Apparently now climate change could have caused the recent Asian earthquake/ tsunami...(24 Posts)
I'd always assumed that earthquakes, volcanoes, etc were purely 'natural' disasters - i.e. that they emerge with no human intervention whatsoever. Flippin' heck. What on earth are we doing to the planet?
Sorry less likely to be 'climate change' per se and more likely to be the change in the planets axis, magnetic field and gravity from the planets in our solar system, all this will have the tectonic plates doing the ramba rather than the co2 in the atmosphere.
Did you read the article? It talked about stuff like changing weather patterns leading to fluctutations in the weight of the sea, which triggers activity when it fluctuates over underwater tectonic plates/ volcanoes.
Yes I did read it and it is green scaremongering, I much prefer the arguement that a change in gravitational flow, the change in magnetic flow etc etc produces the effects we are seeing. Yes I agree that we are coming out of an ice age and there will be extra water on the planet, but that I do not believe is the only reason, or main reason for the earthquakes etc.
And lets look on the bright side if we do have a decent sized erruption that will halt global warming and send us back into an ice age. ( sorry anti-green sarcasm- it's late.)
and we are WELL overdue a polarity switch planetwise
Yes thank you that was the one I couldn't think of.
What does the polarity switch mean, then?
Atlantis, it sounds like you're rejecting the article outright, am I right? You sound just as polarised (pardon the pun) as you're accusing the article of being. Also I didn't get from the article that changes in water flow are the only reason for earthquakes, etc.
Interesting article. I can't help but think that the variations in tectonic plate loading caused by the moon and the tides would dwarf that caused by the (relatively) small sea level changes caused by global warming.
Also would love more info on the planetary explanations above, if anyone has useful links.
99.9% of peer reviewed climatic scientists agree that the climate is changing because of man-made intervention. Atlantis's comment of "I much prefer the argument..." is typical of someone who doesn't want to bother inconveniencing their own lifestyle - and this is in the face of what will be a global catastrophe - think HUGE impacts on global food production (we import most of our food/energy into this country), massive climate migration, the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species of flora/fauna. you might not care that much, but your children certainly will, & the way we're going, god help your grandchildren. 'The Age of Stupid' is a good film aimed at the general public, rather than those already in the industry who have known about the impications of global warming for years, I suggest you watch it Atlantis - even if you think you're right, is it worth the risk????
From someone who knows more than I do:
When it comes to phenomena that occur in such a glacial pace over such a massively long period, noone, not a soul, can with any certainty claim a cause or an outcome. This, you, all of us, have to come to grips with. Granted, it's not easy because we all abhor uncertainty.
But. We. Just. Don't. Know.
The fact alone that there is huge conflict within the scientific community about global warming renders the issue that much harder (read: impossible) to fathom for us everyday people.
Which way you lean, global warming believer or non-believer, depends on how you as an individual are personally inclined, blasé (me) or prone to panic (you). After all, if scientists don't really know, how can you know? Answer: You don't know. You're simply propagating the scientists that you think may be right.
And that, my friend, makes you look pretty silly when you get all rabid about it.
its all a cycle innit.
we are over due an ice age
we are over due being hit by a meteor and getting wiped out
i think its all bollocks
It seems every severe weather event or natural phenomenon that comes along is immediatley turned into a climate change issue. I used to be an academic in the area and and I know how the game works - funding depends on doing research linked to whatever Gvt funding body says is their theme. For the last 10 years climate change has been a theme so all sorts of research has been linked to climate change that never was before. No doubt it will be something else in 10 years time. Stop the funding and all this research flow will stop and another stream will start.
Politicicians love it as it scares people into agreeing to more tax and regulation.
fkinell never thought anyone would agree with me.
I agree with the fact that it's difficult to quantify/qualify the role that man-made emissions have in affecting climate change, but why tale the risk? Surely that's a selfish attitude? Why not err on the side of caution & try not to burn millions of tonnes of carbon / cut down the huge sinks for carbon we have in the rainforests / try to protect the biodiversity of the planet rather than decimate it? In the words of the lady who cameos on the Simpsons "Won't someone think of the children?!"
"99.9% of peer reviewed climatic scientists agree that the climate is changing because of man-made intervention."
but science isn't democratic, unless you can prove it it's not fact it's theory.
so exercises like getting scientists to sign a document saying they agree that they believe climate change is man made (who was it who did this last year again?some organisation and it escapes me) isn't worth the paper they signed.
if 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of scientists say they believe something it means fuck all if that .0000000000000000001% is right.
you have to prove it.
i've never heard of another situation where by scientific theories have been put to a vote rather than scientific testing.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make in my post at all MayorQ (I'm not terribly eloquent), I was trying to say that the percentages demonstrate that mans' contribution to climate change is seen as a given by most climatic scientists, there will always be a small minority who dispute this. To put it into another context, 99.9% of historians agree that the holocaust happened, there is a tiny percentage who continue to deny this atrocity - the fact that they deny the holocaust doesn't cast any doubt on historical facts, it just makes them in the minority.
I am in no way comparing climate change with mass genocide, although I do believe more will die as a result of extreme weather conditions exacerbated by our actions.
Tell you what, some people need to get real.
If the electric goes off because we don't have enough power stations on then I don't care what anyone says most people will be begging the Govt to switch Drax power station on within 12 hours. When ever I travel up North by train I go past Drax and it sends a shiver down my spine to see the thing.
Generates 4,000 MW of power, biggest power station in Europe, it sits there silently day after day guaranteeing your kettle goes on every morning. Most people have no idea it exists but about 5.00 am its boilers start ramping up to full power, burning 20 tonnes of coal a minute and emitting 70 tonnes of CO2. All night long and most of the day it sits there waiting to come on even if it is not actually generating. When ever any other power station fails they just switch Drax on.
"To put it into another context, 99.9% of historians agree that the holocaust happened, there is a tiny percentage who continue to deny this atrocity - the fact that they deny the holocaust doesn't cast any doubt on historical facts, it just makes them in the minority"
but where this analogy falls down surely is that the historians can prove the fact by relying on evidence.
where as the link between man and climate change remains unproven, so the scientists are taking a leap in what they "believe" rather than what they have proven.
i think a better example would be the number of jews that where put to death during the holocaust. there is an accepted number of 6million which has become taken as fact because it has been repeated so many times,just like man being responsible for climate change.
now some people will take this as gospel and try to deride anyone who argues different (it's even illegal in some places).and i'd put this logic on the same level (the "LOGIC" now,not the gravity in case anyone misreads what i'm saying) as people who have heard global warming/climate change being attributed to man and evil 4x4's so often that they will immediately dismiss any other argument regardless of the source or science.
others will go the other extreme measure and try to pick minor holes in the figures presented and use that to extrapolate into a wider claim that somehow by proving one factual error or lie then they can disparage the whole claim.this is what so many white pride and anti-semetic groups do i.e. if you can prove that it wasn't 6 million you have then proven the whole thing to be a lie. and there will be people who if they find one other possible reason for climate change i.e. earths rotational axis/polar magnetic shifts they will immediately cease to listen to any sort of arguments regarding mans part to play.
and finally with the holocaust you will have historians who will say the 6 million figure is misleading,not because they are anti-semetic,but because they will say there is not enough evidence to conclusively show that the number is reliable and also that it will have consisted of gays,dissenters,the handi-capped and opposition among others. they will not deny the gravitas of the holocaust or that it happened, but they will merely point out that saying "6 million jews died in the holocaust is a FACT" is misleading (not a lie as such) because it can not be proven on the evidence available.
now for climate change, i don't deny that it is happening. but on the arguments i've seen presented i believe that it has more to do with natural shifts than man made. i think man may have contributed but it is negligible. however i don't close myself off to arguments, but nor do i present my opinions as fact.
i have no problem with people who believe man is responsible for global warming and their arguments are valid. but claiming it as a fact is simply wrong until the causal link is proven,in exactly the same way it would be wrong for me to say "it's a fact that man has no effect on climate change" because i can't prove it
70 tonnes of CO2 from 20 tonnes of C doesn't sound right to me. More like 50 tonnes?
From someone much better informed than me:
he big issue is not really whether the earth is warming or cooling, or if the climate is changing. All those things are happening now, just as they have happened in the past, and will continue happen in the future. Whether the temperature trend shows warming or cooling is entirely dependent on the time period we look at, ie: years, decades, centuries, Milena, millions or billions of years.
The BIG ISSUE is that some people say and many believe that it is mankind's activities that generate CO2, that are the cause of warming and climate change, AND that these activities must be stopped.
Despite $50B spent over the last 20 years, there is no scientific evidence that links CO2 to warming, but there is substantial evidence that proves that CO2 increases happen after warming periods (about 800 years later). Another fact is that mankind's contribution to CO2 is only about 3.8% of the total increase with the rest coming from the oceans, geological activity and decaying plant/animal matter. It is a fact that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a critical component for life on earth and in fact food for nearly all plants, which is why for a 100+ years farmers have pumped their greenhouses up with CO2 to increase the size and rate of crop growth.
The day will come for the Man-made Global Warming fear-mongers - should they actually plunge the world in to economic decay in an baseless attempt try to take us back to "year zero" to fix a problem that does not exist.
These idiots would have as much chance of stopping global warming as they do stopping the the wind from blowing.
What has been happening to temperatures over the last century?
1900s-1940s - temperatures increased substantially.
1940s-1970s - temperatures decreased substantially.
1970s-2000 - temperatures increased substantially.
2000-now - temperatures have decreased substantially. (now at levels of the late '70s)
For the last 150 years since the end of the "little ice-age" the level of atmospheric CO2 has been on a very steady and constant increase. But there is no correlation with temperatures levels of that period. However increasing and decreasing temperatures strongly correlate with our sun's sun-spot activities.
These are the facts.
I was wondering how long it would take for them to pin volcanoes, Tsunamis, cows farting, all on evil little man. The massive Tsunami in the 1500's off the coast of Japan was obviously caused by westerners with all the methane produced by bodies rotting in plague pits. East Anglia Unversity gets massive funding from Monbiot so they will say anything to justify their argument. Tsunamis are not new phenomenon! Kraktoa eruption Yeah caused by mankind. Just because an article is in the New Scientist does not give it credence. Man-Made Global Warming the new World Religion and cause of mass hysteria
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.