Europe: In or Out

[looney]

Excellent trolling Trollmiester. You really do talk a load of tosh......... even for a troll.

You are not smart enough to tell what is trolling and what isn't. Thats not trolling. You are trolling.

 

[glasfryn]

I really can't see why all this discussion and cameron really does not care what you/we think.
and certainly not what his own associations think.
running around Europe with his begging bowl, and coming back with watered down ideas

OUT and goodbye dave

 

[larus]

1. Primarily because of the hole in the ozone layer. But climate effects don't work uniformally over the world. Globally the earth is losing 35,000 sq km of sea ice per year

2. Because you're cherry-picking a start date - 1998 - that coincides with the strongest El Nino event on record (prior to 2015), and was therefore the warmest year on record in the troposphere (which reacts stroinglyu to El Nino events, so expect 2016 to beat it and perhaps end this line of attack by the sceptics). If, however, you look over the full satellie records since they started in 1979 you will see a clear upwards trend over the full dataset, not just the bit you are picking. You're also chery-picking one dataset and ignoring others, such as surface temperature where the rises are uneqivocal, with December 2015 the hottest month on record, 2015 the hottest year on record, smashing the second highest, 2014. These readings are more accurate and more applicabale than satellite readings that are looking at micowave levels in the troposphere, and considering we live at the surface, not up in the troposphere, they're more relevant, too.

3. is it still 2004?! There was famous controversy over the hockey stick graph, pushed by Republican senator Jim Inhofe and this became a famous line of attack. The controversial parts of Mann's analysis have been rexamined and found to hold true, even after various methodological approaches used. Meanwhile there have since been over two dozen new reconstructions of the earth's past climate performed on different datasets with different approaches and all support the original hockey stick curve; 14 of these included in the IPCC's latest policy documents on climate change. the 'medieval warm period' is based on tree ring data from central England, it was localised and not global, unlike the Mann et al study

4. I don't know, I'm not an oceanographer. there was a recent paper in Science showing that the waters of the Pacific warmed significantly from 2003-2012 in the region from 10m to 300m below the surface. Why not the top 10m? perhaps because that is interacting heavily with the atmosphere and is a good heat exchanger?

5. Models are models, they'll be changing continuously. No-one is ever going to claim their model is foolproof. This is a large and completely new field of science, looking at how increased temperatures interact with the oceans, the troposphere, the ice and weater patterns. We don't have hundreds of similar planets to run experiments on or keep as controls. But if you are building a model, of course warming is put in as an assumption, because the planet is warming. CO2 levels are now 405 ppm - up 3 from january alone - wow - and temperatures are rising lock-step with CO2 emissions, just as predicted. That part is really very simple, the models are just trying to predict what will happen.

none of this makes me happy, of course. Maybe denial is the way to go.

1. Sorry, but this is rubbish. We've had so many scare stories about being an ice free Arctic which just isn't happening. Then, to offset the decrease in Arctic sea-ice, Antarctica sea-ice is at it's highest level recorded (which is totally against all climate scarers predictions).
2. I'm not picking a start date. This is the longest which we can GO BACK FROM CURRENT SATELLITE TEMPERATURES and get no warming. It always works from the CURRENT date and goes back. That's not cherry picking.
If you want to talk about cherry picking, why did they choose the choose the start date of Acrtic sea ice as 1979. I'll tell you why; the 1970's were cold (remember the scare stories then of an ice-age?), so the Arctic sea ice was going to be larger then than historically (there are reports of ships getting through the Arctic in the early part of last century). So, that's cherry picking by the Scare-mongers.

Solar activity was much higher at the end of the 20th Century and the sun is going into a quieter period now. The current cycle (24) is weak and the next one is projected to be even weaker. This is more of an impact on the worlds climate rather than an increase of of CO2 of approx 0.01% of the atmosphere. Yes, about 1 part in 10,000 change in the atmosphere is now CO2.

Please explain to me how the radiated heat from the greenhouse effect can warm the deep oceans? It can't. It's a radiated heat. The deep oceans will get warmed by sunlight, not radiated heat from molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, 2016 will be warmer than 2015 due to the El Nino. However, if a major La Nina kicks in, then global temperatures will start to drop, so the pause may then extend further.

Tell me, how long does the pause need to be before the Scare-mongers will accept they are wrong.

Last point. Why do the scare-mongers use the term 'Deniers' (with the link to the holocaust) for people who do not think that the science is settled? I don't deny climate change (it's always changed and always will), but I don't believe that an increase of CO2 from (approximately) 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere is that much of an impact.

There's been recorded times where CO2 has been about about 7000, much higher than the 403 presently. The earth didn't boil away then.

If the scare-mongers were open to honest debate, OK. But they aren't - it's just scare stories.

 

[GT49er]

So, staying in the EU will prevent Global Warming, will it? Or is it the other way round? Or is all this argument about Global Warming - or not - completely irrelevant to this thread about whether or not we should leave the EU? I strongly suspect the latter, so perhaps Global Warmers and Deniers need to have their own thread where they can argue about it until they are blue in the face (or the earth melts!)

 

[5ways]

Climate deniers really are the most obtuse people. The scientific consensus on man-man climate change is as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer.

 

[GT49er]

Climate deniers really are the most obtuse people. The scientific consensus on man-man climate change is as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer.

.....and the link between that and EU membership is...................?

 

[nicko31]

Climate deniers really are the most obtuse people. The scientific consensus on man-man climate change is as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Totally agree. The likes of Nigel Lawson make me sick, he will dead in under a decade. Add to that a band of Victor Meldrew UKIP's.

A strong EU is what is needed to tackle global challenges.

 

[5ways]

.....and the link between that and EU membership is...................?

Emissions regulations or European carbon trading programmes or fishing quotas...I don't know. I rose to the bait.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

.....and the link between that and EU membership is...................?

I think the discussion is that the EU is very progressive with it's climate change awareness and legislation, but maybe I'm wrong and someone could confirm ?

 

[5ways]

.....and the link between that and EU membership is...................?

If you're so inclined to follow this line of argument -


"It's vital to recognise that virtually the entire legal protection for our environment here in Britain derives from European safeguards. Our air, water and land are kept clean by European laws. And rightly so, because pollution knows no national boundaries. We ignore these protections at our peril."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...itains-countryside-experts-warn-a6835426.html

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Waits for the 'scaremongering' word

 

[GT49er]

I think the discussion is that the EU is very progressive with it's climate change awareness and legislation, but maybe I'm wrong and someone could confirm ?

It may well be. So, I think, is the UK. Difficult to see anything changing in that respect whether or not we leave,

 

[GT49er]

If you're so inclined to follow this line of argument -

"It's vital to recognise that virtually the entire legal protection for our environment here in Britain derives from European safeguards. Our air, water and land are kept clean by European laws. And rightly so, because pollution knows no national boundaries. We ignore these protections at our peril."

....and we would promptly stop protecting our environment if we left? How? Would we suddenly encourage more carbon emissions, start pumping more poisonous waste into our rivers, etc, or just carry on with the environmental protection laws we have at the moment (as, presumably, would the EU countries)?

 

[brighton fella]

Totally agree. The likes of Nigel Lawson make me sick, he will dead in under a decade. Add to that a band of Victor Meldrew UKIP's.

A strong EU is what is needed to tackle global challenges.[/QU

what stronger than it is already..... yeh cant wait

 

[alfredmizen]

Totally agree. The likes of Nigel Lawson make me sick, he will dead in under a decade. Add to that a band of Victor Meldrew UKIP's.

A strong EU is what is needed to tackle global challenges.

You sound a real charmer, I bet you consider yourself a 'caring' individual though.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

A strong EU is what is needed to tackle global challenges.

The EU can't deal with problems on it's own doorstep - it would be fu*k1ng useless at global issues.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

On a fine-fine scale? Sure, there's more that impacts our climate than just CO2 concentration. Here is the graph of CO2 v temperature, it appears to be a logarithmic relationship. I believe if you include the impacts of other radiative forcings then there is a better fit on the overall trend, as one would expect.

View attachment 72169

The models are only as good as the inputs we have, and as I state earlier, this is all new science with uncertainty to what will happen. We haven't had CO2 concentrations this high during the entirety of our species time on this planet, so its all unknown. But we are measuring higher tempoeratures, measuring melting of ice, measuring increased sea levels, and these things worry us and we make models to try and predict what will happen in the future. These models are based on lots of different hypotheses, there is no 'single' model. Not all hypotheses are proved, and then we search for the explanation and adapt our models accordingly. But the base theory, that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures, thats proved, thats unequivocal.

are you in or out of the EU
regards
DR

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

So, staying in the EU will prevent Global Warming, will it? Or is it the other way round? Or is all this argument about Global Warming - or not - completely irrelevant to this thread about whether or not we should leave the EU? I strongly suspect the latter, so perhaps Global Warmers and Deniers need to have their own thread where they can argue about it until they are blue in the face (or the earth melts!)

Hi, sorry, I was merely making a point that EU policies on environmental issues are stronger and more effective than those of individual countries, with climate change as just one example (and a minor one at that) and got hit hard by climate change deniers. I didn't realise so many were out there. Anyway I presented the data and arguments to counter theirs but they clearly won't stop so I guess I'm done with them, they're banging on about the 'pause' as if they're running for the Republican Party's nomination

....and we would promptly stop protecting our environment if we left? How? Would we suddenly encourage more carbon emissions, start pumping more poisonous waste into our rivers, etc, or just carry on with the environmental protection laws we have at the moment (as, presumably, would the EU countries)?

I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is yes. Environmental protections are always the first on the block when development is at stake, and its taken a more 'neutral' body like the EU to get the strong protections we have now. Past governments's have regularly stripped SSSI's of their status to allow development, but European safeguards have prevented this at many sites. The European commission has even had to bring legal cases against the British govenrment in some cases to prevent destruction of habitats. Regulations on the importation of non-sustainable timber and palm oil, amongst other products, are pushed by the EU, I highly doubt it would be as strong at national level. Fishing quotas are set by the EU, I imagine if we're out if it we'll be back in a fishing arms race with Iceland and Norway.

You may scoff, but our entire national rivers authority and the adoption of strict emissions limits has come from the EU, as has our approach to sewage treatment, releases of nitrates and the quality of beaches and bathing waters. The common agricultural policy - its not great - but does provides subsidies in return for good stewardship of wildlife habitat and controlling pollution from fertilisers and pesticides. Prior to joining the EU we had the highest level of acid rain in Europe, and ministers used to pretend that they were waiting for 'sound science' before doing anything about it - much like these climate change deniers elsewhere on this thread. Since joing the EU SO2 levels are down over 80%. If we stay in the EU, large polluting coal-fired plants will have to close, if we leave, they could stay open.In recent years the UK government has sought to block strict rules limiting imports of tar sands at the European level, tried to water down the EU energy efficiency directive and threatened to block an EU pesticide ban that will protect bees. Then there is REACH, on the regulation of dangerous chemicals. Tory EU-sceptics say this is red-tape that dames the economy. Yet this is the law that prevents the sale of toxic flammable pyjamas for children or the exposure to dangerous chemicals in the workplace.

The UK government has always had a poor track record on environmental concerns and I see no reason why this would change post-EU.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Hi, sorry, I was merely making a point that EU policies on environmental issues are stronger and more effective than those of individual countries, with climate change as just one example (and a minor one at that) and got hit hard by climate change deniers. I didn't realise so many were out there. Anyway I presented the data and arguments to counter theirs but they clearly won't stop so I guess I'm done with them, they're banging on about the 'pause' as if they're running for the Republican Party's nomination




I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is yes. Environmental protections are always the first on the block when development is at stake, and its taken a more 'neutral' body like the EU to get the strong protections we have now. Past governments's have regularly stripped SSSI's of their status to allow development, but European safeguards have prevented this at many sites. The European commission has even had to bring legal cases against the British govenrment in some cases to prevent destruction of habitats. Regulations on the importation of non-sustainable timber and palm oil, amongst other products, are pushed by the EU, I highly doubt it would be as strong at national level. Fishing quotas are set by the EU, I imagine if we're out if it we'll be back in a fishing arms race with Iceland and Norway.

You may scoff, but our entire national rivers authority and the adoption of strict emissions limits has come from the EU, as has our approach to sewage treatment, releases of nitrates and the quality of beaches and bathing waters. The common agricultural policy - its not great - but does provides subsidies in return for good stewardship of wildlife habitat and controlling pollution from fertilisers and pesticides. Prior to joining the EU we had the highest level of acid rain in Europe, and ministers used to pretend that they were waiting for 'sound science' before doing anything about it - much like these climate change deniers elsewhere on this thread. Since joing the EU SO2 levels are down over 80%. If we stay in the EU, large polluting coal-fired plants will have to close, if we leave, they could stay open.In recent years the UK government has sought to block strict rules limiting imports of tar sands at the European level, tried to water down the EU energy efficiency directive and threatened to block an EU pesticide ban that will protect bees. Then there is REACH, on the regulation of dangerous chemicals. Tory EU-sceptics say this is red-tape that dames the economy. Yet this is the law that prevents the sale of toxic flammable pyjamas for children or the exposure to dangerous chemicals in the workplace.

The UK government has always had a poor track record on environmental concerns and I see no reason why this would change post-EU.

all though your flow charts look the real deal and hold some sort of credibility, the bottom line is you're a tree hugger, sorry that's not going to sort out the mess of the EU but saving £55 million a day might be put to better use.
regards
DR

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Hi, sorry, I was merely making a point that EU policies on environmental issues are stronger and more effective than those of individual countries, with climate change as just one example (and a minor one at that) and got hit hard by climate change deniers. I didn't realise so many were out there. Anyway I presented the data and arguments to counter theirs but they clearly won't stop so I guess I'm done with them, they're banging on about the 'pause' as if they're running for the Republican Party's nomination




I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is yes. Environmental protections are always the first on the block when development is at stake, and its taken a more 'neutral' body like the EU to get the strong protections we have now. Past governments's have regularly stripped SSSI's of their status to allow development, but European safeguards have prevented this at many sites. The European commission has even had to bring legal cases against the British govenrment in some cases to prevent destruction of habitats. Regulations on the importation of non-sustainable timber and palm oil, amongst other products, are pushed by the EU, I highly doubt it would be as strong at national level. Fishing quotas are set by the EU, I imagine if we're out if it we'll be back in a fishing arms race with Iceland and Norway.

You may scoff, but our entire national rivers authority and the adoption of strict emissions limits has come from the EU, as has our approach to sewage treatment, releases of nitrates and the quality of beaches and bathing waters. The common agricultural policy - its not great - but does provides subsidies in return for good stewardship of wildlife habitat and controlling pollution from fertilisers and pesticides. Prior to joining the EU we had the highest level of acid rain in Europe, and ministers used to pretend that they were waiting for 'sound science' before doing anything about it - much like these climate change deniers elsewhere on this thread. Since joing the EU SO2 levels are down over 80%. If we stay in the EU, large polluting coal-fired plants will have to close, if we leave, they could stay open.In recent years the UK government has sought to block strict rules limiting imports of tar sands at the European level, tried to water down the EU energy efficiency directive and threatened to block an EU pesticide ban that will protect bees. Then there is REACH, on the regulation of dangerous chemicals. Tory EU-sceptics say this is red-tape that dames the economy. Yet this is the law that prevents the sale of toxic flammable pyjamas for children or the exposure to dangerous chemicals in the workplace.

The UK government has always had a poor track record on environmental concerns and I see no reason why this would change post-EU.

What a good post, and it highlights some interesting aspects and consequences of the whole EU debate. Sadly, for some, anti-immigration will trump it all.