Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 3 of 30<<1234567>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic
Topic: Climate change..., ... this is so annoying ...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 21
VoodooChild Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 391
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 24 2011,14:16  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I don’t think anyone in the scientific community is arguing that climate stability is the historical norm, the argument is centered on the speed at which we are currently observing glacial melt, rising carbon dioxide levels, average annual temperature rise etc…. There is no analog in climate history for the phenomena many scientists believe we are currently witnessing, hence all the debate.

--------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
pyko Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: SL Admin
Posts: 1455
Joined: Nov. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 24 2011,14:30 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Morsie @ Jan. 24 2011,02:38)
QUOTE
Which would you prefer Stoats, a warm and balmy England or a cooler phase?

The climate is cyclical, we know that much, but our limited predictions don't go back far enough to see a complete cycle, so that info is a work in progress. (Even with Artic bore samples). Volcanos & lots of natural occurances contribute to weather change and there's El Nino & other meteorological phenomena to take account of...
But so does so does industry as Marc Said.

I'm not a climate change nutter, as I've mentioned, I don't think anything's conclusive, but why risk making it worse? The consequences are just too big to contemplate.

I also don't for a minute think any globally concerted effort will ever be made, that will change things for the better...

Jeroen, Interesting point about Scotland is that we're on a latitude with Moscow, and should therefore suffer the same fate as most of the Northern countries, only the Gulf Stream stops that, gives us the balmy wet conditions we know & love.  :???:

But it's changing, Gulf streams being diverted by Southerly systems & we're heading for a more "normal" Notherly climate.

Global warming would be nice...   :(


--------------
You can observe a lot just by watching.
Yogi Berra
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
VoodooChild Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 391
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 24 2011,14:35 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(pyko @ Jan. 24 2011,14:30)
QUOTE
why risk making it worse? The consequences are just too big to contemplate.

Aye, there's the rub.

--------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Frank LoPresti Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 6739
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 24 2011,16:07 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In around the 1700's before anyone had a reason to burn coal the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million. In nature that number was thought to have fluctuated between 180 and 280 ppm through the previous 800,000 years. By the 1900's about 300 ppm. Today it's above 390. By 2016 it will probably have passed 400 ppm and 10 years from then around 420 ppm. The main uncertainties are what might happen as carbon dioxide levels reach 450 ppm.

I'm afraid that's the science that truly matters in this debate, despite what the Koch brothers would want you to believe.

Frank


--------------
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.  
                                                                            Paul Arden
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Frank LoPresti Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 6739
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 24 2011,16:38 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Rich Knoles @ Jan. 22 2011,03:23)
QUOTE

This is the dumbest statement I've ever read and completely misrepresents the actual concern of dumping more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and how that will impact the environment and climate.

Frank


--------------
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.  
                                                                            Paul Arden
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Gallah Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Oct. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 27 2011,00:03 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Stoatstail50 @ Jan. 22 2011,07:46)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I'm going out on a limb here and assume that this forum is not dominated by nutty climate-change-deniers...


Ooops..... :)

Doesn't take long for the good old independently funded Cato intitute to pop up again does it.... :glare:

Sure ... the thing about that is that it's propoganda, spin and nonsense, funded by big oil fatcats. This is the real climate hoax right here and people and gobbling it up, hook line and sinker, because it's presenting them with the easy option: do nothing.

Most of the scientists listed are not even earth scientists, let alone climate scientists! Many requested their names be removed from the list, ...and even considering that, they are still in the massive minority in the "general scientific" world.

The reality of the situation is that there is not one (real) scientific institution on the planet that holds a dissenting opinion on man made climate change, and last a recent survey, based on the opinions of over 3000 real climate scientists, 97% responded that they believed both i) climate change is occurring; and ii) it is being aggravated by man made causes. That's the reality in the scientific world, but it's obfuscated by misinformation put out by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels.

It is propaganda and spin that deludes the general public into believing the believers/dissenters are roughly equal in the scientific world and there's some kind of legitimate debate going on here. The truth is, it's not even close. The only real climate debate going on in the real scientific world is, "what do we do about it?".

To my mind, it's just plainly illogical for any layman to believe the tiny majority over the massive majority. Unfortunately it's human nature to believe the thing that you want to be true, so it's an uphill slog to convince people of an unfortunate reality, and what makes it almost impossible is to convince people to make a sacrifice now for the benefit of those (and maybe themselves) decades in the future.

However, if you take exactly the same gamble and apply it to something present and more tangible, the absurdity of it becomes clear. For example: if every single aerodynamic engineering institute on the planet, and 97% of aerodynamic engineers surveyed, told you that you jet liner was dangerous and would "most probably" crash on its next flight, would you take a gamble on that? Would you listen to the fringe loners, or the Glenn-Beck-Sarah-Palin types, or those with a vested interest of trillions of dollars??? ... or would you accept the mainstream, massive scientific consensus?

You'd have to be completely insane or suicidal to take the flight.

And it's exactly the same gamble people are willing to take with the climate. The only difference is that we won't see the worst effects for decades - maybe half a century or more - so people feel more comfortable and safe deluding themselves about it ... for now.

Really, it's about what you want to be true vs. accepting an uncomfortable reality about what, almost certainly, is true: the climate is changing and we're making it a lot worse.

There is a hoax going on here, and lots of people are falling for it because they want to fall for it. It's the easy "do nothing" option presented by fatcat big oil and fossil fuel industry.

They spew misinformation and spin through their talking-head mouthpieces like Glenn Beck and people actually believe this over the combined consensus of every scientific institution on the planet and pretty much any scientist worth asking.

It's really crazy and a little bit scary. This is really not something worth gambling on.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 27
Gallah Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Oct. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2011,12:29 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

@Morsie: the people who study this shit for a living are well aware that the climate is always changing, that's nothing they don't know. It just doesn't change this quickly; and despite the bullshit misinformation put out by those with vested interests, the stats don't lie: 13 of the past 14 years have been the warmest in recorded human history. Shit just doesn't happen that fast naturally, and it's going to have consequences that we won't like very much.

In the words of NASA's former chief climatologist, James Hansen: "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Floods and droughts and all sorts of extreme weather is not only intrinsically linked to climate change predictions, it is also linked to deforestation and general environmental neglect. Bob Brown might be a "numptey", but compared to Abbott's environmentally idiotic response to the QLD floods of "building more dams", the guy is a fricken genius. And that says more for Abbot's environmental incompetence than it does for the Greens. Abbot might have some redeeming features, but environmentally, the guy is a moron. And for me, environmentally is what comes first, whether you want believe the current climate science or not.

... and if anyone thinks this is not related to fishing, I reckon they've got a nasty surprise coming to them ... or more like their kids and grand-kids do.

end rant.

(yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the WWF [not the wrestling organisation]).

;)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 28
robk Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 863
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2011,18:42 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Things could be back to normal by 2911. :(

http://news.sciencemag.org/science....?ref=hp
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Rich Knoles Search for posts by this member.
flybitch 2008
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3151
Joined: Nov. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2011,00:08 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Pretty sure Hansen is a skeptic now.

--------------
Barrio Pro Team
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Gallah Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Oct. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2011,01:09 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Rich Knoles @ Jan. 29 2011,00:08)
QUOTE
Pretty sure Hansen is a skeptic now.

:???:

I'm "pretty sure" he's not. That's just crap ... and what interest do you have in perpetrating misinformation that only benefits oil billionaires at your own, and your children's expense? Hansen is an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on several recent occasions has led to his arrest.

As already mentioned, there isn't one scientific university, organisation in any country on the entire planet that dissents on man made climate change, and as far as lone individuals go, the last survey of U.S. climate scientists says that only 3% don't agree.

The illusion of some kind of legitimate debate going on in the scientific community, and growing ranks of scientific dissenters, is horse-shit. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I don't know where you heard that Hansen is "now a skeptic".

Some very influential people have a vested interest of trillions of dollars in fossil fuel. That is the source of the only real climate hoax. Hansen is not part of it; and nor should you be.

The only real debate going on in scientific circles is what we should do about it, and those aforementioned influential oil-fatcats, and their talking heads such as Glenn Beck, often label scientists as dissenters when in reality, they're only disagreeing on methods to tackle the problem, not on the actual problem itself, or it's root cause.

For my 2c, we've got nothing to lose by taking action and a lot to lose by kidding ourselves about it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
292 replies since Jan. 20 2011,23:28 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 3 of 30<<1234567>>
reply to topic new topic

» Quick Reply Climate change...
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code