Climate change

[stevelcfc]

It's happening and at a scarily rapid rate. We are currently on the edge unless we do something about it now then we will have cost the future so dearly. If everyone was to live the life of the standard American then it would take 5 planets to provide enough resources to sustain the life. It's estimated that the arctic will be completely ice-free during summer in only 20 years, we need strong leadership from governments to really invest in green technologies and education programmes to help people understand what is going on and what they can do. 

 

Pumping money into firms such as Tesla with their Gigafactory is also a must. Elon and his team have come up with some staggering products such as the solar roof that will not only provide free electricity and then some, but also costs less than a regular roof to put on a house.

 

I'd highly recommend documentaries such as Leo Dio's Before the Flood, Cowspiracy, Chasing ice and the age of stupid. The evidence is indisputable, and only those scientists funded by the oil and agriculture (Cattle ranches etc.) are refuting what is before them.

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Everyone made lovely gravy from the bones?

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

Oh my days.

 

Could you sound like any more of a troglodyte?

Ug ug ug. How's that?

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

I just think it's bullshit. They always seem to be rebranding it as well, the green house effect, global warming, climate change. Tactics used by all good corporate advertising whores, it just adds to the scepticism. 

Ive got LED lights, I turn them off in rooms when I'm not in them, I have smart heating, I don't leave the TV in standby overnight. I have an eco car, I recycle my rubbish (mostly) but apparently that's not enough, I'm still a willy puller.

Three completely separate things.

 

Global Warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth.

 

Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that changelasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years).

 

I strongly urge you to watch potholer54's videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 - he has whole series debunking climate deniers which is entertaining, very well researched and very informative.

 

As for what you do with turning things off and recycling - yeah that's fine and saves you money etc but individual people aren't the problem - it's industry and governments complete failure to implement laws regarding this. The problem is on a massive, massive scale and it ranges from the obviously damaging to the perniciously idiotic - from factories pumping out so much CO2 to smaller more negligible things like Tesco Hamilton having 56 TV sets left on overnight when you can't even buy them after 8pm. Imagine how many of these big stores do that and imagine the burden that has on the nation's resources.

 

Even when I used to work for Blacks in town they told every store (400 of them) to reprint little price tags for accessories cos they'd made a cock up - so they sent us the files and made us print them out: little price tags about the size of a thumb, 400 of them (half of which we didn't have) - each individually printed smack bang in the middle of an A4 piece of paper. We had to cut out each and every single one of them and they didn't even recycle back then, so the paper just job chucked away. And then we had to pop and buy more paper - £5 for 400 sheets at 400 stores; that's £2000 because of idiotic practices and things that could be recycled being sent to the landfill.

 

Our industries have so much idiocy within; It all adds up and must be dealt with.

Edited 17 February 2017 by urban.spaceman

[The Doctor]

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Why fake it if it's indisputable fact?

 

I can't say it's not happening but things like that don't make me less sceptical.

The east Anglia "scandal" wasn't anything to do with faking data, it was nothing more than a hacked email server and internal discussions taken out of context (insert joke about Hilary here) and assuming the NOAA controversy vacamion is  referring to is the one that cropped up a couple of weeks ago, that's sensationalist media just outright lying - their data has been independently verified and looks worse than their previous data due to refinements in methodology that made them underestimate measurements in previous analyses.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

https://undark.org/2017/02/06/fact-checking-the-latest-climate-scandal/

 

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

They faked stuff to prove something that wasn't there.

 

I don't see how any science can be settled, theories change all the time.

 

The minutiae of theories are subject to change as we develop better ways to test hypothesises and can develop more robust explainations but the broad strokes aren't as subject to change as you're claiming.

Edited 17 February 2017 by The Doctor

[Innovindil]

I can't say I particularly care about the subject, not because I don't believe it's a problem (I do) but because there is practically nothing beyond what I'm doing now that will change it. 

 

While we still rely of fossil fuels the problem will continue to get worse, and we won't stop using fossil fuels because of the sheer amount of money involved. It sucks, but alas, the world is run on greed and it won't change. 

 

You only have to take a glance at dubai, or the bank accounts of some of the 1% to see where the problems are, if they decided to make the world a better place for everyone, it would be done in short order. 

[SpacedX]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

The climate has been changing since the dawn of time, I'm not convinced we have anything to do with it. Ice age anyone?

And for an explanation of why this is, perhaps start by familiarising yourself with stadials and interstadials, milankovitch cycles variations in the earth's orbit - obliquity/eccentricity, axial tilt and precession and the factors which govern atmospheric circulations and ocean currents.

 

That the rate and rapidity of observable and quantifiable exponential climate change over the last century is of anthropogenic origin is not moot - it is unequivocal and consensual. Current greenhouse gas emission trends put the world on course for a 3.7-4.8°C temperature increase by 2100, which would be catastrophic. Even the commitments made under the new Paris Agreement fall short of the cuts required to limit warming to a relatively safer 2°C. Even if all emissions are stopped immediately, effects will continue for centuries due to the cumulative impact of emissions already in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, nearly 800 million people globally are currently considered especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

 

These anecdotal recollections amuse me, although winters have become noticeably milder in the UK some are overlooking the frigid winters of 2010 and Jan - March 2013. Unfortunately many conflate climatic regimes and the weather. The UK for example is influenced by six different air masses the interaction or migration of each governed by a series of complex mechanisms such as sudden stratospheric warming or the quasi-biennial oscillation - although in simple terms, the vagaries in our weather are affected by a meandering jet stream. Recent global high temperatures and episodes of extreme weather have been attributed to the teleconnection associated with particularly strong El-Nino and the subsequent La Niña flip. Any hopes that a cooling of the Pacific could temporarily ameliorate global warming are misplaced however. This year will very likely break the run of record warm years across the world, but the tempering effect of La Niña is negligible compared to the unprecedented runaway levels of total warming due to climate change.

 

How strong is the case for global warming and man made climate change? Feynman observed that science is every bit as certain of it as of Newton's Second Law of Motion - in fact, there is more doubt about the latter than the former. That is compelling enough to be considered certainty for all practical purposes...even to the lay observer.

[Jon the Hat]

I dont doubt climate change, or that man has played a part in it.  Certainly we should become more efficient in our use of resources and reduce polution.  I don't however believe that the forecasts of doom that some climate modelling seems to predict are accurate.  They are possible of course, but we are really shit at forecasting things, there is not as far as I can make out a consensus, and for example modelling doesn't appear to create the range of possible outcomes which I would expect to see if there were different scenarios being developed.

 

I am also inclined to think that Human kind is very very good at developing technology, so we really should be able to handle a bit of weather.  In the meantime, some encouragement of green energy etc is obviously good, but we shouldn't be penalizing other credible power sources which will keep us going for many decades to come.

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I dont doubt climate change, or that man has played a part in it.  Certainly we should become more efficient in our use of resources and reduce polution.  I don't however believe that the forecasts of doom that some climate modelling seems to predict are accurate.  They are possible of course, but we are really shit at forecasting things, there is not as far as I can make out a consensus, and for example modelling doesn't appear to create the range of possible outcomes which I would expect to see if there were different scenarios being developed.

 

I am also inclined to think that Human kind is very very good at developing technology, so we really should be able to handle a bit of weather.  In the meantime, some encouragement of green energy etc is obviously good, but we shouldn't be penalizing other credible power sources which will keep us going for many decades to come.

In the case of coal fired power stations Jon - yes, we really should.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Line-X said:

In the case of coal fired power stations Jon - yes, we really should.

To achieve what?

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

To achieve what?

To curtail the biggest single source of carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity? 

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

To curtail the biggest single source of carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity? 

I get that, just not clear on why we assume this is the mechanism to achieve it.

[foxy boxing]

I just want to see a super volcano erupt in my lifetime! imagine if it's Yellowstone! that will change the climate!

[GazzinderFox]

The climate changes and is changing, this is a fact. But with regards to all of this talk of scientific consensus on the reasons behind this change I have a question; If a respected climatologist from one of the UK's top universities published a model today that shows how humans contributed far less to climate change than the consensus has decreed...

 

a) How quickly does his department lose vast swathes of its funding regardless of how credible his work?

b) To what extent is he immediately written off as a climate change denier? 

 

Please don't answer these questions by suggesting that science doesn't work that way because scientists are all saints and are desperate for their hypotheses to be proved wrong.

 

  

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I get that, just not clear on why we assume this is the mechanism to achieve it.

Well carbon tax and credits have been experimented with - to varying degrees of success, but I think it's important to appreciate that the process of global warming is exponential. We are running out of time. When you are in a hole - stop digging. Current technology to capture and bury carbon emissions, touted by some as a way to continue substantial fossil fuel use in power stations, makes surprisingly little difference to the amount of coal, oil and gas deemed unburnable. If the world’s nations keep their pledge to combat climate change, the prospects are bleakest for coal, like I said, the most polluting of all fossil fuels. Globally, something like 80% of today’s reserves must be left underground. In major coal producing nations like the US, Australia and Russia, more than 90% of coal reserves are unused in meeting the 2C safety pledge by the world's nations. In China and India, both heavy and growing coal users, 66% of reserves are unburnable then.

 

In 2014 fossil fuel companies spent some £443b on exploring for new oil and gas resources. One might ask why they are doing this when there is more in the ground than we can afford to burn. The investors in those companies should be encouraged to understand that money is better spent either developing low-carbon energy sources or being returned to investors as dividends.

 

[SMX11]

45 minutes ago, Line-X said:

To curtail the biggest single source of carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity? 

So you are going to force developing countries from using one of the cheapest forms of energy? Potentially impoverishing already relatively poor people.

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

The climate changes and is changing, this is a fact. But with regards to all of this talk of scientific consensus on the reasons behind this change I have a question; If a respected climatologist from one of the UK's top universities published a model today that shows how humans contributed far less to climate change than the consensus has decreed...

 

a) How quickly does his department lose vast swathes of its funding regardless of how credible his work?

b) To what extent is he immediately written off as a climate change denier? 

 

Please don't answer these questions by suggesting that science doesn't work that way because scientists are all saints and are desperate for their hypotheses to be proved wrong.

 

  

I do take your point but it works both ways. Make no mistake, there are also those in the payroll of the oil and petroleum sector that have, shall we say, compromised the integrity of their results to refute the extent of anthropogenic climate change. And this is why we have peer review and the scientific method.

 

An interesting point, though and a highly conspicuous current issue and one well worthy of discussion since I confront this frequently. Indeed, to an extent many would share any indictment on private sector involvement in the peer review process - particularly in respect of the proliferation of low quality journals and the institutional pressure to publish marginal or trivial findings, but it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which this impedes discovery. Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you suggested, institutional interest.

Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry, I am very much of the same opinion of the Astronomer Royal Martin Reese who in recently discussing the fraud and malpractice in science observed that it is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller. This is why the anti-vax movement vehemently avoids it. 

 

To address your question. The data is so overwhelmingly conclusive that any radical challenge to the human contribution to climate change, in spite of your objections, can ultimately be empirically assessed upon the validity of the research methods and the analysis of the findings. The notion that climatologists are deterred from publishing through fear of jeopardising individual or institutional funding is largely fallacious. That they may become a pariah in their field may be a legitimate fear but in the main, one that would not necessarily cause them to waver in their conviction.

 

[SpacedX]

20 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

So you are going to force developing countries from using one of the cheapest forms of energy? Potentially impoverishing already relatively poor people.

Not at all. The impetus and technological lead needs to be driven by developed nations. When other contributors to this thread speak of technological innovation the challenges lie in implementing these expensive solutions in the developing world. As these nations undergo further development and industrialisation, they will experience increasing energy demands. In order to tackle this double issue of improving access to energy and meeting growing energy needs, there needs to be an adoption of more sustainable energy practices worldwide, which focuses not only on the economics of energy resources but also takes additional critical factors into consideration, namely the impact on the environment, especially on climate change.

 

When considering energy alternatives, there are three main aspects that come into play: economic competitiveness, energy security, and environmental impact. Unfortunately, as I said, due to the high cost of many sustainable energy technologies, economic competitiveness often takes precedence, especially in areas with limited resources. But since we know that climate change affects us all, we must find a way to a sustainable energy future in both developing and developed nations. as you say, how then can we provide low and middle-income countries with the resources to switch to a sustainable energy future? Two crucial factors, financing mechanisms and further technological developments will be required to make clean energy systems economically competitive with traditional fossil-fuel burning technologies. Financial mechanisms allow for a reduction in some market barriers for new, clean energy technologies by providing investors with less risk and uncertainty when competing with traditional energy sources, while continuous technological development could produce applications that are adapted to local conditions, as well as allow the establishment of new clean industries that could also provide economic development for such developing nations.

[Jattdogg]

What would ali g say on this topic? Hmmmm... how about...

 

"Well dat is cuz the sun is gettin hotter ighht"

 

 this is a joke of course ...perhaps a bad one...very bad. I just wanted to input non scientific evidence into the mix

 

On the real i was checkin the local temperature this upcoming week and tomorrow its supposed to be 12 celsius in toronto area. That is unheard of. In fact the whole week is going to be warmer.

 

Having said that 2 years ago we had a period of -30 celsius without windchill factor which also was unheard of. 

 

So i cant say its geting warmer but definitely a lot  more unpredictable. I will let you fellow scientists debate hard facts (now known as "alternative facts"?????) And real evidence because i am ignorant in terms of knowing about it for climate change.

[Parafox]

15 hours ago, SMX11 said:

Cold is certainly a bigger killer than hot will ever be.

 

 

 

 

I don't think the hundreds of thousands that die annually in increasing drought induced famines would agree with that.

[boots60]

Looking forward to a bit of climate change next week. Scorchio hopefully.

[Detroit Blues]

Where's the same skepticism about all of our other scientific breakthroughs? Do you question your doctor when he prescribes you medicine to combat a disease or condition you have? Do you say, well the scientists that developed these pharmaceutical drugs to combat my high blood pressure could be making it all up. 

 

We trust scientific organizations like NASA to put a man on the moon, or land a rover on mars, but suddenly they're wrong when they say the earth is getting warmer?

 

The issue isn't how science works. We know it works. We use the products of science every day. The science on climate change is real, and it's conclusive. The issue is that people do not want to believe it. It's inconvenient to the modern lifestyle to know that choices you make have a negative effect on the planet your children and grandchildren will inherit.

 

You can believe that climate change is real, or you choose to remain willfully ignorant. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

36 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

Where's the same skepticism about all of our other scientific breakthroughs? Do you question your doctor when he prescribes you medicine to combat a disease or condition you have? Do you say, well the scientists that developed these pharmaceutical drugs to combat my high blood pressure could be making it all up. 

 

We trust scientific organizations like NASA to put a man on the moon, or land a rover on mars, but suddenly they're wrong when they say the earth is getting warmer?

 

The issue isn't how science works. We know it works. We use the products of science every day. The science on climate change is real, and it's conclusive. The issue is that people do not want to believe it. It's inconvenient to the modern lifestyle to know that choices you make have a negative effect on the planet your children and grandchildren will inherit.

 

You can believe that climate change is real, or you choose to remain willfully ignorant. 

 

Medication goes through a whole lot of trials before it is released on patients.  Climate change forecast models don't?

Edited 17 February 2017 by Jon the Hat

[Richard]

33 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Medication goes through a whole lot of trials before it is released on patients.  Climate change forecast models don't?

Except decades of refinement within the scientific community.

 

On the first page someone was complaining that predictions, models and forecasts are changing too much

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Detroit Blues said:

Where's the same skepticism about all of our other scientific breakthroughs? Do you question your doctor when he prescribes you medicine to combat a disease or condition you have? Do you say, well the scientists that developed these pharmaceutical drugs to combat my high blood pressure could be making it all up. 

 

We trust scientific organizations like NASA to put a man on the moon, or land a rover on mars, but suddenly they're wrong when they say the earth is getting warmer?

 

The issue isn't how science works. We know it works. We use the products of science every day. The science on climate change is real, and it's conclusive. The issue is that people do not want to believe it. It's inconvenient to the modern lifestyle to know that choices you make have a negative effect on the planet your children and grandchildren will inherit.

 

You can believe that climate change is real, or you choose to remain willfully ignorant. 

 

Nobody gives you medicine because you might be ill in 100 years time.