Global Warming - We could be in big trouble...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/climatewarmingarctic

Quote:

---

European scientists voiced shock as they showed pictures which showed Arctic ice cover had disappeared so much last month that a ship could sail unhindered from Europe's most northerly outpost to the North Pole itself.
Click to learn more...

The satellite images were acquired from August 23 to 25 by instruments aboard Envisat and EOS Aqua, two satellites operated by the European Space Agency (ESA).

Perennial sea ice -- thick ice that is normally present year-round and is not affected by the Arctic summer -- had disappeared over an area bigger than the British Isles, ESA said.

Vast patches of ice-free sea stretched north of Svalbard, an archipelago lying midway between Norway and the North Ple, and extended deep into the Russian Arctic, all the way to the North Pole, the agency said in a press release.

"This situation is unlike anything observed in previous record low-ice seasons," said Mark Drinkwater of ESA's Oceans/Ice Unit.

---

If the ice in the north pole melts, we are in serious doodoo. Serious doodoo.

It's bad news for polar bears:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...938132,00.html

and bad for penguins in the south pole. on the 'march of the penguins' DVD there's a documentary about big chunks of the south pole breaking off and wiping out colonies of penguins because they get trapped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBeeeenster

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/climatewarmingarctic


If the ice in the north pole melts, we are in serious doodoo. Serious doodoo.

---

Not really. That article there mentions that sea ice does not affect sea levels as it displaces its own weight in water.
However, the British Antartic Survey's position on Global warming is that land ice will INCREASE as Global temperatures rise (to a point) that in turn will reduce sea levels. They attribute this to warming increasing evaporation from teh sea causing more snow to fall on antartica.

There are so many factors that influence our climate and weather patters that no-one really know what is going on. I've seen a couple of interesting documentaries about this over the last couple of years.

All the climate, sea level and weather paterns are based on computer models. these models are very complex but only contain a tiny, tiny fraction of the true complexity of the real climate/weather system. there is also a lot of guess work in there too, there are things we simply don't know. There are probably things we don't know that we don't know (if you get my meaning). All these factors can make the computer models vastly inacurate. leading to incorrect assumptions about how we will be effected in the future.

Don't get me wrong, i really worry about the environment and i do everything i can to reduce my carbon foot print, the amount of waste i generate etc. Yes our climate is changing, and yes it is probably our own fault. But the dramatic predictions made by "leading scientists" are alarmist and extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funkstar

There are so many factors that influence our climate and weather patters that no-one really know what is going on. I've seen a couple of interesting documentaries about this over the last couple of years.

All the climate, sea level and weather paterns are based on computer models. these models are very complex but only contain a tiny, tiny fraction of the true complexity of the real climate/weather system. there is also a lot of guess work in there too, there are things we simply don't know. There are probably things we don't know that we don't know (if you get my meaning). All these factors can make the computer models vastly inacurate. leading to incorrect assumptions about how we will be effected in the future.

Don't get me wrong, i really worry about the environment and i do everything i can to reduce my carbon foot print, the amount of waste i generate etc. Yes our climate is changing, and yes it is probably our own fault. But the dramatic predictions made by "leading scientists" are alarmist and extreme.

---

Nail on the head there!
Just out of curiosity, do you use air travel?
If so everything else pails into insignificance after that. :)

I do use air travel... *a lot*! but then i have to for my job, no getting round that. and i probably use the one of the worst kinds of air travel too... choppers :) you can't land a plane on an oil platform.

Something i read the other day that surprised me though. With all the talk of air travel being ahuge polluter, things need to be put into perspective. Yes a 747 uses a lot of fuel, but with 500 people aboard it uses less fuel per mile per person than a 1L Fiesta. and if you want trully horrific fuel consumption then read up on the Space Shuttle. an Olympic sized swimming pool every ten second!!

(Jerremy Clarkson - You got soul)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

Not really. That article there mentions that sea ice does not affect sea levels as it displaces its own weight in water.
However, the British Antartic Survey's position on Global warming is that land ice will INCREASE as Global temperatures rise (to a point) that in turn will reduce sea levels. They attribute this to warming increasing evaporation from teh sea causing more snow to fall on antartica.

---

The problem is that the snow and ice reflect the sun's energy back out to space. The sea doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funkstar

I do use air travel... *a lot*! but then i have to for my job, no getting round that. and i probably use the one of the worst kinds of air travel too... choppers :) you can't land a plane on an oil platform.

Something i read the other day that surprised me though. With all the talk of air travel being ahuge polluter, things need to be put into perspective. Yes a 747 uses a lot of fuel, but with 500 people aboard it uses less fuel per mile per person than a 1L Fiesta. and if you want trully horrific fuel consumption then read up on the Space Shuttle. an Olympic sized swimming pool every ten second!!

(Jerremy Clarkson - You got soul)

---

LOL not quite!
PER PERSON a 747 dumps more CO2 into the atmosphere in one trip to the states than an average 4x4 does in a YEAR!!!!
A 747 Spends approximately £60,000 in fuel to get across the atlantic. Bare in mind the tax on aviation fuel is a lot lower than petrol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBeeeenster

The problem is that the snow and ice reflect the sun's energy back out to space. The sea doesn't.

---

And what will happen then?
The truthfull answer is you dont know. None of us do. Not even scientists that pretend or even believe they do.
the extra warmth could trigger a huge increase in evaporation frome the seas worldwide covering a lot more of the world in clouds reflecting more heat back into space, evening things out, but in the process causing enough extra rainfall to reverse desertification in many of the worlds deserts.

Or maybe it could trigger some other climatic system we have not seen before that means it only rains in the whole of the British isles late at night during the week leaving the qweekends cloudless :rockon:

You can hardly say we are in deep doodoo when you dont know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funkstar

and if you want trully horrific fuel consumption then read up on the Space Shuttle. an Olympic sized swimming pool every ten second!!

---

Right, I may have got the wrong idea about the size of the space shuttle and its big fuel tank and two auxilliary boosters, but I thought they were a bit smaller than an olympic standard swimming pool? The tank apparently contains 530,000 gallons of fuel- and a minimum spec olympic swimming pool contains 2,500,000 litres of water- around 550,000 gallons by my rough calculations. The tank is discarded after 8.5 minutes. Hardly an Olympic swimming pool every 10 seconds is it?

I don't deny that space vehicles on an individual basis produce an order of maginitude more pollution than any other form of transport, but overall they're a drop in the ocean. I reckon even during the tank's 8.5 minute burn time, per second the thousands of jet aircraft flying around at any given moment are burning more fuel than it is.

I really ought to make the time to go and see An Inconvenient Truth. I'd like to see whether Gore's claims pass the scrutiny of someone with a moderate science education. I reckon one should see these 'big' documentaries- even though Fahrenheit 9/11 turned out to be a crock of ****, I didn't begrudge the £6.25 my ticket cost me:).

Well if anyone else can figure a way of crossing vast distance fast, without burning fuel, I'd like to hear it, and so would quite a few others.

Well if it any consolation give 50-100 years and we'll all stop burning fossil fuel :crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

LOL not quite!
PER PERSON a 747 dumps more CO2 into the atmosphere in one trip to the states than an average 4x4 does in a YEAR!!!!
A 747 Spends approximately £60,000 in fuel to get across the atlantic. Bare in mind the tax on aviation fuel is a lot lower than petrol.

---

That's not a very good analogy. Better to compare the fuel consumption per mile per passenger carried then work out the CO2 produced for that mile.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48121 is pretty good.

There are an awful lot of factors when trying to determine the answer. So sometimes you will find the plane is more efficent than the car and vice versa.

I did a few "back of the fag packet" calculations and the aircraft seemed to be roughly twice as bad as the car for CO2 emissions per mile per passenger but that was assuming that the aircraft had 416 passengers (747 3 classs config) and the car had 4 people in at all times and the car had a fuel efficiency of 40 miles per gallon.

Then again you have to take into account cargo because the aircraft transports not only passengers and their bags but all sorts of produce and how many times does a car carry 4 people? Flights are as full as possible usually otherwise it's not economic, etc etc. It's tough one.

I stumbled across this http://www.terrapass.com/flight/flightcalc.html and was quite shocked to see the results. Compare transatlantic flight to a ford focus.

One thing is certain. Aircraft operators want their fuel costs to be as small as possible. This means that aircraft manufacturers and more importantly engine manufacturers are continually producing fuel efficiency improvements. An increase of 1% fuel efficiency can save 80,000 gallons of fuel per aircraft per year. Jet-A is about $3.20 -$4.20 per gallon - so that would be over 1/4 of a million dollars per aircraft per year saving. Boeing's "dreamliner" project is aiming for very significant savings as is the Airbus A380.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...gy/working.jsp

http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/genx/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iranu

That's not a very good analogy. Better to compare the fuel consumption per mile per passenger carried then work out the CO2 produced for that mile.

---

True, its not a good anology in that respect but its pretty usefull in pointing out to these moronic anti 4x4 campaigners (that jet off to somewhere sunny every year) that they are getting all worked up over something thats a drop in the ocean.
If you want to reduce man made emissions of "nasty" gasses, instead of campaigning against something that represents a small percentage of a small percentage of manmade greenhouse gas emissions IIRC cars represent 2% of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Why bother getting so het up over a tiny part of 2% of the problem? Talk about these idiots missing the point entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

True, its not a good anology in that respect but its pretty usefull in pointing out to these moronic anti 4x4 campaigners (that jet off to somewhere sunny every year) that they are getting all worked up over something thats a drop in the ocean.
If you want to reduce man made emissions of "nasty" gasses, instead of campaigning against something that represents a small percentage of a small percentage of manmade greenhouse gas emissions IIRC cars represent 2% of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Why bother getting so het up over a tiny part of 2% of the problem? Talk about these idiots missing the point entirely.

---

Moronic? I am sorry but I have the firmly held view that if you choose to drive something that has pathetic fuel effiency and doesnt fit on UK roads then you are a moron. If you advocate using a reasonable car that is more efficient or actualy walking *gasp* your kids to school on a morning then I think that makes you a reasonable person. Do not even think of calling me on these assumptions unless you can tell me how you know that "anti 4x4" campaigners jet off every year and are idiots. Also please back up your figure of 2% as the frist atricle I found on google says that cars account for nearly 20% of all carbon emissions.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/carbo...511925,00.html

"It is believed motor vehicles contribute between 14 to 17 per cent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions, a figure that is to increase substantially in the coming years. By 2025, it is expected there will be one billion vehicles discharging as much as 1,800 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year - the equivalent of almost a third of the 6,000 million tonnes of carbon emissions from all sources today."

You sir, are a moron.

I will add that I am not defending air travel, I do not use it often although I am flying to Spain on Monday :)

I think any reasonable person looking at this issue would conclude that emissions must be cut across the board and if that means people giving up their Porche Cheyyene's for a 1 litre Micra and aviation fuel being taxed then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

Moronic? I am sorry but I have the firmly held view that if you choose to drive something that has pathetic fuel effiency and doesnt fit on UK roads then you are a moron.

---

What are your reasons for this? Also, if a vehicle doesn't fit on UK roads it cant be driven here. What a moronic statement :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

If you advocate using a reasonable car that is more efficient or actualy walking *gasp* your kids to school on a morning then I think that makes you a reasonable person.

---

So someone that buys a nice diesel Volkswagen Golf and mows down 35 people on the way to school because they are drunk is a reasonable person. :rolleyes:
How stupid a statement to make.

Quote:

---

Do not even think of calling me on these assumptions unless you can tell me how you know that "anti 4x4" campaigners jet off every year and are idiots.

---

I've met a few and they were all idiots
[quote]Also please back up your figure of 2% as the frist atricle I found on google says that cars account for nearly 20% of all carbon emissions.
My mistake. I cant be arsed to get all of the info and figures here but initial figures suggest that around half of that is lorries (that incidentally cause 20% of road deaths whilst representing only 7% of road traffic)

Quote:

---

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/carbo...511925,00.html

"It is believed motor vehicles contribute between 14 to 17 per cent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions, a figure that is to increase substantially in the coming years. By 2025, it is expected there will be one billion vehicles discharging as much as 1,800 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year - the equivalent of almost a third of the 6,000 million tonnes of carbon emissions from all sources today."

---

No sources quoted in that article. Being the guardian its most likely a load of rubbish. Or is the source "what is believed"
Mind you, I have a source here that says your statement that cars account for nearly 20% is complete rubbish.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
3.298% of greenhouse gasses are manmade and they represent 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
Of that 3.298%, less than 20% is due to motor VEHICLES. You do know there is a difference in the meaning between the word vehicle and car dont you?
Of that 20%, approximately 2/3rds is caused by cars assuming an average fuel efficiency of 35MPG on a car. (DFT quotes an average 7MPG for lorries 15 tonnes and I have used that to represent all lorries)
Of that percentage that is cars, a fraction of that is SUV's
Perhaps you had better find something more important to get all fired up and very rude about, and leave everyone else to get onwith their business.

Quote:

---

You sir, are a moron.

---

Well done.

ahhh man you totally blew me out ther... actually no and when I get back from Barcelona I will take you on point by point but from the looks of your "shakey trying to justify SUV" maths it shouldnt be a problem.

Global Warming is happening, what we don't know is when its going to start to become a major problem for the world.

Its all fine and well being green using less fuel and such, but its small fry compared to the big producers of harmful gasses , USA, China and now India. Even if the whole of the UK stopped making any harmful gasses (impossible I know but work with me here ;) ) It would not dent the gasses produced by the other country, and its not highly likely that the big 3 will stop producing those gasses anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few decades though

yup, thats why i for one couldnt care less, because i cannot change it, i dont care what any blue peter presenter says our country has no impact on the grand scale.

as long as im dead before anythoing happens lol

oh man, what a load of crap, if everbody thought like that then we would have a real proble.. hold on a sec, we DO have a real problem. Maybe we should all cut down our carbon footprint, and fair enough the UK isnt the worst but we are certainly not as environmentally friendly as we could be, to say that "oh well I may as well not bother because the US and China are worse" is some kind of straw man dodgy justification for being a selfish git.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

oh man, what a load of crap, if everbody thought like that then we would have a real proble.. hold on a sec, we DO have a real problem.

---

What problem is that?
There is still not enough evidence that mad made emissions are the cause of Global Warming, nor is there rock solid evidence that it is actually happening!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4Z

oh man, what a load of crap, if everbody thought like that then we would have a real proble.. hold on a sec, we DO have a real problem. Maybe we should all cut down our carbon footprint, and fair enough the UK isnt the worst but we are certainly not as environmentally friendly as we could be, to say that "oh well I may as well not bother because the US and China are worse" is some kind of straw man dodgy justification for being a selfish git.

---

quite right its not the attitude but luckily everyone doesnt think that way so im ok am i not. mate you only get one life i for one am not gong to go around living it half cocked or wasting time on things that wont affect me, im not interested whether its the right way to think because i know its not, but as i said not many people share that view so that means i can do as i please and will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

What problem is that?
There is still not enough evidence that mad made emissions are the cause of Global Warming,

---

true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

nor is there rock solid evidence that it is actually happening!

---

false.

Global warming has been happening for approximately the last 10,000 years since something called the ice age ended.

And this is why it is difficult to asses the impact that man made emissions are actually having.

There is no control sample in the experiment, we are simply living it. No-one knows if global warming is a good or a bad thing and in any case if it all goes belly up I'm sure that something more intelligent than man will crawl out of the sea in a million years time in order to repeat the experiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

So someone that buys a nice diesel Volkswagen Golf and mows down 35 people on the way to school because they are drunk is a reasonable person. :rolleyes:
How stupid a statement to make.

---

What? How? Eh? Argh! I normally can't be bothered to spend too much time joining heated debates... But I couldn't ignore this. How does this have anything to do with a conversation. I really can't find the words to describe what I think about this quote... Well done for moving the argument to a new level of irrelevant comments I suppose. Have a star or something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkmech

What? How? Eh? Argh! I normally can't be bothered to spend too much time joining heated debates... But I couldn't ignore this. How does this have anything to do with a conversation. I really can't find the words to describe what I think about this quote... Well done for moving the argument to a new level of irrelevant comments I suppose. Have a star or something...

---

G4z's entire criteria for a reasonable person have been stated based on whether someone uses a 4x4 to drop the kids off at school. I presented a riduculous scenario that shows how ridiculous his statement was to make.

You failed. You show how ridiculous what you said was though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkmech

You failed. You show how ridiculous what you said was though...

---

:rolleyes:

DK is right, when I get home tomorrow il give you a full reply.

i just ate a whole big bag spicy flavoured doritoes...and....well... the gaseus results..arent comfertable INSIDE...so i rekon mother Earth is gonna be pissed at me in a bit.
seiously though, i rekon its a bit too late, you know what i mean after we've set our heels in our relience for technology and electricity, it seems that lesser developed countries have always in some ways paid for say, i dunno, fashion labels and GM testing, trying medicines out on 3rd worlds, it wouldn't suprise me at all if global warming was seen first in say, mount Kilimonjaro where ice actually begins to melt !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iranu

true

---

Not enough evidence? What do you define as not enough? As you say yourself it is incredibly hard to be anything like certain, but the evidence we do have suggests fairly strongly that man-made emissions are in no small part to blame (according to the IPCC, anyway, from the little I have read).

Equally, say we assign a probability that the acceleration in global warming is due to manmade emissions. How low does that probability have to be to justify a laissez faire attitude towards cutting down carbon usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

The truthfull answer is you dont know. None of us do. Not even scientists that pretend or even believe they do.

You can hardly say we are in deep doodoo when you dont know.

---

Talk about missing the entire point of the scientific method. The vast majority of climate scientists (who I am prepared to cede to, you may believe otherwise, in which case I hope you live within a metre of sea level to show off the strength of your self-belief) are agreed that:

a) global warming exists
b) it's accelerating
c) the effects on humanity's current way of life given our current knowledge of climate, even in sympathetic models, is going to be pretty damn serious.

Now, we can either:
Do nothing, and hope that all the models are wrong/the effects will be less costly than the effort to avoid them (there, I've mentioned the counter-argument for you, as I don't want to make you look any more ridiculous, and it's actually where the pragmatic side of this debate occurs, in my decreasingly humble opinion)

or

act on the information we do have.

Global warmings real, crap, a couple of months ago Bush stated a study where he said evidence from satellite measurements and sensor boueys told us the planet was actually cooling, what he didnt say was that the measurments for the baseline were taken in the evening, for the rest of the 5years (or so) measurments were taken earlier in the day- when EVERYwhere its always cooler earlier in the day, than later!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byatt

Now, we can either:
Do nothing, and hope that all the models are wrong/the effects will be less costly than the effort to avoid them (there, I've mentioned the counter-argument for you, as I don't want to make you look any more ridiculous, and it's actually where the pragmatic side of this debate occurs, in my decreasingly humble opinion)

or

act on the information we do have.

---

I never said anything about doing nothing, and personally believe we should attempt to reduce wastage personally.
However I'm not going to ram that down anyones throat, nor am I going to campaign on something that has negligable effect on manmade emmissions.
The point that is being missed by most is that the best way to solve any problem that is widespread is to attack the things that have the biggest effect per pound spent first, and work their way down.
4x4's have a negligable effect and people excersize their right to buy what they want.
If you follow the anto 4x4 argument through, everyone will be forces to drive small cars with sod all power that they hate.
All anti 4x4 arguments follow for large saloons, sports cars etc
In fact all luxuries will be banned since they are a waste.
Whilst the body thats only justification for its existence (The IPCC) is Global Warming may bang on about it, I chose to see the data for myself and have concluded that the strongest evidence for it (the results from monitoring stations all over the globe) is shaky at best and much of the data suggests that it is nowhere near as bad as made out, and that the link to mans activity is pretty much non existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byatt

act on the information we do have.

---

The simple fact remains that the information we do have is inconclusive and there is no point in acting on inconclusive information.

I have a rock in my garden that keeps zombies away. I haven't seen any zombies ever so the rock must be working. No-one can disprove that the rock has this effect and no-one can prove it. Does that mean that everyone should be made to have a rock in their garden just to be on the safe side? The rock costs £100,000 and is available from Iranu enterprises - hey it really works! Wot no zombies. But really it's just a waste of money.

There are 6 billion people on the planet and there is not a chance that those people can be told how to live. If the consequences of global warming are millions die then so what? If it means extinction of fluffy seals and cuddly polar bears then so what? Creatures on this planet will either adapt or die and that includes us. It will always be this way and there is nothing that you, nor I, can do about it. If man becomes extict then so what? There is hardly going to be a funeral service held by aliens on Alpha Centuri.

Even if global warming was proved to be drastically affected by mans actions without a shadow of a doubt, nothing would change. People are not going to give up their dishwashers, playstations, holidays, cars, tvs, deepfreeze, cooker, microwave, heating, dvd, ipod, phone, pc, lighting. People are not going to stop buying goods. Whatever you buy has a "carbon cost", doesn't matter whether it be cheap shoes from China or strawberrys from Spain in December. I want my MTV pretty much sums it up.

What are you going to do? Destroy all the power stations? Plough up all the runways in the world? Dismantel the petrochemical industries? If you think that the effects of global warming might be bad consider the effects of removing our current way of life and going back to how we lived 500 years ago without electricity and the modern way of life. Millions would die in the social chaos and millions more would die of disease and starvation. What there's no petrol or oil to power the water treatment works, no way to provide clean drinking water to people? Cholera anyone?

The only way to combat this proven global warming would be through the rapid expansion of nuclear power (there are no other technologies available now, this minute, that come close) and future technology. Then we would have to ride out the consequences.

We are so self important and believe that we are the pinnacle, the sole centre of everything. The fact remains that we are a bunch of piss ants who are occupying a blink of an eye in geological time whilst scurrying about the planet. No one mourned the passing of the dinosaurs and no one will mourn the passing of man. We will either succeed or fail. There is no way that we can be controlled, we are simply an animal that does and as such we will simply have to await our fate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

Whilst the body thats only justification for its existence (The IPCC) is Global Warming may bang on about it, I chose to see the data for myself and have concluded that the strongest evidence for it (the results from monitoring stations all over the globe) is shaky at best and much of the data suggests that it is nowhere near as bad as made out, and that the link to mans activity is pretty much non existent.

---

That's very convenient for you, I trust you'll be taking advantage of the decreasing property prices in East Anglia then, then submitting papers for peer review which actively reject the findings of the IPCC? :rolleyes:

I've done some snipping here, apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iranu

The simple fact remains that the information we do have is inconclusive and there is no point in acting on inconclusive information.

Snip stuff about zombies

---

There's no real need to be quite so patronising, and it's a poor analogy anyway, unless you add in a not inconsiderable number of knowledgeable folk who will testify to the existence of zombies, and the potential life threatening effects of zombies to you.

Quote:

---

mass extinction, etc

---

I don't really see how this is relevant, yes, if mankind becomes extinct no-one will care, I agree, however, I struggle see how it's relevant, although if I'm missing something please do expand on this.

Quote:

---

I want my MTV pretty much sums it up.

---

So therefore you levy taxes upon such luxury items based upon their carbon footprint, and use that money to transform the way electricity is generated.

Quote:

---

Going back 500 years

---

I wasn't advocating this, my apologies if that's how I came across.

Quote:

---

The only way to combat this proven global warming would be through the rapid expansion of nuclear power (there are no other technologies available now, this minute, that come close) and future technology. Then we would have to ride out the consequences.

---

I'd love to disagree with you here, but given the level of efficiency savings you'd need from Joe Public (read: Badass) and the complete lack of a coherent public transport strategy (in this UK, at least) to run entirely from renewables I sadly can't.

Quote:

---

There is no way that we can be controlled, we are simply an animal that does and as such we will simply have to await our fate.

---

No way of controlling the behaviour of human beings? I can't believe someone as cynical as myself (as you appear to be) could believe that, except for an exceptionally tight definition of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byatt

That's very convenient for you, I trust you'll be taking advantage of the decreasing property prices in East Anglia then, then submitting papers for peer review which actively reject the findings of the IPCC? :rolleyes:

---

The IPCC have already seen the same data. They chose to ignore the weather baloons and satellite data, and use the data from the monitoring stations instead.
Of course if global warming is not happening, then they have no job to do.
Incidentally, the data from the monitoring stations in the developed world indicates no warming, whilst the ones in third world countries do.
There are incredibly strong arguments that the data in the 3rd world is not corrected properly.

I dont care what these so called scientists think. EVERY SINGLE model they have tried to create has been wrong and has failed to predict accurately what will happen to the global climate.
Funnily enough everyone thought that the world was flat once, including respected "scientists"
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm
Some interesting reading about the satelite data.
Why should I listen to some people that have need appointed by a bunch of politicians? Politicians are the kind of people that will put this person in charge of government E-commerce policy.

Nevermind glabal warming, we need more tubes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm
Some interesting reading about the satelite data.
Why should I listen to some people that have need appointed by a bunch of politicians? Politicians are the kind of people that will put this person in charge of government E-commerce policy.

---

That refers to the 1995 report. Find me something refuting the findings of report 3 and I'll start listening (although report 4 will be out eventually).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

Of course if global warming is not happening, then they have no job to do.

---

:tinfoil-hat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

I dont care what these so called scientists think. EVERY SINGLE model they have tried to create has been wrong and has failed to predict accurately what will happen to the global climate.
Funnily enough everyone thought that the world was flat once, including respected "scientists"

---

There's some cracking graphs in report 3 which combine natural and human forcing of climate which look like a pretty good model to me. Of course, it could be a peer reviewed conspiracy (ANY scientist can contribute and review the IPCC reports during the review process, get in quick and you can help with report 4), but then if we're going to reject peer review we might as well go back to living when the earth was thought to be flat. I think your history's a little off there as well, or so reckons wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byatt

That refers to the 1995 report. Find me something refuting the findings of report 3 and I'll start listening (although report 4 will be out eventually).



:tinfoil-hat:

---

So you either:
1. Believe a bunch of people that have a history distorting, misrepresenting the truth or just lying or
2. Take anything people with said history with a pinch of salt and only believe what they say when it has been confirmed by another more reliable source?

Quote:

---

There's some cracking graphs in report 3 which combine natural and human forcing of climate which look like a pretty good model to me. Of course, it could be a peer reviewed conspiracy (ANY scientist can contribute and review the IPCC reports during the review process, get in quick and you can help with report 4), but then if we're going to reject peer review we might as well go back to living when the earth was thought to be flat. I think your history's a little off there as well, or so reckons wikipedia.

---

The flat earth comment was not researched as it was simply used as a comparison.
How about I replace that with "pre Copernicus, everyone (including most respected scientists thought the earth was the centre of the universe"
You point out that these models look convincing, however they are still only tested on past data.
Why would that be wrong?
Pre Copernicus, lots of pieces of evidence appeared that countered accepted theory on the earth ebing the centre of the universe. Evidence such as the fact some planets would actually stop moving across the sky, go back and then forwards again in relation to earth.
The clever people of the time invented "epicycles" to explain that and observed data once again reflected scientific theory.
Now, we all know thats rubbish. Its easy to continuously adjust a flawed model to make it fit past data. That does not make it an accurate model of "whats actually happening" however.
The fact remains that every time theories/predictions of the IPCC have been tested, they have been wrong.
Why do you believe an organisation that has been wrong with everything so far, is right this time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

So you either:
1. Believe a bunch of people that have a history distorting, misrepresenting the truth or just lying or
2. Take anything people with said history with a pinch of salt and only believe what they say when it has been confirmed by another more reliable source?

---

That is the exact nature of history. It always writen by the people who come out on top, and have an agenda to protect.

Sorry for deflecting from the thread abit, but many countries still twist the past for their own concens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

So you either:
1. Believe a bunch of people that have a history distorting, misrepresenting the truth or just lying or
2. Take anything people with said history with a pinch of salt and only believe what they say when it has been confirmed by another more reliable source?

The fact remains that every time theories/predictions of the IPCC have been tested, they have been wrong.
Why do you believe an organisation that has been wrong with everything so far, is right this time?

---

I'll move to two if you can show me significant evidence of scientific discord on this issue, and give solid examples where the IPCC has been flat out wrong in the past. Even the link you specified from NASA linked to a paper, the goal of which was to reconcile (not conflict) with the findings on surface temperature from the IPCC.

Equally - wait for a more reliable source? Who, and for how long? Equally, given the scientific nature (which I would require) of the source surely you'll just shoot them down with a similar argument of bias, if you disagree with what they say (because what source, given the scale of the project involved, would be able to prepare such evidence without outside funding)? Equally, do you really think keeping a job is inspiring every single scientist involved in the IPCC to distort the current theory?

Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, they've also been right, and the potential consequences (even if these reports are exaggerated/distorted as you say) of waiting for confirmation from some unknown deus ex machina that climate change is occurring because of our actions are not inconsiderable.

What (be specific) would it take for you to acknowledge the climate change exists and is in no small part due to man's actions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byatt

I'll move to two if you can show me significant evidence of scientific discord on this issue, and give solid examples where the IPCC has been flat out wrong in the past. Even the link you specified from NASA linked to a paper, the goal of which was to reconcile (not conflict) with the findings on surface temperature from the IPCC.

Equally - wait for a more reliable source? Who, and for how long? Equally, given the scientific nature (which I would require) of the source surely you'll just shoot them down with a similar argument of bias, if you disagree with what they say (because what source, given the scale of the project involved, would be able to prepare such evidence without outside funding)? Equally, do you really think keeping a job is inspiring every single scientist involved in the IPCC to distort the current theory?

Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, they've also been right, and the potential consequences (even if these reports are exaggerated/distorted as you say) of waiting for confirmation from some unknown deus ex machina that climate change is occurring because of our actions are not inconsiderable.

What (be specific) would it take for you to acknowledge the climate change exists and is in no small part due to man's actions?

---

Can I just say 2 things:
1. I am hugely impressed with both your debating style, and your open mindednes, despite the fact that what you believe goest against everyting I am telling you.
2. I am currently faaaaaaaar too drunk to respond to this properly.

I mean no saracsm or anything by the above, but it is rare to find someone that does not just resort to insults when they think you are talking balls :)

I shall respond in a more researched manner hopefully tomorryw, when more sober and I dont have work to do.

Thankyou for remaining level headed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byatt

I'll move to two if you can show me significant evidence of scientific discord on this issue, and give solid examples where the IPCC has been flat out wrong in the past. Even the link you specified from NASA linked to a paper, the goal of which was to reconcile (not conflict) with the findings on surface temperature from the IPCC.

Equally - wait for a more reliable source? Who, and for how long? Equally, given the scientific nature (which I would require) of the source surely you'll just shoot them down with a similar argument of bias, if you disagree with what they say (because what source, given the scale of the project involved, would be able to prepare such evidence without outside funding)? Equally, do you really think keeping a job is inspiring every single scientist involved in the IPCC to distort the current theory?

Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, they've also been right, and the potential consequences (even if these reports are exaggerated/distorted as you say) of waiting for confirmation from some unknown deus ex machina that climate change is occurring because of our actions are not inconsiderable.

What (be specific) would it take for you to acknowledge the climate change exists and is in no small part due to man's actions?

---

I wasn't doubting the fact that global warming is happening, or that unless we change very quickly we're ...... (just checked - no swearing allowed).

Just that history is distorted by those who write it. I'm more inclined to the beleive that there are those who would use this to their advantage to get gullible people to beleive that global warming isn't happening.

I think we can never know for sure whether global warming is taking place, or if it's taking place, how bad it might get, and whether humans are responsible.

All we have is evidence to suggest that it might be taking place, as a result of human activity, and the consequences could potentially be quite serious.

We will only know what's happening for sure when the forecasts either prove to be accurate, or inaccurate, over their respective timescales.

But then, in the worst case scenario (where global warming and its effects equal or exceed current forecasts, as a result of human activity), we're all going to endure a much lower standard of living.

So what to do? Either nothing, or a reduction in carbon emissions proportional to how bad we think the situation really is. In the absence of global warming, the economics would favour doing nothing, of course.

So we need to decide whether the risk involved in doing nothing, and encountering the worst case scenario, is sufficiently bad to warrant taking the economic hit incurred by reducing carbon emissions.

I think this kind of consideration of risk is useful irrespective of the exact likelihood of the forecasts being correct i.e. 'if the possible consequences (which may or may not happen) are really that bad, perhaps we should do something just in case'.

I tend to think that assuming the chances of the forecasts being correct aren't negligibly small (due to some serious and demonstrable error, or logical contradiction) we should at least consider taking action to mitigate the seemingly substantial risk.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-change/dn9903

"Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline. "

The world is warming up. This can no longer be reasonably disputed due to lack of evidence anymore.

Global warming will cause severe problems if it continues as it appears it will.

A significant part of the warming caused is from anthropogenic sources. The exact extent is unknown still. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_

who cares?

---

Ooh? Are you President Bush????? :D

yes. and no.

I see. And not.

few despute that climate is chaning, most only dispute the cause.

This is understandble when governments don't charge (congestion zone for example) tax for hybrid cars. Now enless your driving Waaay to much the environment impact of buying that lexus is worse than buying a 0.8 car thats recycle friendly.

China will be building 560 coal fired power stations by 2012. I suggest you go bug the Commies and the Yanks if you think it will make any difference. And perhaps the Indians too seeing as China and India are going to grow massively in the next 50 years.

Top 10 "polluters" % of global emmisions - source Stern Review.

US 20.6
China 14.8
Russia 5.7
India 5.5
Japan 4.0
Germany 2.9
Brazil 2.5
Canada 2.1
UK 2.0
Italy 1.6

So Livingstone and all the other anti-motorist lot can tax the hell out of us but it ain't going to make any difference because whatever CO2 savings we make here the Chinese and Indians will more than make up for.

If China turns around and says global warming is a problem caused by the west over decades, why should we suffer lack of growth due to reigning in our carbon emissions? What are you gonna do about it? Invade them? Nuke 'em? Use sanctions against them?

You may do your little bit to piss in the Pacific but it isn't going to turn the water yellow. You are powerless, so stop fretting about it. Just live with it. One way or another you'll find out whether it's man-made, natural, good or bad. Sorry I can't soothe your concerns or give a magic answer all I can do is give the practical one.

Turning off the standby button on your tv to save the planet from gloabal warming is like using the duck and cover method whilst under nuclear attack. It may make you feel better but the result is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iranu

China will be building 560 coal fired power stations by 2012. I suggest you go bug the Commies and the Yanks if you think it will make any difference. And perhaps the Indians too seeing as China and India are going to grow massively in the next 50 years.

Top 10 "polluters" % of global emmisions - source Stern Review.

US 20.6
China 14.8
Russia 5.7
India 5.5
Japan 4.0
Germany 2.9
Brazil 2.5
Canada 2.1
UK 2.0
Italy 1.6

So Livingstone and all the other anti-motorist lot can tax the hell out of us but it ain't going to make any difference because whatever CO2 savings we make here the Chinese and Indians will more than make up for.

If China turns around and says global warming is a problem caused by the west over decades, why should we suffer lack of growth due to reigning in our carbon emissions? What are you gonna do about it? Invade them? Nuke 'em? Use sanctions against them?

You may do your little bit to piss in the Pacific but it isn't going to turn the water yellow. You are powerless, so stop fretting about it. Just live with it. One way or another you'll find out whether it's man-made, natural, good or bad. Sorry I can't soothe your concerns or give a magic answer all I can do is give the practical one.

Turning off the standby button on your tv to save the planet from gloabal warming is like using the duck and cover method whilst under nuclear attack. It may make you feel better but the result is the same.

---

Heh. That won't stop G4z from badgering you if you get out of a 4x4 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBeeeenster

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/climatewarmingarctic


If the ice in the north pole melts, we are in serious doodoo. Serious doodoo.

---

And people have only just started realising when it's just about too late? lol :rolleyes: