The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Roo]

You can see I've calmed down in my old age.

Never again will I worry about giving you the full broadside!!!! :lol:

Now, Mr Postie, this 'ere Global Warming: why do YOU believe it doesn't exist?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Roo

[Mondy]

Well, if you check back on ALL of Mondy's posts on the climate change thread (and there are some real beauties :lol: )then you'll get the answer to your question.

If you'd like I'll jot down my entire beliefs later, or this week sometime, but I'm currently very busy preparing my spray paint gun to dawb "Global Warming Sucks" on Al Gore's 747 :o

Laters..

[Roo]

If you'd like I'll jot down my entire beliefs later, or this week sometime, but I'm currently very busy preparing my spray paint gun to dawb "Global Warming Sucks" on Al Gore's 747 :lol:

Sounds fair enough to me....that man has done a lot of damage to a legitimate cause.

[Mondy]

Guess this could go in here too

You gotta hand it to the global warming crowd. They have mind-bending gall.

[Chris Knight]

Well, if you check back on ALL of Mondy's posts on the climate change thread (and there are some real beauties :lol: )then you'll get the answer to your question.

If you'd like I'll jot down my entire beliefs later, or this week sometime, but I'm currently very busy preparing my spray paint gun to dawb "Global Warming Sucks" on Al Gore's 747 :o

Laters..

Who will you call as an expert witness in your defence when you are in the dock?

[Gray-Wolf]

Who will you call as an expert witness in your defence when you are in the dock?

The global energy consortium!!! :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear that the 'credit crunch' is doing the job of reducing our CO2 outputs because we can't afford the bills!!! Oil prices fell again amid fears that people had stopped using as much due to the financial strain.......fancy that! greedy oil do greenpeace's job!!!!

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Whilst rooting around for volcanic stuff for my thread I came across this interesting little snippet. Record snow in New Zealands North Island it seems.

Ruapehu ski season

[stewfox]

Whilst rooting around for volcanic stuff for my thread I came across this interesting little snippet. Record snow in New Zealands North Island it seems.

Ruapehu ski season

More record cold/snow falls down south, I wonder how many more cold records will be broken up North this winter ?

I wonder if the Artic melt is a ruse to put us into a false sense of security

[noggin]

More record cold/snow falls down south, I wonder how many more cold records will be broken up North this winter ?

Funny that you should say that. Some time ago I started a thread about cold and snow records.........it got loads of hits and I was quite chuffed that I had started such a popular thread. However, it got totally ruined by ONE person who thought it was a load of rubbish and asked a mod to move it to a dark recess of N-W. The request was complied with and my poor, much-read thread died.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I see nothing wrong with posting up cold records just for the sake of curiosity and interest. I like fiddling about with statistics; so do Philip Eden and others.

What creates issues is the use of cold records to "disprove" the notion of a long-term warming trend across the globe, or even stronger, "disprove" the notion of an anthropogenic influence on the climate.

Cold records can only be used as a sign of climate change if the frequency and/or intensity of cold events beyond a given threshold increases or decreases over a period of time.

[stewfox]

Funny that you should say that. Some time ago I started a thread about cold and snow records.........it got loads of hits and I was quite chuffed that I had started such a popular thread. However, it got totally ruined by ONE person who thought it was a load of rubbish and asked a mod to move it to a dark recess of N-W. The request was complied with and my poor, much-read thread died.

I appreciate a group of record low temperatures doesn’t mean anything nor record highs

However I have noted the media moved away generally from Global warming to climate change

If it cools I put a jumper on if it warms I take it off cant see what the fuss is about

[Mondy]

The general public seem to forget the media will turn any story (be it about some person breaking a toe --- into 100 people being hospitalised due to massive broken bone epidemic) that they really have no idea what is going on.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling...any of those three titles are media sellers.

[laserguy]

Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling...any of those three titles are media sellers.

The third one will fairly soon crash into No.1 position on the bestsellers list. It will of course be as a result of a curiosity of the CO2 effect 'gone wrong' and will be blown up out of all proportion with photoshop pictures of snowdrifts touching the lower edge of Big Ben's face adorning the front page of the Daily Smearer.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Why all the fuss? Well, put simply, humans can adapt to long-term climate change, and they can adapt to greater extremes when such extremes become more frequent over a long period of time. But they cannot necessarily adapt to sudden change over short periods of time. The August 2003 heatwave in France was an extreme case of this.

Climate change does not just mean that the climate gets warmer, it means changes in atmospheric circulation which could increase flooding and drought across many areas of the world, also increases in temperature permit more intense rainfall events due to the air being able to hold more moisture (look up Clausius-Clapeyron equation for more details). Higher temperatures mean higher sea levels due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land-based ice (though not, as is often mistakenly quoted, melting of sea-based ice).

Global climate has always fluctuated due to natural factors, and always will, for as long as the planet exists. However, the anthropogenic contributions may be adding additional forcing to the climate system, tipping the balance towards a much warmer and potentially more unstable climate.

I sense a desire to maintain the status quo, for whatever reasons, among many "sceptics" in these threads (I'd prefer to say "deniers", as real sceptics are the people who put forward substantiated arguments that challenge the orthodox view across the scientific community- the sort of people who help stimulate debate rather than suppress it through bucketloads of circular reasoning). Firstly there's a desire to insist that there is no human influence on climate, and then when that point is addressed, to then say "well, who cares if humans are making the climate warmer?" The end conclusion of all these arguments seems to be "let's keep burning up the fossil fuels in order to maximise economic growth and consumption despite the fact that these reserves are finite and our practices thus aren't sustainable anyway".

[Gray-Wolf]

What could I possibly add to that TWS???

I, personally, am sick to the back teeth of the " the earths done this before....." argument.

Maybe the whole bleedin' thread should have the element of what it'll all mean to our brothers/sisters (whatever country or skin colour) if what we now see occuring continues to it's logical conclusion.

Though Paul does not seem a 'fan 'of such things I'm still struggling not to see the whole debate polarised by personality types and an individuals abilities to 'emote' in what we would (those blessed with the ability) see as a 'human ' way.

If it truely is all down to individual wealth and consumption then we are goosed. If we can meet the 'tree huggers ' half way (and re-adjust both our lifestyles and life expectations) then maybe we can save a couple of billion human souls (whose existence is as pertinent as yours ,though far removed in circumstances).

To sit smugly back and 'deny/procrastinate' whilst we all go to hell in a handcart is unhelpful at best and pure frustrating at worst (which is why we so often fall foul to Paul's code).

Edited September 19, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Its been an interesting read..

The problem with all of the arguments with regards to AGW is does it exist? The current answer is we don't know but climate change does.. So we all agree on that.. Climate change is happening.. Matters not a dot if its warming or cooling..

We have a change of goal posts..

And on that note, is there any point in arguing?

I think that because of the renaming, the governments of the world can now mislead anyone, any which way they want. If it cools its climate change and we need to be taxed, if it warms its climate change then we need to be taxed...

If its a natural cycle it is still climate change but we still need to be taxed..

Talk about having it all sewn up..

The more I read the more I believe that this is a political issue and not something that anyone has a clue about where its heading.. For now anyway..

[stormchaser1]

Afternoon everyone Hope this works {my statas for the North East since 2001

===================================================

...........WINTER..........SPRING...........SUMMER..........AUTUMN

2001...........................5.91C...............13.66C...........9.91C

2002....5.08C...............8.08C..............14.33C............10.0C

2003....3.91C...............8.25C...............14.75C...........9.16C

2004.....5.0C................8.25C................13.91C..........8.91C

2005.....4.33C..............7.25C.................14.8C............9.33C

2006.....2.66C..............6.66C.................14.75C...........10.58C

2007.....4.41C..............8.08C.................13.08C............9.41C

2008.....4.5C................5.83C.................10.31C....................

As you can see by looking at these stats, i feel that since 2006 the summer and Autumn have got cooler whilst winter has warmed [the only blip was spring this year where it cooled {well same summer really]

Basically i think by looking at these stats there is a cycle somewhere

nigel

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Its been an interesting read..

The problem with all of the arguments with regards to AGW is does it exist? The current answer is we don't know but climate change does.. So we all agree on that.. Climate change is happening.. Matters not a dot if its warming or cooling..

We have a change of goal posts..

And on that note, is there any point in arguing?

I think that because of the renaming, the governments of the world can now mislead anyone, any which way they want. If it cools its climate change and we need to be taxed, if it warms its climate change then we need to be taxed...

If its a natural cycle it is still climate change but we still need to be taxed..

Talk about having it all sewn up..

The more I read the more I believe that this is a political issue and not something that anyone has a clue about where its heading.. For now anyway..

Superbly put

BFTP

[Devonian]

Its been an interesting read..

The problem with all of the arguments with regards to AGW is does it exist? The current answer is we don't know but climate change does.. So we all agree on that.. Climate change is happening.. Matters not a dot if its warming or cooling..

We have a change of goal posts..

And on that note, is there any point in arguing?

I think that because of the renaming, the governments of the world can now mislead anyone, any which way they want. If it cools its climate change and we need to be taxed, if it warms its climate change then we need to be taxed...

If its a natural cycle it is still climate change but we still need to be taxed..

Talk about having it all sewn up..

The more I read the more I believe that this is a political issue and not something that anyone has a clue about where its heading.. For now anyway..

Firstly,PP, there is no reasonable doubt at all that AGW exists. We as a species can't, as we have and continue to do, add greenhouse gasses, in serious quantity, to an atmosphere and it have no warming effect - that's simply not possible unless not just climate science but physics and chemistry is all wrong. No, there is no reasonable doubt there is AGW the question is not 'if' but 'how much' - that's where sceptics should be looking and questioning. Indeed, another question to ask is 'can we definitively detect AGW' - it might be that at times other natural climate effects are noticeable, now is such a time.

Now, the rest of your post is pure politics. OK, it's possible there is a massive conspiracy to mislead us, tax us (and then, what, simply waste that money rather than spend it on propping up banks and the rest?) but I seriously doubt it.

[shuggee]

Firstly,PP, there is no reasonable doubt at all that AGW exists.

It was quite telling in the recent BBC2 Series 'Climate Wars' - that the Conference on Climate Change that recently brought sceptics from around the world together in Las Vegas, had the key-note speaker (the Sceptic-in-Chief if you like) opening his presentation by saying "Global Warming does exist and human activity has a role to play in this warming - Get over it".

[SnowBear]

Govts will put tax on anything they think they can get away with, have in the past, don't see why they would change their ways now and Climate Change is a huge incentive for them to do it.

That besides, I think too we are at a stage in this debate/discovery/exploration where we haven't a clue what is going to happen and also I think it is a waste of time arguing hence why I am not on these threads much at the moment. I am waiting to see what happens over the next year or so. My instinct tells me though that what we are seeing is more likely to do with natural cycles than agw. Agw has an effect, but to far lesser degree than we first thought and many "fringe" sciences and researches such as lunar effects, sun variations, complex systems within the Earth's climate mechanisms etc will be seen to have a lot more truth in them than many at the moment will be comfortable with.

All my opinion of course, no arguments please :-)

[Devonian]

Govts will put tax on anything they think they can get away with, have in the past, don't see why they would change their ways now and Climate Change is a huge incentive for them to do it.

That besides, I think too we are at a stage in this debate/discovery/exploration where we haven't a clue what is going to happen and also I think it is a waste of time arguing hence why I am not on these threads much at the moment. I am waiting to see what happens over the next year or so. My instinct tells me though that what we are seeing is more likely to do with natural cycles than agw. Agw has an effect, but to far lesser degree than we first thought and many "fringe" sciences and researches such as lunar effects, sun variations, complex systems within the Earth's climate mechanisms etc will be seen to have a lot more truth in them than many at the moment will be comfortable with.

All my opinion of course, no arguments please :-)

Erm, can I post my opinions and as people not to argue with them as well? That would be nice

Anyway, until that point, I will say I'm constantly amazed how many people see tax as a kind of con or conspiracy. Any one of us only needs to have a child educated, or a serious medical problem, or to have ourselves defended by our police or army to get the value of our our tax back in one fell swoop. I think tax is a wonderful thing, without it most of us would either by living under an occupation, dead, ill educated or paupers.

As to the rest, well, yes, time will indeed tell. Though i very much doubt another hike in temperatures would see people convinced. Otoh, a sustained fall (say through to 2020, and obvious by 2010) would make me think. We will see.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There is indeed an over-simplistic view on taxation as being a means of allowing governments to reel in the cash and end up super-rich at the expense of everyone else. To my mind, though, there is a problem with the current taxation- namely inefficient spending. When the going gets tough, instead of doing its bit and improving efficiency of expenditure, the government prefers to leave it all up to the general public to do something, and simply increases tax. There is a blame game on both sides- the general public are guilty of expecting the government to do everything, and the government likewise with the general public. Instead some co-operation would be nice, but our current political system isn't conducive to that.

I would strongly disagree with the notion that we don't have a clue what's going to happen. We don't have any certainty over what's going to happen, but we can say that, given the available evidence, it is likely that certain things will happen. It's like saying we don't have a clue whether the weather will be mainly dry and sunny over the next two days, because we can't be certain about it and there is room for debate. In the meantime, the models have a huge anticyclone centred over Britain associated with limited cloud cover- so while there's no certainty of dry sunny weather, there's a high probability.

There is plenty of room for constructive debate on climate change, anthropogenic contributions etc. The reason why such debates don't happen isn't because we have no idea at all about the subject, but rather because most people take one side or the other and say "I have my opinion, and I believe I'm right because I'm right, and therefore no-one's allowed to challenge me because they need to let me have my opinion, but I'm entitled to dismiss everyone else's views because my opinion is that everyone else is wrong because they're wrong".

[Devonian]

There is indeed an over-simplistic view on taxation as being a means of allowing governments to reel in the cash and end up super-rich at the expense of everyone else. To my mind, though, there is a problem with the current taxation- namely inefficient spending. When the going gets tough, instead of doing its bit and improving efficiency of expenditure, the government prefers to leave it all up to the general public to do something, and simply increases tax. There is a blame game on both sides- the general public are guilty of expecting the government to do everything, and the government likewise with the general public. Instead some co-operation would be nice, but our current political system isn't conducive to that.

I would strongly disagree with the notion that we don't have a clue what's going to happen. We don't have any certainty over what's going to happen, but we can say that, given the available evidence, it is likely that certain things will happen. It's like saying we don't have a clue whether the weather will be mainly dry and sunny over the next two days, because we can't be certain about it and there is room for debate. In the meantime, the models have a huge anticyclone centred over Britain associated with limited cloud cover- so while there's no certainty of dry sunny weather, there's a high probability.

There is plenty of room for constructive debate on climate change, anthropogenic contributions etc. The reason why such debates don't happen isn't because we have no idea at all about the subject, but rather because most people take one side or the other and say "I have my opinion, and I believe I'm right because I'm right, and therefore no-one's allowed to challenge me because they need to let me have my opinion, but I'm entitled to dismiss everyone else's views because my opinion is that everyone else is wrong because they're wrong".

Hard to disagree with much so I wont. I will say I know several people who work in local govt and they are constantly facing one drive to cut expenditure after another (the current one being a move to unitary councils to save money). All a bit OT though...

Edited September 20, 2008 by Devonian