global warming bullshit, truth ,man myth or just nature????

[AronSearle]

I'm pretty concerned about the pictures of arctic ice melt over the past years. It seems to be pretty bloody drastic!

Jeds I am not expert and often though that the world was b*****r even if it went zero carbon emissions right now

No.

C02 is believed to have been as high as 5000ppm at some points.

It is currently <400ppm.

Climate change is that, climate change.

It will be disastrous for some coastal cities (possibly), some areas may see less rain, some more, these places could be where we currently grow crops.

We can pump as much c02 as we want it will never make the earth uninhabitable, and may make it more plant life abundant, but just in areas we currently don't grow our crops (which could lead to short term food shortages).



I don't buy that climate change will lead to greater storms either, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/

According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.

Climate change is only potentially disastrous, because we have built all our major cities on the coast, and intensively farm our crops in the temperate belt (which will move north/south).

 

[RigidRaider]

What most people don't understand is the nasty bitchy competitive nature of academic life and the constant battle for survival in the form of funding. This means that any scientist who publishes sensational findings is much more likely to receive funding and accolades than the one who says: "actually there's nothing wrong, these are just natural variations".

Another aspect of scientific life is that anybody who dares to contradict the accepted wisdom is automatically shunned by the community because he risks exposing their research as baloney. Look at the whole AIDS myth and how that has become the accepted wisdom; any doubter gets shot down, as I expect I will soon.....

 

[Watkins]

What most people don't understand is the nasty **** competitive nature of academic life and the constant battle for survival in the form of funding. This means that any scientist who publishes sensational findings is much more likely to receive funding and accolades than the one who says: "actually there's nothing wrong, these are just natural variations".

Another aspect of scientific life is that anybody who dares to contradict the accepted wisdom is automatically shunned by the community because he risks exposing their research as baloney. Look at the whole AIDS myth and how that has become the accepted wisdom; any doubter gets shot down, as I expect I will soon.....

That happens in a hell of a lot of industries but yes, I'm pretty sure that the necessity of funding and the cliquey-ness of the academic circle can make going against the grain bloody hard!

 

[jeds]

Jeds I am not expert and often though that the world was b*****r even if it went zero carbon emissions right now - although a have a friend who has a PHD in environmental science and he seems to think differently. As I said i am no expert but he certainly is and the evidence would point towards it being a salvageable project so to speak - who knows he might just be protecting his own career path. however, this is my two pence, even if the end of the world is inevitable due to the damage done then surely reducing your emissions would squeeze the last drops of life out of the planet for maybe one more generation. Surely that would be a good thing. Anyhow, I'm pretty concerned about the pictures of arctic ice melt over the past years. It seems to be pretty bloody drastic!

The World is not going to end due to global warming. It might change and not everyone will like that change but it won't end. Let's put it into perspective. CO2 is approaching 400ppm. But about 97% of that CO2 is from natural sources. So if we were to reduce anthropogenic carbon to zero then atmospheric levels would still be way above the level where the Earth would be able to cool. In fact it would continue to warm. Of course it's impossible to actually reduce overall carbon output so the ppm level is destined to continue to rise - regardless of what we do. Also understand that CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is. So even if we were able to reduce carbon output (which we are not) the effect on global warming would be even less than appears - which if you follow the above is a tiny fraction of nothing.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming - it certainly does. What i am saying is that it is impossible to control. I am strongly in favour of developing and using renewable energy sources but my motivation is more to do with reduction of pollution and conservation of Earth's natural finite resources than it is to do with carbon output. The Earth will continue to warm. At some point we are going to have to start looking at ways to make the best of it.

incidentally; Antarctic ice is expanding at a faster rate than Arctic ice is melting. Nobody really knows why. I suspect it's natural balancing. Perhaps evidence that the Earth really is in charge and we really are just fleas on its back.

 

[pred]

If global warming is a reality and we ignore it, where does that leave us?

On the other hand if we do try and clean up our act and its not global warming, what have we lost?

 

[nickso]

If global warming is a reality and we ignore it, where does that leave us?

On the other hand if we do try and clean up our act and its not global warming, what have we lost?

The third question is do we as an individual actually give a ****? Your lifespan is so small compared to the global changes we may or may not be making it almost becomes irrelevant.

I can quite happily say I don't care at all other than the fact I hate waste in general and do my utmost to not waste anything....hence why I drive old buckets and not a Pious.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

It's a good scam for gas plumbers to sell condensing boilers I've heard.
"Half a polar bear saved with every install"

 

[Watkins]

Jeds it sounds like you have done your research! I'm sure the world will not end - but it may not be able to support an evergrowing population in such luxury. Who knows. I cetainly did not know about antartica expanding!

 

[AronSearle]

If global warming is a reality and we ignore it, where does that leave us?

On the other hand if we do try and clean up our act and its not global warming, what have we lost?

After all, what does it matter if 2/3 of the world live in poverty, and millions upon millions cannot find work.

Not saying we should ignore it, but simply pointing out there is a very real human cost.

Which is why we should look very carefully at what is presented as climate change scenarios vary from 2c (meh), to 10c OMG WE ARE GOING TO DIE!.

 

[AronSearle]

but it may not be able to support an evergrowing population in such luxury.

I read something recently that showed so much of the farms in the world are low productivity (old methods, lot's of substance farming etc). And that if all existing farmland was bought up to modern western methods, you could probably feed about 30 billion people.

 

[empip]

Pretty icy up there - at times.

-0-

 

[joe-90]

but it may not be able to support an evergrowing population in such luxury.

I read something recently that showed so much of the farms in the world are low productivity (old methods, lot's of substance farming etc). And that if all existing farmland was bought up to modern western methods, you could probably feed about 30 billion people.

But where will the oil come from to intensive farm?

 

[pred]

If its not due to global warming where are all these floods coming from, we never had this many in the past.

 

[calorific]

If its not due to global warming where are all these floods coming from, we never had this many in the past.

I suspect that we have. Records only go back so far and the occasional sporadic period is not statistically significant.

I also suspect that some flooding is created by other factors such as changes to the physical environment which has created larger flatland areas which do not have so much drainoff. This is a direct physical (as in geometric) consequence rather than a global one.

 

[pred]

I think i'm correct in saying all this rain we're getting is a result of the "jet stream" being in the wrong place!!!

The reason they give for the jet stream being in the wrong place is because the Artic ice cap has melted, so why has the ice cap melted?? Surely we are to blame!!