Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Should The BBC Do This?


GSP
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Isle of Canvey, Thames Estuary
  • Location: Isle of Canvey, Thames Estuary

    An article, before it is taken off, on how you should talk to climate change denier’s, and ‘tips’ with how to engage with them.

    _125462467_lancelawsonpic.jpg
    WWW.BBC.CO.UK

    Tips about how to engage with people who think climate change is a "hoax".

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    1 hour ago, GSP said:

    An article, before it is taken off, on how you should talk to climate change denier’s, and ‘tips’ with how to engage with them.

    _125462467_lancelawsonpic.jpg
    WWW.BBC.CO.UK

    Tips about how to engage with people who think climate change is a "hoax".

     

    I don't see what's wrong with it myself, GSP. But I do think it's a shame there's nothing aimed at how Climate Change Deniers should engage with those of us who've studied the subject?🤔

    On a lighter note, someone needs to tell me the hows and whys that lie behind paeleoclimatology losing its 'e'!😊

    Edited by Ed Stone
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Co. Meath, Ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Severe weather, thunderstorms, snow
  • Location: Co. Meath, Ireland

    Are there actually many “deniers” out there? Or is this just a woefully insulting broad brush term to describe skeptics? 
    I would describe myself as a skeptic of the mainstream narrative, and after spending many years studying and following the subject closely I’m even more resolute in my skepticism.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Co. Meath, Ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Severe weather, thunderstorms, snow
  • Location: Co. Meath, Ireland
    48 minutes ago, Earthshine said:

    Climate "skepticism" is the denial of the basic laws of physics as we understand them.  If you pump more greenhouse gases (gases that interact strongly with infrared radiation) into the atmosphere you will cause a net warming to occur as the atmosphere re-equilibrates at higher equilibrium temperature (essentially energy in = energy out).  

    Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, that CO2 doesn't just disappear!  Much of it is absorbed into the oceans but a lot also finds its way into the atmosphere.  If you think that pumping more CO2 doesn't cause global warming, just take a look at Venus.

    This is relatively straightforward stuff that you'd encounter at GCSE level.

    As a skeptic I do not deny the greenhouse affect or the laws of physics.

    Atmospheric physics is vastly more complex than the simple addition of CO2 = higher temperatures. Yes the above is strictly correct but we’re not dealing with a plastic box in a laboratory.

    Also I’m not seeing the comparison between Earth .04% carbon dioxide and Venus which is 95% carbon dioxide. Mars is also 95% carbon dioxide and has an average temperature of -80deg F.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Exeter
  • Weather Preferences: Warm and sunny!
  • Location: Exeter
    3 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

    As a skeptic I do not deny the greenhouse affect or the laws of physics.

    Atmospheric physics is vastly more complex than the simple addition of CO2 = higher temperatures. Yes the above is strictly correct but we’re not dealing with a plastic box in a laboratory.

    Also I’m not seeing the comparison between Earth .04% carbon dioxide and Venus which is 95% carbon dioxide. Mars is also 95% carbon dioxide and has an average temperature of -80deg F.

    What possible mechanism could there be for an increase in greenhouse gases to not result in an increase in atmospheric temperatures?  The answer is there is none.  Mars also does have a greenhouse effect, however its surface pressure is around 0.6% that of Earth's and also generally receives around 40% the solar intensity that earth does.  We observe global temperatures increasing as CO2 concentrations increase.  More CO2 also means more water vapour (which is the principal greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere).

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Midlands
  • Weather Preferences: Very Cold, Very Snowy
  • Location: Midlands

    I agree with both of you......the greenhouse science is fine. However, there is no scientific way of accurately measuring any natural element and the science regarding changing weather as a result of changing climate is it it's infancy. There are too many linked feedback mechanisms.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
    31 minutes ago, Earthshine said:

    What possible mechanism could there be for an increase in greenhouse gases to not result in an increase in atmospheric temperatures?  The answer is there is none.  Mars also does have a greenhouse effect, however its surface pressure is around 0.6% that of Earth's and also generally receives around 40% the solar intensity that earth does.  We observe global temperatures increasing as CO2 concentrations increase.  More CO2 also means more water vapour (which is the principal greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere).

    I do think there are parameters and mechanisms at play beyond just Co2. 

    Co2 is only one gas which causes warming, there are also others, water vapour as you mention being the principle, plus others such as methane etc. 

    Along with co2 we may have feedbacks from changes in vegetation, trees are long term plants, they take from the atmosphere for often many hundreds of years before they fall and decay giving back various decomposition gases, methane and so on. 

    Our farming of vast areas of land now instead of trees may well be one such feedback unaccounted for. Short life crops are harvested of their product, the rest is composted in very short order, giving out large quantities of gases. 

    A few composting facilities do harvest the gases, and they are becoming more common, but in areas where field crops are grown such as grain, is that balance the same as having trees? 

    We have destroyed huge areas of forest since our emergence as farmers and certainly for the past 1,000 years, and not just for farming practice but construction etc as well. 

    Water vapour produced by aircraft contrails are another possible cause, thousands and thousands of planes feeding water vapour high into the atmosphere. 

    Another thread on here had a link to a piece of research which said this could be mitigated somewhat by altering the flight levels by just 2,000 feet. 

    But also there could be background variations in climate happening which are quite natural. 

    The earth constantly changes, areas once dry become wet, and visa versa, and those changes can happen quite quickly if certain patterns in weather become stuck for some years. 

    In a hugely complex system as the earth's climate its very difficult to figure out what drives what and where and often just when you think you have a handle on it, nature does something completely out of the ordinary and unexpected. 

    Yes I do believe we are causing warming, but by what degree I don't know, I don't think it's all down to us, or at least down to purely co2. 

    Edited by SnowBear
    Clarification
    • Like 5
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Isle of Canvey, Thames Estuary
  • Location: Isle of Canvey, Thames Estuary

    Interesting Snowbear as tests conducted by scientists in America concluded aircraft contrails were in fact keeping the earth cooler, by up to 2c in built up areas.

    See my thread just below this called “As We Clean The Air, It Becomes Hotter?”.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Midlands
  • Weather Preferences: Very Cold, Very Snowy
  • Location: Midlands
    17 minutes ago, GSP said:

    Interesting Snowbear as tests conducted by scientists in America concluded aircraft contrails were in fact keeping the earth cooler, by up to 2c in built up areas.

    See my thread just below this called “As We Clean The Air, It Becomes Hotter?”.

     

    Better get more flights up then not less. Perfect example of interlinked feedback.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
    42 minutes ago, GSP said:

    Interesting Snowbear as tests conducted by scientists in America concluded aircraft contrails were in fact keeping the earth cooler, by up to 2c in built up areas.

    See my thread just below this called “As We Clean The Air, It Becomes Hotter?”.

     

    I think you need to read this and see what you think, it's not an increase in overall temperature, but an increase in range between night and day, the night time warming overrides the day time reflection/shading. 

    When 9/11 grounded all planes they noted a 2 degree increase in range, ie: night time temps were lower. 

    Like regular cirrus clouds, contrail cirrus clouds have two competing effects on climate. They shade us by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space. But they also trap heat radiating from the earth’s surface, so causing warming in the air below.

    During the day, cooling compensates part of the warming. But at night, with no sunlight, only the warming effect operates. Red-eye flights are a red light for climate. That’s the theory, and observational evidence backs it up. Research in the American South and Midwest has concluded that when contrails are around, they raise night-time temperatures sufficiently to reduce the day-night differences by 3 degrees C.

    Source:

    shutterstock_1362975188_plane-contrails_
    E360.YALE.EDU

    New research shows that condensation trails from aircraft exhaust are playing a significant role in global warming. Experts are concerned that efforts to change aviation engine design to...

     

    Edited by SnowBear
    Clarification
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: The Purbeck Microclimate, Dorset.
  • Location: The Purbeck Microclimate, Dorset.
    1 hour ago, Mixer 85 said:

    Mars is also 95% carbon dioxide and has an average temperature of -80deg F.

    Mars' atmosphere is 1000 times thinner than Earth's. Mars is also an extra 50 million miles further a from the sun.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Co. Meath, Ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Severe weather, thunderstorms, snow
  • Location: Co. Meath, Ireland
    42 minutes ago, Earthshine said:

    What possible mechanism could there be for an increase in greenhouse gases to not result in an increase in atmospheric temperatures?  The answer is there is none.  Mars also does have a greenhouse effect, however its surface pressure is around 0.6% that of Earth's and also generally receives around 40% the solar intensity that earth does.  We observe global temperatures increasing as CO2 concentrations increase.  More CO2 also means more water vapour (which is the principal greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere).

    I agree with you entirely regarding increasing greenhouse gases will increase temperature. Skeptics don’t tend to deny that.

    Mainstream consensus science attributes most of the warming, if not all, since the beginning of the industrial revolution to human emitted greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. I disagree with that.  

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

    Has anyone quantified the urban heat island effect? Consider London, once quite small city really, now a motorway 176 miles long encircles it. Most greenery and fields have gone, and its become one big mass of bricks, tarmac and concrete. 

    On a smaller scale it will act as a heat pump similar to what we have seen recently over the continent and the heat reaching here. 

    The heat generated in London will rise during the day, and at night slowly fall and spread out over surrounding areas. 

    Now multiply by all the big cities and built up areas around the world how much does UHI contribute to the equation?

    • Like 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Exeter
  • Weather Preferences: Warm and sunny!
  • Location: Exeter
    1 minute ago, SnowBear said:

    Has anyone quantified the urban heat island effect? Consider London, once quite small city really, now a motorway 176 miles long encircles it. Most greenery and fields have gone, and its become one big mass of bricks, tarmac and concrete. 

    On a smaller scale it will act as a heat pump similar to what we have seen recently over the continent and the heat reaching here. 

    The heat generated in London will rise during the day, and at night slowly fall and spread out over surrounding areas. 

    Now multiply by all the big cities and built up areas around the world how much does UHI contribute to the equation?

    This is actually a very interesting problem that a good friend of mine is working on at the Met Office.  Like you say, urban environments do not present the ideal site for meteorological observations.  However we do need to capture the nature of UHI, since the local "heat dome" in the planetary boundary layer can be shifted around and influence nearby stations to varying degrees.  PWS are potentially very useful to capture the local climate and you can do some clever analysis of the data to improve the initialisation of NWP models.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.
    19 minutes ago, Earthshine said:

    This is actually a very interesting problem that a good friend of mine is working on at the Met Office.  Like you say, urban environments do not present the ideal site for meteorological observations.  However we do need to capture the nature of UHI, since the local "heat dome" in the planetary boundary layer can be shifted around and influence nearby stations to varying degrees.  PWS are potentially very useful to capture the local climate and you can do some clever analysis of the data to improve the initialisation of NWP models.

     Sure the METO are covereing every single anomaly. And employ  absolutes in any seperate field (to the highest of standards) to do so, With no bias. All these considered they only show one thing...

    The fact your 'friend is working on this one anomaly shows how thorough the METO are to deploy any final analysis without the bias one way or another.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Exeter
  • Weather Preferences: Warm and sunny!
  • Location: Exeter
    7 minutes ago, Polar Maritime said:

     Sure the METO are covereing every single anomaly. And employ  absolutes in any seperate field (to the highest of standards) to do so, With no bias. All these considered they only show one thing...

    The fact your 'friend is working on this one anomaly shows how thorough the METO are to deploy any final analysis without the bias one way or another.

    Sorry I don't understand what you're saying all.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.
    9 minutes ago, Earthshine said:

    Sorry I don't understand what you're saying all.

    I'm just stating that the METO obviously have no bias on this subject. Sorry for any misunderstanding 😊

    Edited by Polar Maritime
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Exeter
  • Weather Preferences: Warm and sunny!
  • Location: Exeter
    27 minutes ago, Polar Maritime said:

    I'm just stating that the METO obviously have no bias on this subject. Sorry for any misunderstanding 😊

    Were you saying that the Met Office are not biased towards climate change?

    Edited by Earthshine
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Yorkshire Wolds
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sun, storms & ‘Oh no can’t go into work - snowed in’ days
  • Location: Yorkshire Wolds

    Well it’s certainly gotten debate going.
    To answer the original question @GSP, it’s an unusual piece by the BBC. It’s an opinion piece certainly & is about psychology of negotiation & persuasion. The theory could be applied to any topic & not specific to ‘climate change’.

    When you look at it purely in reference to climate change, it does appear that the BBC is biased towards ‘believing’ & ‘against’ the ‘deniers’. I suspect the BBC would argue they are simply sharing someone’s story/perspective and not necessarily that it reflects their position. At the end of the article it says ‘Do you have a story to share?’. Yes, let me tell you what I had for my tea tonight🤭….

    As I said, it’s done what it is actually designed to do, generate debate, after giving us tips on ‘kinder’ ways of engaging with each other on what is an emotive subject.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    6 hours ago, RebsAbbo said:

    Well it’s certainly gotten debate going.
    To answer the original question @GSP, it’s an unusual piece by the BBC. It’s an opinion piece certainly & is about psychology of negotiation & persuasion. The theory could be applied to any topic & not specific to ‘climate change’.

    When you look at it purely in reference to climate change, it does appear that the BBC is biased towards ‘believing’ & ‘against’ the ‘deniers’. I suspect the BBC would argue they are simply sharing someone’s story/perspective and not necessarily that it reflects their position. At the end of the article it says ‘Do you have a story to share?’. Yes, let me tell you what I had for my tea tonight🤭….

    As I said, it’s done what it is actually designed to do, generate debate, after giving us tips on ‘kinder’ ways of engaging with each other on what is an emotive subject.

    Do you think the RI is biased towards believing that gravitational attraction is real?😁

    Edited by Ed Stone
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Yorkshire Wolds
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sun, storms & ‘Oh no can’t go into work - snowed in’ days
  • Location: Yorkshire Wolds
    1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

    Do you think the RI is biased towards believing that gravitational attraction is real?😁

    Well, maybe they should be more open-minded too 🤣🤣🤣….they could do a lecture on it at least!

    I can see how being ‘diplomatic’ towards ‘deniers’ is going to get me into trouble!!

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    51 minutes ago, RebsAbbo said:

    Well, maybe they should be more open-minded too 🤣🤣🤣….they could do a lecture on it at least!

    I can see how being ‘diplomatic’ towards ‘deniers’ is going to get me into trouble!!

    But 'denial' is not scepticism: it's a narrow-minded refusal to accept what science tells us; to deny that AGW plays anything other than a substantial part in global warming, is to discount all that's been learned since the Rennaissance?

    If genuine sceptical enquirers want to delve into Earth's feedback systems, I'm all for it; such delving can only add to our collective knowledge.🤔

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Since I 'hung up my saddle' in the climate debate (2014) I've seen more of the folk that I have contact with raise their awareness to the Emergency than I ever saw over near 2 decades battling in places like this?

    I now feel that it is all a matter of 'positioning'?

    Sit facing a person & it is far easier for them to become an opponent than if they're sat next to you?

    I'm sure this is what has happened since I stopped trying to help folk to knowledge & let them ask the questions themselves?

    They might be surprised at the answer, it may will be quite 'detailed', but then they did ask!

    On another matter I've found the most persuasive folk on climate change are the folk who have travelled from 'Denier' to Scientifically aware?

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Yorkshire Wolds
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sun, storms & ‘Oh no can’t go into work - snowed in’ days
  • Location: Yorkshire Wolds
    47 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

    But 'denial' is not scepticism: it's a narrow-minded refusal to accept what science tells us; to deny that AGW plays anything other than a substantial part in global warming, is to discount all that's been learned since the Rennaissance?

    If genuine sceptical enquirers want to delve into Earth's feedback systems, I'm all for it; such delving can only add to our collective knowledge.🤔

    I agree with your position on climate change. Full stop.

    However, we’ve all fallen into the trap of debating climate change (not a bad thing at all & should be debated constantly) but that’s not the question asked on this thread.

    My interpretation of the question ‘Should the BBC do this?’ is that the BBC have presented a ‘point of view’ as a news article & I think @GSP is asking if this is appropriate for the BBC, as it could be viewed as a biased piece (yes, we all know the BBC has its bias in lots of ways). So my comment is not on the subject of the content i.e. I’m not commenting on climate change, I’m commenting on the BBC’s approach. The article is about human psychology and how to engage with those who disagree with you. It’s not about whether climate change is or isn’t real. But that’s the takeaway that most people see.

    @GSP have I understood you correctly or am I looking too deeply??

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
     Share

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...