climate change and the future: debate.

[JimboUK]

I didn't say the weather was a basis for anything, I said climate change is another name the weather. As for the manipulated data, that university is one of the leading centres for climate change study and as such their bad data will have found its way into models worldwide. Our own national weather service has been using data provided by that university and their forecasting has become so bad even the BBC are thinking of using another service, this years "Warmest winter on record" may be the last straw, so far it's been one of the coldest.

 

So far every prediction these alarmists have made as turned out to be wrong, instead of going away and looking again they just move the goalposts. The "science" is bad and the whole debate has been hijacked by vested interests, scientists who disagree with the alarmists are finding themselves out of work because the institutions they work for are terrified of being thrown off the gravy train. Thankfully the percentage of the population who buy into this nonsense is decreasing at a rapid rate, something that hasn't gone unnoticed by world leaders who didn't bother turning up for the latest conference, the exception of course being those leaders with the begging bowls out.

I highly doubt the UEA CRU is "one the the leading centres for climate change study". The BBC uses data from the MET Office which draw their data from a number of sources including the Royal Meteorological Society, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, the Hadley Centre and the Walker Institute as well a multitude of institutions outside UK. Inconsistencies with UEA's data would've been found against other institution's data before being released. Furthermore, in response to the UEA being hacked, the MET Office responded by stating "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be." ¹ The bottom line is, predictions are fallable; they can be true or false.

 

Now if you really feel so strongly that a whole branch of the scientific community is simply a con, I doubt I'd do very much to sway you even if I did give a rebuttal. I simply find the sheer volume of scientific claims too overwhelming to deny. Sure, some of these publications are simply to get money and attention, can you honestly deny every single paper?

 

Oh, and can you explain how climate change and the weather are interchangeable terms?

 

Once bad data is in the system, you will bad data back out, I really shouldn't need to explain this. UER CRU is a major research centre and their data is shared. Stop listening to the likes of Moonbat in The Guardian and think about it, the alarmists have yet to get one thing right, every time an error becomes so blindingly obvious even the zealots can't ignore it they move the goalposts. The latest wheeze is pollution is responsible for cooling (notice the warming part has vanished now it's obvious the planet isn't warming), so we've now gone from the planet heating up to the planet freezing. The whole thing is laughable or would be if this latest jolly in Mexico hadn't just added £10bn to our aid bill. Climate change is what we used to call the weather (changeable), the climate has never been static and no amount of taxation will make it so.

 

It's worth noting when global temps were moving up the same thing was happening on Mars, little green men in their 4x4s? When you think of all the things that can affect our climate man made Co2 is such a small factor that's it's more or less an irrelevance.

[Balagor]

When I was born (in -56) co2 level was 330 ppm (parts per million). Today it is 380 ppm. When I studied to become a nursery engenier it was 355 ppm. Sure thing that something is happening with the co2 level in our atmosphere, and sure thing it is made by us. Who else? Extra terrastreals?

What scientists still argue is HOW we made it. Of cause there is all the cars, the power plants, industry, etc. but it is not enough.

The rainforest then. With my education I can join the tesis that when removing a very big buffer that holds co2, we create a further imbalance. Trees simply utilise the carbon in co2 to build up tissue, leaving o2 (oxygen) as a "waste". However trees also have a transpiration, a function in witch they burn of sugár. In this process oxygen is used and co2 is a "waste". The sum of it is that a tree will bind a little more co2 in the tissue, than it emit.

Keep in mind the co2 level has been decreasing ever since the last 1 billion years. There was a time when it was the opposite. Allmost no oxygen, and some 99% of co2 in the atmosphere. But the Trillobites that lived at that time were binding carbon into limestone, (and like us) without knowing they made their own doom. World changed rapidly into that atmosphere we know today.................................except, it has all of a sudden changed 20% in the co2 balance.

Do not confuse "weather" with climate. Those are two very different things. Weather is local, short period, can (normally) be predicted. Climate has much more layers, and long term. Climate is a certain condition repeated, season after season, and has affect on local weather conditions.

The two does not necessarily go "hand in hand". Warm climate has allready change the Arctic. Majore tundra lands have been exposed, thus emiting even more co2. The Arctic has never been warmer, you can even sail through routes you have not been able to before.

But the local changes of the weather elsewhere, like here where I am. They are a paradox since we have very cold winters, that we are not used to.

 

I would have liked to provided my post with facts. On the other hand, I will probably get told they are manipulated (with no facts). So please use Google.

[HappyHerring]

The earth is a semi-closed system. Each year we receive a certain amount of energy throughout the EM spectrum, we also receive variyng amounts of gas & dust from meteoric & cometary debris. We lose some of the energy reflected out again & we also lose small amounts of lighter gasses. If we artificially pump energy or gasses into the system from where they may have been locked for epochs then we cannot fail to adjust the system itself. As a self regulating biosphere the earth has to react to our actions as well as those other infulences mentioned above.

 

Weather is not climate. A ten minute discussion with a physical scientist will confirm that to all but the most closed minded.

 

Our understanding of both weather & climate are modifying each year, no person of sense would view the model of earth presented in one decade as being credible a decade later as it would ignore the empirical data modelled into the later model. Climate deniers seem to be of the opinion that 'a' fact or statement made or heard renders the well intentioned professional work of many irrelevant. To those deniers please google 'the scientific method', you will see that whilst conspiracy theories may be enjoyable in that they promote the spreading of vitriol when it comes to science they are somewhat hard to pull off.

 

P.S. Living on the west coast of Cymru/Wales I can tell you I'd have welcomed some of the snow this year.

[Chaosblade02]

Well I have one good bit of news: the car industry really does seem commited to making electric the new way forward. better still, they arent opressive little lumps of something unmentionable anymore, but are infact, starting to be genuinely desirable.

 

The electric car has had a troubled existance. First people hated them for their short battery life. Then people(rightfully) hated them for being opressively dull and ugly. Now people love them because Detroit has made an effort this time and made them able to seriously compete with petrol for performance, distance, and most importantly, fun and practicality.

 

Lets face it, this piece of crap was never going to take off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reva_i_silver.jpg Since it's slow, embarrisingly ugly, too small for adults, and hideously badly made. But worst of all, it's actualy a bigger environment risk than a petrol car, since it's all plastic, non recyclable, and has a volatile Lead-Acid battery that causes irrepairable damage both when disposed of, and due to the Indian REVA coro's ironicaly environment killing factory procedures. Opressive tacky crap made by cynics.But this? well would you say no to the keys? I think not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Porsche_918_Spyder.jpg Gecause it's sleek, luxurious, face destroyingly fast, well built, and doesnt kill the environment when it's built, scrapped, or crashed. Lean, and very green.

 

I'm not a believer in electric cars either. Until they can make an electric engine that you could drop down in a pickup truck or an SUV and have plenty of power and room, I will continue to be a skeptic. The technology needs to be improved. The first one who does come up with that luxury electric SUV that has long battery life, or can be charged at a station in 5-10 minutes, and have plenty of power will make billions. And why not electric Semis? They need to start getting horsepower and torque out of those puny electric motors before anyone is gonna take them seriously.

[Harbringe]

In the artic of Canada there once was a seaside village of Inuit who have lost their village (a village that had been there for 100's of years) due to rising sea levels ,the climatologist told us decades ago that rising sea levels would likely result from a warming climate and these Inuit are its first official victims.This is something they predicted would happen and it has ,it's also happening to the small island nations of the world , places like the Maldives.

 

I live in Atlantic Canada and in the last 8 years where I live has been hit by 3 hurricanes coming up the eastern seaboard from the Carribean ,in my lifetime we had only ever experienced a few weak to moderately strong tropical storms ,this is what climate change is all about.Its not about looking out your window and seeing snow and reaching a conclusion that global warming is bogus.It's about unusual patterns in global weather ,such as prolonged heat waves in Europe or unusual cold spells or unusual heavy rainfall ,snowfalls ,tornadoes ,typhoons etc etc.

 

In a physics sense it's actually a very simple equation ; heat is energy ,the more energy you put into any system or construct (such as climate) the more it is going to be dispelled and the climate dispels that energy through weather events.The more you put in the more you get out.

[marharth]

Well we can't don't have proof humans are causing it, it is happening without question...

 

However climate change has happened a lot throughout history.

 

I do think we are making it worse, but we don't have completely solid proof yet.

 

I mean we know it is going up a lot in the last 100 years, but you know that oil companies profit will go down if people know about the environment :P

[phoneyLogic]

The values we have are not valid. If you take your measures from the north pole, you wont ever get the temperature of a certain location, like dallas. The weather, the temps and the climate are in fact no global phenomenas. So what's about the temperatures and the CO2 on the north pole? This is a thousands miles away :confused:

 

And the temperatures in dallas are even another ones than in L.A.

Edited December 13, 2010 by tortured Tomato

[marharth]

Also about electric cars...

 

They have to get electricity form somewhere, and that somewhere is a power plant that is not good for the environment.

 

I personally don't like any form of car. You have to build roads for them which means you end up cutting down trees and messing up natural areas.

 

In order to build cars you need to use metals and natural resources.

 

I don't like cars at all, as long as cars exist as they do today the environment will become worse.

[GetOutOfBox]

I agree that humans have had a negative impact on the climate in recent years, mostly due to the ozone layer being damaged, but climate cycles are a regular occurence that has been happening for earths entire existence. Earth's likely had many ice ages and warm ages during its existence, and it will keep having these as long as it lasts.

 

It would be incredibly difficult for humans to damage the planet in such a way that it would never recover. For example, once we push the environment to a point where earth is inhospitable to humans, or at least to our current population and lifestyle, once the factories, homes, vehicles, etc stop putting out carbon emmisions, the ozone layer will slowly over time regrow, the polar ice caps reform after a long ice age, etc. Even with a nuclear war that completely devastated the surface of the planet, life would slowly but surely return, stemming from life forms we know live deep in canyons at the bottom of the ocean. Even if those lifeforms were destroyed, various elements could still over time come together to form single celled organisms, which would again be the start of life.

[Harbringe]

Even if those lifeforms were destroyed, various elements could still over time come together to form single celled organisms, which would again be the start of life.

 

Well I believe in past lives and that single celled organism thingy really sucked and I don't wanna go back and have to start over. :sad:

 

 

don't really believe in past lives ;D