General Climate Change Discussion.......

[PersianPaladin]

There's plenty of evidence that man has impacted the environment, and to deny that is ridiculous. Corporations are clearly out of control, and I think we can all agree that their pollution has caused some pretty nasty environmental damage. Man is impacting the planet by feeding fuel to a fire....

http://www.africaact...01/shel0107.htm

http://www.independe...ls-1726207.html

http://www1.american.../TED/bhopal.htm

http://overfishing.o...overfishing.php

http://archive.green...ctbt/read9.html

But yes, I'm sure these companies care about CO2 emissions just as much as their callous polluting action don't they?

Edited November 23, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[paul tall]

The 'once in a hundred years' argument does start to look a little worn when you seem to hear nothing but it as a 'reason' for extreme weather. I know of 6 from this valley that were labelled 'once in a hundred year' events. From the Luddenden foot floods to the Mytholmroyd floods (and again last week even with the new 'flood defences' completed 2 years back) The two Hebden Bridge events, the Todmorden floods. I've been here for about 20yrs so why the sudden move towards flooding?

We can look at Boscastle or the North York Moors event ,Carlise in 05',Humberside etc.

Surely even the folk who are still young must notice the number of 100yr events taking place of late?

I notice a lot of people calling once in 10 year events once in 100 year events. That is what I notice.

[VillagePlank]

I notice a lot of people calling once in 10 year events once in 100 year events. That is what I notice.

1 event in 100 years, say, is an expression of risk. It could well be that 10 events happen one after the other and subsequently nothing happens for 1000 years, or any combination thereof. Risk is not what most of the general public think it is. Indeed, I find it rare on public fora that people represent risk well.

If you want to understand clearly what it means google linear congruential generator - which is the starting point for a pseudo random number generation - which, in turn, is the starting point for computed risk.

[laserguy]

If you want to understand clearly what it means google linear congruential generator - which is the starting point for a pseudo random number generation - which, in turn, is the starting point for computed risk.

Will it help me back more winners on the nags,VP ? Isn't Yellowstone supposed to pop its cork once every 600,000 years or so,and it's about due right now? If it went off three times in quick succession that means we'd be alright for 1.8 million years. Relax folks,global warming might have caught up with us by then.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.scienceda...91111114910.htm

So much for our supposed interest in lowering our emissions!

It would seem we don't stand a chance anyway;

http://www.scienceda...91123083704.htm

At the end of the day the folk who deny our CO2 outputs will change our world will get their chance to see just how things will be (if they live long enough). Seeing as they have nailed their colours to the mast the world can just blame them for not seeing what we were doing with our emissions way back in the noughties.............and no-one will have to admit that we really do live in the age of the stupid

EDIT:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/extremes-back-climate-experts-warnings/story-e6frg6nf-1225801855190

http://www.greenleft.../2009/819/42103

This report on the latest Adelaide heatwave may indicate that;

1/ Australia is loosing it's climate change deniers............. as their climate changes

2/ For some the changes are more noticable than for others

Edited November 24, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[LomondSnowstorm]

A heatwave does not mean the climate has changed, merely that the weather has changed in the past few weeks!

Anyway, the term 'denier' suggests that there is a 'beyond all reasonable doubt' fact that is being denied, when in fact it is more complex than that. Unless of course 'climate-change' in this sense is refering to the variability of climate over periods of time, in which case there were almost no deniers to start with!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, unfortunately, there are some "beyond reasonable doubt" facts surrounding AGW. One is that our world has got warmer over the last 30, 50, or 100 years, and has only failed to warm if you use a baseline downwards of 10 years. Another is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Another is that build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, should cause some warming.

There are all kinds of questions that can be raised from the above, most notably re. the last one, "how much warming?" and "are all other things going to remain equal as GHGs build up?", which are two of the most important questions that many genuine sceptics raise as points for debate. (And, indeed, many of those within the mainstream scientific community- even those who follow the consensus).

But some deny that those "beyond reasonable doubt" facts actually exist. Although the term "denier" is sometimes used to refer to too wide a range of people, there are definitely people who, unfortunately, fall into the "denier" category to some extent.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Slinky]

I have just finished watching this and I must say it had me fasinated! Sorry if this is old hat or has been posted before.

There are six parts to watch

[laserguy]

Yes,the tide is most assuredly turning

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520

[osmposm]

Yes,the tide is most assuredly turning

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520

Not turning, please God, in the direction of Lyndon LaRouche. Barrie, do you know about the man whose website you've just linked to? Are you seriously suggesting that his organisation's reporting is likely to be accurate??

Edited November 28, 2009 by osmposm

[Devonian]

Not turning, please God, in the direction of Lyndon LaRouche. Barrie, do you know about the man whose website you've just linked to? Are you seriously suggesting that his organisation's reporting is likely to be accurate??

Indeed, what a horrid article. Full of ad hom, insult and paranoia.

[laserguy]

Not turning, please God, in the direction of Lyndon LaRouche. Barrie, do you know about the man whose website you've just linked to? Are you seriously suggesting that his organisation's reporting is likely to be accurate??

No Ossie,never heard the name before. I did think (and still do) that the premise of the article was funny. Spare me the details of L LR,it's clear that I've gone,unwittingly,somewhere I shouldn't,and I offer you,Dev,and anyone else who may have been caused offence my full apology.

[osmposm]

.....it's clear that I've gone,unwittingly,somewhere I shouldn't,and I offer you,Dev,and anyone else who may have been caused offence my full apology.

No offence whatsoever, Barrie, just a few rolled eyes....but he and his movement are, shall we say, not the most credible of commentators (even in the eyes of the extreme sceptic camp, I suspect). Try a google. The anti-American world plot personally run by the Queen & Phil the Greek via MI6 is probably my favourite - see 'The "British" Conspiracy' here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Edited November 28, 2009 by osmposm

[Methuselah]

No offence whatsoever, Barrie, just a few rolled eyes....but he and his movement are, shall we say, not the most credible of commentators (even in the eyes of the extreme sceptic camp, I suspect). Try a google. The anti-American world plot personally run by the Queen & Phil the Greek via MI6 is probably my favourite - see 'The "British" Conspiracy' here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Not the 'Lizard People,' Os?? :lol:

[VillagePlank]

Not the 'Lizard People,' Os?? :lol:

Don't they live on some peninsula in the south west?

Edited November 28, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Don't they live on some peninsula in the south west?

Good pasties and cider down there! But the further west you go...

[VillagePlank]

Good pasties and cider down there! But the further west you go...

Where is West is Best, anyway?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Where is West is Best, anyway?

Perhaps waiting for the first promise of snow for the English Riviera this winter?

[Methuselah]

Don't they live on some peninsula in the south west?

At least they're 'green'! :lol:

[laserguy]

Within the CC threads,someone called Pingo has impacted like a bomb! Don't know you are our where you're from Pingo,but your style reminds me of a uber warmist who used to frequent these pages. Sure you're not SF who's come back under a new guise with a new appraisal of things after coming to the awful realisation that CO2-inspired AGW is utter fantasy? Others will understand...

[Devonian]

No Ossie,never heard the name before. I did think (and still do) that the premise of the article was funny. Spare me the details of L LR,it's clear that I've gone,unwittingly,somewhere I shouldn't,and I offer you,Dev,and anyone else who may have been caused offence my full apology.

I know that's genuine and I thank you - not that I feel you needed to go so far, since it wasn't directed at me.

[jethro]

Interesting article from Richard Lindzen: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

[jethro]

Winterfreak: your question "So why do Gray-wolf's posts seem to contradict what he says? Who's right?" from Arctic thread.....

Firstly, I don't think there is a right or wrong in any of this - there's masses of speculation. Trying to sort out where all the pieces of climate drivers fit into both the past and the future is an immense task which to date, we haven't managed to do. It's like trying to do a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle without the picture to guide you.

When it comes to the state of the Arctic, well, it has melted in the not too distant past (early 20th c) - Google Polyakov/Arctic and read his stuff. He's a respected scientist on the subject. His last work is a few years old now (6-7 years?) so one could argue it's out of date but not a lot has changed since then; the anomalous melt a couple of years ago wasn't due to climate change or CO2, it was weather. His findings show that there has been a natural cycle of melt in the Arctic in recent years which at best, has been supplemented by climate change.

There are other papers (but I can't remember who wrote them), which show that sooty deposits or aerosols have had a greater impact upon Arctic melt than warmer climate. Google Arctic/soot and you should find them.

Climate change in general...CO2, despite increased levels, despite projected further increases; cannot warm the atmosphere by very much. The projections for future warming of 4-6c depend entirely upon positive feedback in the form of water vapour and clouds. The IPCC acknowledge and accept this but still assume the feedbacks will be positive, to date the information which has emerged since their projections show this to be a false assumption. Information upon clouds is still very much an 'unknown' but what we have learnt thus far, is that they react and show a negative feedback. Check out NASA's Aqua satellite data.

[Gray-Wolf]

Over on the Arctic thread C-Bob posted;

"With regards to the bit I have highlighted above, I would like to point out that we clearly do a lot more to the Earth's surface than we do to the atmosphere. If we add to that fact these figures:

Surface Area of Earth: 5.1 x 10⁸km²

Volume of Atmosphere: 1.08 x 10¹²km³

...we can see that the atmosphere is a lot bigger than the surface of the Earth - four orders of magnitude bigger, to be exact. That fact, and that fact alone, is enough to consider your conclusion to be dubious.

CB"

Only if you feel the atmosphere is the same as the surface (and the oceans are the same as the surface)

It's never about how much you've got C-Bob, it's what you do with it that counts........of course if you have quite a lot then you need be necessarily gentle.....

Let's keep apples with apples on this one eh? The fact that we have impacted the atmosphere to the point of changing the weather patterns around the Antarctic (due to the impacts of the ozone there) illustrates quite well (I feel) that you don't need to have the massive statements

of man's destruction we see on the surface (be it deforestation, mono culture, opencast mining etc.) If we look at the oceans and the impacts there (from acoustic pollution through ocean acidification) we can see again that it is not all a matter of size or visibility of impact.

Gas ,fluid ,solid.All impacted, all altered by that impact. Dubious or myopic?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Just happened to be browsing the Met Office website and something on the homepage struck me, they are, on the same page, showing the effects of temperature increases if we don't cut our emissions and generally do as we are told like naughty children and their new tool for helping increase the efficiency of running an airline by better forecasting tools. Conflict of interest anyone?