Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Global Warming not eroding ice shocker



Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Jul 23, 2003
33,821
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade


Husty

Mooderator
Oct 18, 2008
11,973
I don't think anybody really knows for sure what is happening with our climate, it is simply just too complex.

At the end of the day, this. Whilst sea ice at the North Pole continues to decline, around Antarctica it is at an all time high and we have little understanding of why that is.

Doesn't mean we should abandon 'Green' science though, only an idiot would argue that it is a bad idea to continue to develop more efficient technologies for generating power, growing food and producing goods.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
Still trust Green science?

nope. too much of it isn't hard science, its computer simulations and models based on limited observations and the researchers prejudices. some models that fed into the IPCC report didnt even include Sun radiation output. it is immensley complex, and some of the inputs and feedback cycles arent even properly understood, but they will tell you with certainty the conclusions are correct and accuracte (to +/- 100%).
 


halbpro

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2012
2,855
Brighton
At the end of the day, this. Whilst sea ice at the North Pole continues to decline, around Antarctica it is at an all time high and we have little understanding of why that is.

Doesn't mean we should abandon 'Green' science though, only an idiot would argue that it is a bad idea to continue to develop more efficient technologies for generating power, growing food and producing goods.

Yep. Beyond anything renewable energy technology should, hopefully, prove cheaper in the long run, although obviously there's the significant upfront costs.
 


Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
12,393
Brighton
An antarctic ice shelf reported to be eroding due to CO2 is, apparently, not after all.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...ded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

Meanwhile there was a recovery in the Arctic ice layer this year.

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1569&cookieConsent=A

Still trust Green science?

This is The Register though. It's known for it's climate change denial and I'd say it's a pretty dangerous stance to take.

You can't doubt that the impact we are having on this planet is affecting the climate.
 






robynsdad

New member
Jan 29, 2012
153
but they will tell you with certainty the conclusions are correct and accuracte (to +/- 100%).

No 'they' won't. They really won't.
Assuming by 'they' you mean serious climate scientists?

There is no such thing as 'green science' (obviously). there is good science and not so good science. And then there are the myriad of interpretations placed on science by those that don't understand it properly and/or choose to interpret it according to their existing assumptions/ideology and financial interests (which, obviously again, happens a lot when it comes to climate change)

Sh*t. what am i doing. Discussing climate change on a football forum.
back to work
 






Billy the Fish

Technocrat
Oct 18, 2005
17,472
Haywards Heath
I don't think anybody really knows for sure what is happening with our climate, it is simply just too complex.

At the end of the day, this. Whilst sea ice at the North Pole continues to decline, around Antarctica it is at an all time high and we have little understanding of why that is.

Doesn't mean we should abandon 'Green' science though, only an idiot would argue that it is a bad idea to continue to develop more efficient technologies for generating power, growing food and producing goods.

Both of these. The reason you get so many mixed messages in the media is because reports are published by scientists looking into different microcosms of the global climate.

Everybody seems to have an opinion on it when even the experts don't really understand the bigger picture. How the f**k can anyone form an opinion one way or the other unless you've seen all the data* :shrug:

The default stance for everyone should be to try and be more environmentally friendly, anything else is illogical.

* Assuming that enough data is available over a long enough timeline to prove anything, which it probably isn't.
 
















Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
12,393
Brighton
I didn't say it did. You have just said that.

I said, "says the Australian."

Why do you raise this? Does the fact you are posting from Australia affect your attitude towards climate change?
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
No 'they' won't. They really won't.
Assuming by 'they' you mean serious climate scientists?

is there another sort then? the point i make isnt limited to climate science, its a general issue with any science thats heavily dependant on models rather than actual hard, empirical experimentation. I've read papers that have that sort of margin of error, which is as good as put a finger in the air. the scientist cant even agree amongst themselves the severity and impact of different values plugged into models, or which models to use, but we still must accept the consensus conclusion is absolutly correct. In the end, climate science is about as accurate as economics.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,561
Fiveways
Says the Australian.

Funny that we have a thread disproving 'green science' on exactly the same day that it was announced that Australia's climate for 2013 was 1.2C higher than the long-term average. Perhaps this is the sort of thing an Australian should be focusing on? If green science is like any other industry, attempting to get as much funding to line their pockets, then it's not quite as effective as the financial sector, is it?
I would trust 'green science' more than the sites on which this thread is based. We also need to distinguish between the various elements of climate change research. Some of it is based on observed data -- which is probably the kind of 'hard science' beorthelm is after -- and some of it is based on future projections, amongst others.
 


Tricky Dicky

New member
Jul 27, 2004
13,558
Sunny Shoreham
Regardless of the science, true or not, surely nobody can deny that many, many people are wasteful of the planets resources which can only lead to bad things - whether that's just running out or damaging the planet. I've not doubt the claims have been over-egged by many to make money or just to make headlines, but that doesn't mean that doing something about it should necessarily be stopped.
 




Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
12,393
Brighton
Why [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] that's very machiavellian of you slipping that in there.
 


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Jul 23, 2003
33,821
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
the scientist cant even agree amongst themselves the severity and impact of different values plugged into models, or which models to use, but we still must accept the consensus conclusion is absolutly correct. In the end, climate science is about as accurate as economics.

Quite. It was this sort of discussion on thousands of emails that allowed James Dellingpole to claim the whole thing was a massive conspiracy theory, which, of course, it isn't. It's just too complicated to have a definitive answer.

So why post? Because there was a massive thread on fracking earlier this year where many seemed to think it was a bad thing "because Greenpeace said so".
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here