your post makes straightforward sense to me!

Emma, I'd rather a policy imposed universal quality & rent controls on existing dwellings than space-age standards on public properties. Both would be nice, of course. Actually a lot of the very worst rental homes are council-owned. If sustainability standards apply to refurbs on social housing, is this cost an inhibiting factor?

inde Mon 31-Dec-12 17:05:48

I have read and read and researched and researched and have yet to find any evidence produced that
a) "global temperatures" (whatever that actually means) are consistantly rising
b) increased CO2 levels are causing an increase in global temperatures
c) human activity is definitely responsible for an appreciable rise in CO2 levels.

I am genuinely interested to know what you are reading amicissimma that makes you think there is no evidence. Here is the best article I found showing global warming is real after just a few minutes searching news.discovery.com/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html . There are many other sources like NASA for instance.

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 18:21:25

I am an habitual sceptic. Blame my school's attachment to Edward de Bono and to something called Meticulous Thinking. Before accepting an important idea, I like to visit its sources and build an opinion from there and take specialists' comments on board as I go; I can't be an expert in anything everything. I have read numerous source documents on climate change (one thing I am good at is statistical analysis.) I'm not setting myself up as an expert, because I'm not. I do, though, consider my own opinion worth holding because I have formed it meticulously. I think the matter of climate change is still too full of unknowns for it to be pivotal. Our science is too new.

This extract, from one of many thoughtful wikipedia pages on the topic, is an illustration of why I feel it's wrong to posit a definite conclusion:-

Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png#Summary

garlicbaubles Mon 31-Dec-12 18:28:23

The idea that the science must be right because the governments support it, or vice versa, is absolutely hilarious. History, up to this very minute, is crawling with bad science working with bad government to make catastrophic mistakes.

inde Mon 31-Dec-12 19:08:53

This extract, from one of many thoughtful wikipedia pages on the topic, is an illustration of why I feel it's wrong to posit a definite conclusion:-

I'm not really sure what that file you have quoted from is attempting to show garlic. As far as I can see they are saying they cant tell from the data they are analysing whether we have had a comparable amount of warming in the last few thousand years. I'm not sure whether that disproves what the majority of climate scientists are saying ie that the earth is warming and that this warming is to be expected given the amount of greenhouse gas that has bee added to the atmosphere. Maybe I am missing what the author is attempting to show though?

The idea that the science must be right because the governments support it, or vice versa, is absolutely hilarious. History, up to this very minute, is crawling with bad science working with bad government to make catastrophic mistakes.

I agree it would be absolutely hilarious if anyone were to say that science must be right because governments support it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that though.

merrymouse Tue 01-Jan-13 09:14:22

As I said before, whether or not you believe that climate change is caused by fossil fuels, there is consensus - among fossil fuel conglomerates, governments and green lobbyists - that there is a finite amount of fossil fuel available. Hence renewed interest in nuclear power and renewables, pipelines across Europe from Russia, and deals between dodgy governments and power companies as they scramble to control resources.

Is anybody honestly arguing that current use of fossil fuels is sustainable?

Himalaya Tue 01-Jan-13 11:58:12

The thing is though Merry, if we burn all the fossil fuel supplies that are accessible (not to mention tar sands etc...) and then switch to something more sustainable, we will not avoid 4-6 degrees climate change and all the negative impacts that will have. What's more the impacts of ocean acidification are pretty dire too.

flow4 Tue 01-Jan-13 22:04:44

This is an interesting and very civilised discussion. smile Just marking my place.

moogy1a Wed 02-Jan-13 10:07:11

Does anyone else think that solar activity might have a much greater influence on global climate than anything man can do? if so, there's very little we can do about it and our influence pales into insignificance compared to the ininfluence of a mahoosive nuclear explosion going on in the centre of our solar system.
Too sleep deprived to look it up, but I have a recollection that a direct correlation between sun activity and previous mini ice ages / hot spells has been found.

Himalaya Wed 02-Jan-13 10:29:48

Moogy - what you might have been reading in your sleep deprived state is the stuff recently put out by James Delingpole etc... in advance of the next IPCC report. You might want to read this piece from skeptical science

inde Wed 02-Jan-13 11:36:25

Form himalayas link:-
"The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion. In fact, in attempting to argue to the contrary, Rawls has scored an own goal by showing that if anything, GCRs are currently amplifying a solar cooling effect".

Rawls actually leaked the report because he had apparently misread it's conclusions. That is why they call the leaking an own goal.

Another thing to take into account is that 2010 which was one of the hottest years on record coincided with the deepest solar minimum since satellite measurememts began in the 1970's.

moogy1a Wed 02-Jan-13 12:22:24

I thought the link between solar activity and global temp. was the opposite of what you would assume it would be. ie. during periods of lots of solar activity, the earth is cooler than "normal" and vice versa?

LessMissAbs Wed 02-Jan-13 12:33:18

Climate change is normal. Greenland was inhabited in the 1600s and crops were grown, sustaining a population for over a hundred years. Ice ages come and go, as do mini ice ages, and droughts. What would be abnormal is climate staying the same.

theodorakisses Wed 02-Jan-13 12:39:29

merrymouse, I am not very well versed in this but I do work for the world's largest exporter of LNG and a significant amount of oil. My own experience of my company has been that they are realistic about both the environmental effects of the processes we use and of the finite resources, hence Qatar creating a self sufficient vision beyond 2030. On a day to day level, this has impacted on me in the last 10 years. When I first arrived, power and water were free, they still are but we are now metered and will be charged over a certain, wasteful level. Our new water recycle system means water is used 3 times, the last time for irrigation. The gay abandon with which money and power were thrown around with 10 years ago is over.

cumfy Wed 02-Jan-13 13:29:34

Greenland was inhabited in the 1600s and crops were grown

Yes. Tiny bits of Greenland, some fjords which today still have a very conducive microclimate.

Greenland was still basically ice in 1600.

inde Wed 02-Jan-13 13:43:49

I thought the link between solar activity and global temp. was the opposite of what you would assume it would be. ie. during periods of lots of solar activity, the earth is cooler than "normal" and vice versa?

The solar minimum I referred was in the energy radiated from the sun.
There are also ways of distinguishing between warming caused by greenhouse gases and solar radiation. If the current warming was caused by the sun then the troposphere and stratosphere would warm uniformly. In actual fact the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling.

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 14:34:44

the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling

Statements like this send my inner sceptic stratospheric! How long have we had instruments to accurately measure rates of change in the stratosphere's temperature? How long to a cycle of change in the planet, let alone the solar system?

If this conclusion has been extrapolated from effect-based data, what is the statistical reliability of that data? How was this parameter determined? What further conditions are required to afford stability?

When you asked about my quote above, inde, you seem to have missed its main message ... The ice core measurements that were used to suppose historical climactic conditions on Earth are only reliable to a level of 300 years. You can compare one 300-year period to another with some degree of confidence, but not shorter periods. We've only been measuring surface temperatures for 150 years, therefore meteorological information isn't yet available for a 300-year comparable period.

My quote was generous again, since no sensible statistician compares unlike data. Readings taken from the surface are not the same as information construed from ice cores. You have to rely on suppositions about the ice data, always bearing in mind that these only record changes occurring at the ice caps. And they show rates of change, not absolute measurements - those, again, have to be construed.

Plus, the surface meteorological readings of 150 years ago (even 50 years, actually) aren't the most reliable. We won't have comparable ice core records for our age in our lifetimes because the ice needs to be laid down, settle and compress before it gains historical properties.

I recognise the scientific rigour of those who interpret ancient geological information ... and question the statistical honesty of those who mould it into forecasts and policies.

cumfy Wed 02-Jan-13 14:49:07

Garlic, you do realise that scientists have considered all this ..... don't you ?

A climate scientist would not slap their head at your posts and cry "Oh my giddy aunt, I'd never thought of that".

It's just that a lot of your posts come across as though you genuinely think they haven't.

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 15:01:53

grin cumfy, I'm really shit at explaining my perspective on this, aren't I? Sorry!

Far from questioning the science of those who recover the information and figure out how to interpret it, I admire them hugely. It's taken a truly impressive amount of dedication and much suppression of competitive egos.

When they publish charts going back 1,200 years (Holocene) and 450,000 years (entire), explaining how the charts show rates of change in Earth's temperature and CO2 levels and why the data must be smoothed to 300 years, I respect that tremendously! It's amazing work. When I see "experts" abusing the 300-year data smoothing to make scientifically unstable predictions, I suspect ulterior motives. Same when I see them ignore or wilfully misinterpret other caveats that were published with the findings.

When I ask "How do we know about temperature changes in the stratosphere?", that is actually a question. If someone reads such questions as attacks, it probably means they neither understand nor care about the source of their assertion and/or have an agenda to pursue.

The global climate is changing. Some places are getting warmer and drier, some places are getting warmer and wetter. There are more catastrophes. These are facts.

Whether all of these are as a result of human activity is a cause of speculation, but given that we have the science and technology to do our best to mitigate against these situations, surely we ought to?

BTW I am studying ecology/conservation and climate!

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 15:05:44

A climate scientist would not slap their head at your posts and cry "Oh my giddy aunt, I'd never thought of that".

Well, no, because I'm just repeating what they said.

Maybe I should give up trying here, and watch prison break series 2 instead ... ?
... yes, I should wink grin

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 15:13:09

given that we have the science and technology to do our best to mitigate against these situations, surely we ought to?

This is my view - though I was told off for saying mitigate when I meant 'minimise the deleterious effects to humanity'.

The majority of posters here believe the best approach to mitigation is to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I think it's wiser to start creating a human-friendly world that can operate under widely varying climactic conditions and is less reliant on fossil fuels.

I don't actually believe fossil fuels are running out <adjusts tin hat> but, all the same, they generate wars and political problems along with the CO2. Best reduce our dependence on 'em, imo.

Now I have a date with a good-looking, adrenalin-pumping, androcentric mine of TV tropes wink smile

inde Wed 02-Jan-13 15:36:34

Statements like this send my inner sceptic stratospheric! How long have we had instruments to accurately measure rates of change in the stratosphere's temperature? How long to a cycle of change in the planet, let alone the solar system

I do take your point garlicbaubles and it is good to be sceptical.
On the point about the temperature of the stratosphere, recent measurements are crucial to the debate. This is because sceptics say that recent warming could be caused by solar forcing. If this is the case data for the last thirty or forty years should bear this out. It doesn't. Scientists are becoming increasingly overwhelmed with data that does bear out AGW.
On your points about reliability of data then this is why peer reviewed evidence is so important. This is to filter out the bias of scientists and to make sure their conclusions do stand up.
It's interesting to see what one leading sceptic, Lord Monckton, said when asked why he doesn't submit his research to be peer reviewed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdQp-PisrBY He tries to humiliate the young lady who asked by claiming that he she hasn't done her homework. Trouble is the paper that he claims was reviewed actually says below his article that it is not peer reviewed. He makes many claims that are thoroughly debunked. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton You might say that he is just one man in this debate butMonckton was called as the only witness for the Republicans at a subcommittee hearing on climate science. He also seems to be the speaker of choice for sceptics all over the world.
These are the kind of thing that sends my inner sceptic stratospheric.

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 15:48:31

On the point about the temperature of the stratosphere, recent measurements are crucial to the debate. This is because sceptics say that recent warming could be caused by solar forcing. If this is the case data for the last thirty or forty years should bear this out. It doesn't.

Thanks for that, inde. It looks as though we're getting worrying close to a discussion about what causes ice ages, why they recede and can we influence this process. Personally I think such questions are slightly bonkers when we have observable and fixable problems to solve before attempting global climate control. I'm very interested in the economics/politics of power and water control and perceive a hijacking of the green/CO2 business by those with interests to protect. Might be a different thread, though, eh!

PessaryPam Wed 02-Jan-13 15:49:05

garlicbaubles I agree with you. I reckon it's a good idea to use fossil fuels sparingly, they are too valuable to just burn. The Chinese are investing in Thorium Salt reactors, I think we should too. The other thing we should do is try to stop the human population growing as it is. That's the true elephant in the room.

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 15:54:16

I want somebody to make a tiny salt-reactor plant that will fit under my lawn, Pam! Anybody got a geeky teenager with a secret stash of nuclear ingredients? wink

Himalaya Wed 02-Jan-13 19:18:41

Garlic - I didn't mean to tell you off about mitigation/ adaptation, just to clarify. Your use of the word makes complete sense in terms of English language, but its worth knowing that how the words are used by climate wonks of you are reading round the subject.

garlicbaubles Wed 02-Jan-13 20:01:11

grin s'okay, Himalaya!

This bloomin' language corruption by 'specialists' is an even bigger - and almost as damaging - bugbear of mine. I was in the early Plain English movement and today's word-twisting makes me despair as much as it makes me laugh ... flippin' majority minorities, opaque transparency, correctional mitigations, argh!!!

<explodes>
<rearranges bloody fragments of self>
<settles back down with Prison Break troperie>

Is it very wrong to have lewd fantasies about a slightly cissy actor who's 16 years my junior?
No?
Ah, good wink

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now