-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
The Scientist 10 years ago -
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” ...etc. etc.
and now,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6947586/Snow-covers-Britain-from-head-to-toe.html
Sheesh, who'd be skeptical, mugs
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” ...etc. etc.
and now,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6947586/Snow-covers-Britain-from-head-to-toe.html
Sheesh, who'd be skeptical, mugs
..part of that article....
'David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.'
lol, are these people held accountable to anything or anyone for their outrageous scaremongering?
'David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.'
lol, are these people held accountable to anything or anyone for their outrageous scaremongering?
Outrageous scaremongering? That is a classic. A tsunami hits and everybody whinges about the lack of warning.
Couple of points, single extreme weather events aren't necessarily relevant, its about the overall trend. To scoff at climate change because of a big blizzard is like scoffing at Geelongs chances for the flag because they lose to a bottom 8 side in R16. Although one of the main predictions of climate change is that extreme weather events, or disaster events, will become more frequent.
Also, the article you posted notwithstanding, I've read predictions that global warming could cause temperatures to plummet in the UK as melting ice disturbs the Gulf Stream, which keeps the UK abnormally warm for its latitude. Its more complicated than the whole earth heating up, which is why the term changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.
Whichever side of this so-called debate you are on be very clear about what we're talking about, its not 2 even sides. Its pee wee herman V Kostya Tzu. Yeah sure pee wee might land a lucky punch, but be clear about what's going on.
Couple of points, single extreme weather events aren't necessarily relevant, its about the overall trend. To scoff at climate change because of a big blizzard is like scoffing at Geelongs chances for the flag because they lose to a bottom 8 side in R16. Although one of the main predictions of climate change is that extreme weather events, or disaster events, will become more frequent.
Also, the article you posted notwithstanding, I've read predictions that global warming could cause temperatures to plummet in the UK as melting ice disturbs the Gulf Stream, which keeps the UK abnormally warm for its latitude. Its more complicated than the whole earth heating up, which is why the term changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.
Whichever side of this so-called debate you are on be very clear about what we're talking about, its not 2 even sides. Its pee wee herman V Kostya Tzu. Yeah sure pee wee might land a lucky punch, but be clear about what's going on.
Just read a small article on p28 todays sun.
Quoting research done by scientists including Prof Mojib Latif, that for the next 20-30 years we may be heading into a cold mode, based on "natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans." Some scientists suggest that this, not pollution is the cause of climate change.
I think humans need something to worry about. Would be interesting to have a look at all the worries weve had in the past, and which ones actually needed our attention.
Y2K jumps to mind.
Quoting research done by scientists including Prof Mojib Latif, that for the next 20-30 years we may be heading into a cold mode, based on "natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans." Some scientists suggest that this, not pollution is the cause of climate change.
I think humans need something to worry about. Would be interesting to have a look at all the worries weve had in the past, and which ones actually needed our attention.
Y2K jumps to mind.
dukeos said:
There's a good article about this from a AGW sceptic, I'll try and find it. The difference between AGW and say, Y2K, is that Y2K never happened (or happened in a way that caused only minimal problems) and the evidence for AGW has been collecting since the 1970s.
Now, the consequences of AGW are the unknown, the Y2K if you will, and they might be great or they might be minor. Interesting to consider our current heat contrasted to the extreme cold in the northern hemisphere - global warming has the potential to make NW Europe much much colder.
"one of the predictions of greenhouse science is that global warming risks shutting down the Gulf Stream, which helps to keep north-western Europe warm enough to be habitable". http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2010/01/11/cold-comfort-on-climate-change/
antman said:
Linking articles by non-scientists from Crikey site is all good and fair, but - let's just have no ridicule or scoffing at anybody who chooses to link from a Bolt article or forum.
Crikey man says, 'So for those of us who take the threat of global warming seriously, the cold European winter has been no comfort at all, but rather an eerie preview of how some of our worst fears could turn out.'
.......thus insinuating that sceptics will be taking comfort from this cold weather.
Most sceptics know weather is not climate, and only point to the cold weather because as a sceptic you get sick of Rudd and many others referring to the hot weather as evidence of global warming.
Also, just so everyone knows, tsunamis are not evidence of man-made global warming or climate change.
Cheers
Perhaps Y2K turned out to be nothing because of the pre-occurrence hysteria and the subsequent action the hysteria brought.
On Global Warming heard a good one the other day. As known due to the proof that earth wasn't warming the 'greenie lobby' has had to change the term to "climate change" to assist their cause. When it turns out in the future that the climate is not really changing at all from patterns of warming and cooling established over thousands of years, the 'greenies' will re-phrase the term as "climate stability" and use that as justification for protesting against inaction by the politicians and mankind in general. That is, by mankind doing nothing about emissions, the earth has eerily entered into a period of climate stability never before witnessed.
On Global Warming heard a good one the other day. As known due to the proof that earth wasn't warming the 'greenie lobby' has had to change the term to "climate change" to assist their cause. When it turns out in the future that the climate is not really changing at all from patterns of warming and cooling established over thousands of years, the 'greenies' will re-phrase the term as "climate stability" and use that as justification for protesting against inaction by the politicians and mankind in general. That is, by mankind doing nothing about emissions, the earth has eerily entered into a period of climate stability never before witnessed.
Merveille said:
Don't be precious Mervielle, I'm trying to be even handed here by agreeing that there have been plenty of false scares in the past and AGW may yet prove to be one of these, however the scientific evidence suggests otherwise. BTW, No-one is suggesting the current cold snap is a consequence of a shut-down of the gulf stream due to AGW, but it's a demonstration of the complexity of possible outcomes of AGW.
Agree on the annoying conflation of warm weather and climate change - pollies and others will do this. It's when we have warmer decades - which we have - it's time to start thinking about climate change, not weather. If you want something more scientific, check out this Google Earth animation which clearly shows mean monthly temperatures globally for the last 150 years. http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/12/decoding-climate-change-with-p.html
Is that data set long enough for you to consider that it's the climate, not the weather?
Anyway, if you read the Crikey article and followed the sources, you find the relevant scientific papers listed. When Andrew Bolt and other sceptics begin to list the peer reviewed, scientific sources they base their "journalism" on, I'll start paying closer attention.
Did anyone suggest tsunamis are caused by AGW in this thread?
Anyway given that whats required is less emissions of CO2 equivalents and a large part of this is power generation its lucky we havent had knock the peak off the power generation over the last few days of very hot weather.
I am not looking forward to the time when someone can check my power usage and just cut me off at what is it, 20% below 1990 levels.
There goes the AC at home and probably in the office, and a long walk home in the heat when I cant use the car either as there is no power for charging the battery on hot days?
If there is no power then the beer will get very warm.
Someone needs to do something about this soon or I will be really upset, as my lifestyle will be severely compromised.
It will be some time before there is enough alternative energy from wind, solar or whatever and the hot days keep rolling on, or is that the point.
I am not looking forward to the time when someone can check my power usage and just cut me off at what is it, 20% below 1990 levels.
There goes the AC at home and probably in the office, and a long walk home in the heat when I cant use the car either as there is no power for charging the battery on hot days?
If there is no power then the beer will get very warm.
Someone needs to do something about this soon or I will be really upset, as my lifestyle will be severely compromised.
It will be some time before there is enough alternative energy from wind, solar or whatever and the hot days keep rolling on, or is that the point.
antman said:
150 years? No, not long enough for me, not even close. I try to maintain a realistic perception of earth, time and climate.
Is all of that article you linked listed with peer-reviewed scientific sources?
When Bolt writes something factually incorrect and not sourced, please put it up here. I am not suggesting he hasn't done it - but if he is so far off the mark, please link to it next time.
Do you think Crikey is impartial?
Cheers
Merveille said:
You remind me of the John Maynard Keynes saying "In the long run, we are all dead". If the Earth swings into an Ice Age in 10,000 years, that's interesting but is unlikely to affect my life directly. If AGW affects my environment, my finances, my politics then it needs urgent attention. In other words, AGW might be just a blip on the radar in terms of Earth history but since it is occurring in my lifetime and those of my children then that's pretty important, wouldn't you agree?
Could you rephrase this? Not quite sure what you are trying to say.
I don't actually read Bolt. Anyway, it's not up to me to read all his articles to find out when he writes something factually incorrect and not sourced as that sounds like a full-time job to me. A better idea would be for you to post a Bolt article if you think it is relevant to this discussion. Then we can rip it to shreds :hihi
No. Who is impartial? Make a judgement based on the content and sources or evidence behind the article. I'd suggest you do this with Bolt as well, unfortunately I think you'll find that you will be pushing excrement uphill with a digging implement, but go for your life. Some of what you write shows an understanding of science and rationality - why don't you focus on that angle rather than polemicists like Bolt.
I'd actually agree that science itself is not completely impartial - science is a social activity and is affected by language, culture, politics, etc etc. However it's the best method we have because it is reflexive (self-critical), based on empiricism and rationality rather than dogma or politics, and always seeks to improve itself.
I :hearton the Bolt!! Dont alway agree.
Certainly stirs the pot.
Whilst I am not conviced about climate change, I do agree with reducing pollution, reducing logging of old growth forests, generally making the planet a better place to live.
I think sometimes we need to find bigger things to worry about, maybe to mask the problems we see closer to home?
Like people who leave dog t!rds in the park
Also love the "greenies" who drive around in their cars, smoke billowing out the back, with stickers on the window, urging others to save the planet.
Certainly stirs the pot.
Whilst I am not conviced about climate change, I do agree with reducing pollution, reducing logging of old growth forests, generally making the planet a better place to live.
I think sometimes we need to find bigger things to worry about, maybe to mask the problems we see closer to home?
Like people who leave dog t!rds in the park
Also love the "greenies" who drive around in their cars, smoke billowing out the back, with stickers on the window, urging others to save the planet.
