Alarm at new climate warning

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

and the tested nukes and atomic bombs of the 60's 70's and 80's.

IIRC, I think most nuclear testing since the late 60's has been carried out underground. So, other than the EMP from the blast, most of the polution is contained.

Originally Posted by Paul M

That is just your opinion, delicately put as always.

Yes, of course it's my opinion, and if someone's going to make claims without justification or foundation I'm going to call them on it.

I remember we had a few cold winters in the 1980's - which were blamed on all the dust put into the atmosphere by the massive volcano that exploded in the USA (St Helens ?).

And this has precisely *what* to do with terrorist attacks as Punky asserts...???

Doesn't this present global warning have summat to do with a lot of sunspot activity?

Mind 30 years ago I never heard of global warming.When I was a kid we were all heading for a new ice age.

It occurs to me that when I was a kid no one knew how to measure the ozone layer.Could be that the ozone layer opens and closes more often than we realise because our present statistical knowledge is not as extensive as it needs to be..We need time to gather enough info.Could be that we may only really predict after collating the research after a 50/100 years.

After all at some point when we chose a rose for an emblem for England that the world must have been a warmer place.I've never even seen roses out in April during my lifetime unless it was under glass so how come we are supposed to wear a rose on St Georges day?.Indeed it has been said that the last time of global warming was back in the 1100's.As far as I'm aware of no one can say that the world came to an end then.

Of course we should be taking care of the planet-she's our spaceship and deserves our respect.However I'm not really convinced by the scientists thus far.They can't even agree about it.

[ian@huth]

We have roses outside in our garden that are still flowering and looking good and it is February.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, of course it's my opinion, and if someone's going to make claims without justification or foundation I'm going to call them on it.

And this has precisely *what* to do with terrorist attacks as Punky asserts...???

No justification? You are telling me that no environmentalists or agencies are trying to whip the population of the world up in a mass hysteria?

"The world temperature world might raise by 5 degrees in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years (they can't even agree on that), which could wipe out all living life". They still don't even if the earth is going to warm up or go into an ice age

Well, so long as they are sure. I should sell my car, house right away and go live up a tree and eat grass all day.

Rather than getting the facts then informing people sensibly, the are trying to scare everyone with what they admit is guess work, and then trying to find the evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

We have roses outside in our garden that are still flowering and looking good and it is February.

Really?Here's me on the south coast without a single crocus or snowdrop out on display let alone any of my roses and we have had no frost or snow thus far this winter.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

No justification? You are telling me that no environmentalists or agencies are trying to whip the population of the world up in a mass hysteria?

"The world temperature world might raise by 5 degrees in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years (they can't even agree on that), which could wipe out all living life". They still don't even if the earth is going to warm up or go into an ice age

Well, so long as they are sure. I should sell my car, house right away and go live up a tree and eat grass all day.

Rather than getting the facts then informing people sensibly, the are trying to scare everyone with what they admit is guess work, and then trying to find the evidence to support it.

Exactly!This is a relativley new science.We have not been keeping detailed records for a long enough period to be able to say that statistically it is proven that.....We have only been able to gaze down at our planet since the 60's and the science involved in studying our planet is a new one that is still setting out it's parameters.Thus no one can be that emphatic about what may happen in the future.Let's by all means not pollute our air more than we can as frankly we have to breathe it and lets try and keep the earth as pristine as possible because we have to live here having no where else to go.I'm more concerned about the heavy industrial polluters mainly because it impacts directly on peoples health.Increased numbers of athsma sufferers is something to worry about NOW rather than a possible rising of temperatures that may well be a natural cycle of the planet anyway.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Exactly!This is a relativley new science.We have not been keeping detailed records for a long enough period to be able to say that statistically it is proven that.....We have only been able to gaze down at our planet since the 60's and the science involved in studying our planet is a new one that is still setting out it's parameters.Thus no one can be that emphatic about what may happen in the future.Let's by all means not pollute our air more than we can as frankly we have to breathe it and lets try and keep the earth as pristine as possible because we have to live here having no where else to go.I'm more concerned about the heavy industrial polluters mainly because it impacts directly on peoples health.Increased numbers of athsma sufferers is something to worry about NOW rather than a possible rising of temperatures that may well be a natural cycle of the planet anyway.

We may not have been keeping detailed records ourselves for that long globally but some areas have records going back quite a long way. I said ourselves because Mother Nature keeps records for us which we can recover via analysis of ice cores and tree rings amongst other things.
__________________

There are many methods of predicting future climatic conditions and many factors, both natural and man made, which can affect the analysis. Depending on which of those a scientist has taken into consideration can affect the climatic model that is produced. Taking all these models into account there can be a presumption of the way climate will change and the degree of change. This will result in a wide range of possibilities with the truth being somewhere within that range. These predictions have been moving over recent years in a direction that spells huge problems in the not too distant future. As with all research on the subject, the results obtained tend to be more often than not in line with the scientists pre-conception of what is going to happen.

At the end of the day though I sense that climatic change is speeding up without the need for scientific evidence. It is a gut feeling that I hope is wrong.

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by punky

No justification? You are telling me that no environmentalists or agencies are trying to whip the population of the world up in a mass hysteria?

"The world temperature world might raise by 5 degrees in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years (they can't even agree on that), which could wipe out all living life".

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to say that you'd vote Bush if you were an American, you'd live in Texas and drive a 4.6 litre 4x4 just for the hell of it.

[punky]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

We may not have been keeping detailed records ourselves for that long globally but some areas have records going back quite a long way. I said ourselves because Mother Nature keeps records for us which we can recover via analysis of ice cores and tree rings amongst other things.

Yes, but noone told the scientists what to look for, and what it means. They learn as the go along. Science is the following stages in this order:

1. Observing some phenomena
2. Forming a hypothesis about it (which may or may not be correct)
3. Trying to prove it, normally by prototyping, or re-enactment
4. Trying to disprove it.
5. Go to 1,

Wtih global warming, we are still at step #3 and at an early stage at that. Scientists notice something, and can suppose what it means, but they can't prove it yet - how do you set up an ice age as an experiment? Scientists may be able to do stage 3 to some extend, but they can't do stage 4, which is basically to prove or disprove that global warming is a natural temperature change.

Scientists really don't get things right on the first attempt much. They said the lowest level you can do to is a molecule. Then they discovered the atom. They said that it couldn't be split. Then they split the atom. Then they said that is as low as they'll ever go. Then they split the proton and discovered the Quark. They say that is indivisible, but they'll probably split that too sometime.

Originally Posted by punky

No justification? You are telling me that no environmentalists or agencies are trying to whip the population of the world up in a mass hysteria?

No I'm not telling you that "no environmentalists or agencies are trying to whip the population of the world up in a mass hysteria", I'm trying to tell you that your assertion that there are "certain groups behind them who are trying to spread mass fear and panic to the public" is nonsense and I've yet to see any justification for the implication that there's some sort of world-wide conspiracy going on.

Hell, if you want a conspiracy, you could do worse than look at the US oil and motor manufacturing industries who are more intent on ensuring their profits and getting Sport Utility eXcesses classfied as trucks to avoid environmental emission controls and making certain that Bush doesn't sign up to annoying things like the Kyoto protocol...

"The world temperature world might raise by 5 degrees in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years (they can't even agree on that), which could wipe out all living life". They still don't even if the earth is going to warm up or go into an ice age

And, again, I ask you, what will you do if it *does* happen? Say "oh, sorry, I didn't know that was going to happen, so I didn't worry about doing anything to stop polluting the planet..."?

And, please, this is *nothing* like terrorist attacks

Rather than getting the facts then informing people sensibly, the are trying to scare everyone with what they admit is guess work, and then trying to find the evidence to support it.

And rather than implying there's some sort of global conspiracy and dismissing any comment about the subject, why can't you accept the fact that *ARE* no absolute facts about this, but there are things to be concerned about and the time to start doing something about it is now!

Originally Posted by Graham

And this has precisely *what* to do with terrorist attacks as Punky asserts...???

(Sound of crickets chirping)

Another result from my laptop:

http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cp...phase=AT#graph

Temperature didn't go as high as my last one, but what I don't get is why it started to go down near the end

[Pierre]

Scientists really don't get things right on the first attempt much.

Whenever I hear, or read, a news story that starts with the line "scientists (or experts) say" or "According to Scientists" etc etc

It's usually tosh, usually a load of tosh by some university trying to get funding.

It sensible to try and cut emmissions etc, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

Originally Posted by Graham

And, again, I ask you, what will you do if it *does* happen?

and what do you do if doesn't.

Thats the doozy. Do you spend billions now trying to find other forms of energy or do you wait because it might all be a load of twaddle.

But if you wait, if its proven true - will it be too late.

If you spend now and it's proven wrong - just think what you could of spent all that money on.



Don't worry about it, I've got better things to worry about.

Originally Posted by Pierre

and what do you do if doesn't.

Thats the doozy. Do you spend billions now trying to find other forms of energy or do you wait because it might all be a load of twaddle.

But if you wait, if its proven true - will it be too late.

If you spend now and it's proven wrong - just think what you could of spent all that money on.

You really just don't get it, do you?

Even if it *doesn't* happen, we will *still* have improved the planet by cutting down on pollution and avoiding exhausting non-renewable resources by creating renewable energy sources.

*THAT* is something worth doing in any case.

But if it's a choice between doing nothing with the possibility of watching millions being displaced by rising sea levels and the chance of a new mini-ice age being caused by melting Arctic ice "switching off" the Gulf Stream or, on the other hand, making an *effort* to stop treating the planet as some huge rubbish dump, I know which I would choose.

Don't worry about it, I've got better things to worry about.

Ah, "I'm all right Jack". What a publicly spirited citizen you are...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

You really just don't get it, do you?

Er, yes I do

Even if it *doesn't* happen, we will *still* have improved the planet by cutting down on pollution and avoiding exhausting non-renewable resources by creating renewable energy sources.

And I was approaching it from the governments of the worlds point of view that will have to spend the billions of pounds investing in renewable energy.

You don't get it do you, the fact that the almighty dollar dictates what will happen. If renewable energy doesn't present a cost benefit ROI over a short period of time - it wont happen.

*THAT* is something worth doing in any case.

not if there isn't any profit in it, it isn't. There are not many countries or global companies that do things because they "are worth doing"

But if it's a choice between doing nothing with the possibility of watching millions being displaced by rising sea levels and the chance of a new mini-ice age being caused by melting Arctic ice "switching off" the Gulf Stream or, on the other hand, making an *effort* to stop treating the planet as some huge rubbish dump, I know which I would choose.

You've been watching to many films. Watch out for the 300ft lizards too.

Ah, "I'm all right Jack". What a publicly spirited citizen you are...

No I just couldn't give a toss

Originally Posted by Pierre

And I was approaching it from the governments of the worlds point of view that will have to spend the billions of pounds investing in renewable energy.

You don't get it do you, the fact that the almighty dollar dictates what will happen. If renewable energy doesn't present a cost benefit ROI over a short period of time - it wont happen.

And once again we're back to short term-ism and narrow mindedness that "it's not our problem, let someone else sort it out".

But it *IS* our problem, it's *our* planet and our children's planet and it would be an utter tragedy to look back in 50 years time and think "damn, why weren't we smart enough to do something about the problem when we had the chance"?

And you don't seem to realise that, yes, it may be the dollar/ pound/ euro/ whatever that dictates what happens, but this is *OUR* money!

*WE* are the ones giving it to the big companies and the governments and *WE* can say "if you don't spend it on sorting out this mess, we'll give it to someone else who will!"

All it needs is an effort of will on *OUR* part, rather than sitting back lazily and hoping it will all go away or that someone else will save us the hassle.

not if there isn't any profit in it, it isn't. There are not many countries or global companies that do things because they "are worth doing"

There *IS* profit in it. Consider how much it would cost to build flood defences and resettle millions of people if sea levels do rise. Consider what could happen with droughts and masses starving.

There is also profit if people say "Hey, your company is not polluting the planet, I'm going to buy from you instead of company X who don't give a toss".

You've been watching to many films. Watch out for the 300ft lizards too.

Oh dear, is this the best counter argument you can come up with?

I haven't been watching *any* films. I suggest you start looking at the science of this and stop trying to dismiss reasonable arguments with glib comments.

No I just couldn't give a toss

"Grandad, why are we living in Cambridge on Sea now?"

"Well, son, it's because I didn't give a toss when I should have..."