The temperature wasn't measure 250 years ago.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Do you believe in man made climate change?
- Thread starter nicko31
- Start date
The temperature wasn't measure 250 years ago.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
Re the OP's opening question-my thoughts are as follows....
Are/has mankind knowingly or unknowingly altering the planet's climate directly or indirectly? answer....yes on both accounts.......However
who is to say that the Ice cap as an example in the Northern hemisphere has yet to run its full melt,as it perhaps has done many times before?
Perhaps,due to land mass, the South pole is Earths only permenant ice cap and that in time,we will see no ice at all in the North,untill the next ice age.
Are/has mankind knowingly or unknowingly altering the planet's climate directly or indirectly? answer....yes on both accounts.......However
who is to say that the Ice cap as an example in the Northern hemisphere has yet to run its full melt,as it perhaps has done many times before?
Perhaps,due to land mass, the South pole is Earths only permenant ice cap and that in time,we will see no ice at all in the North,untill the next ice age.
Better to be safe than sorry so I prefer we adopt a greener approach to life.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
i agree,knock down the Amex and lets all play football instead of watching it..
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,392
I think thats many peoples point of view. with the rider "as long as i dont have to forgo anything". problem is we want services and industry and employment, that costs an awful lot of energy, before we even get on to the leisure and lifestyle choices. how many people nowadays "commute" or regularly fly a few hundred miles? or buy a new computer/tablet/phone every year just because its the new model?
symyjym
Banned
The Sun's activity may be falling faster than at any time in 10,000 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
So even though we may have some mild impact on climate change, ultimately the sun is a massive part of the equation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
So even though we may have some mild impact on climate change, ultimately the sun is a massive part of the equation.
Yes, we do, now, but they didn't, then.
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,240
The global temperature has risen since the industrial revolution, correlated to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also proof that this extra CO2 has come from man-made sources. Don't know what there is to not agree on to be honest
Serious question:
In Victorian times, as the ice retreated northwards in the arctic, a natural damn broke which held back millions of tonnes of frozen ice which was released from the great lakes type areas in North America (as mentioned in Al Gores Documentary). This then affected the sea currents and caused the warm water conveyor belt (can't think what it's called atm) to stop and this caused a mini ice age which led to the Thames freezing and ice fairs and alike being held. So my question is, couldn't the accelerated melting of the ice cap in the arctic just be a case of nature returning to the point it would have been at if that blip hadn't been caused by that massive ice release?
Flooding happens in cycles, could the difference be that more people are living on land which is a flood plain so that when there is flooding, then we notice it more? - So many news reports seem to push the idea of climate change as the cause to every natural occurance that there is a danger that any real effects could be lost in this media hype. (ie: interviews with locals who lived in area for 20 odd years which then floods and they are interviewed saying "i have never seem it this bad in my whole life / ever since i have lived here" making it sound like a unique and frightening event. They then interview someone else who has lived there for 30+ years and they say its the worst it's been flooded since about 30 years ago when they last had a major flood there. - everyone latches onto the first interview and use it for proof of climate change and arn't bothered that the area has a natural cycle of flooding ever 30 years or so (just like Lewes does))
Shouldn't things be improving since we (in this country) lost most of our heavy industry which churned out CO2 and other pollutants?
Can scientists and Governments and the powers that be reaslly come out now and say (after spending billions investigating it and making people pay green taxes, etc) that it is all a natural cycle and not man made? Resources are running out so, even if climate change isn't man made, then there is still a benefit to try to scare people into using less which ultimately means that whatever is left, will last longer. (and could give the extra time needed to come up with and perfect viable alternatives (like solar, wave and wind power & nuclear?))
ps - i thought they revealed years ago that climate patterns / temperature changes fit more closely to methane levels rather than carbon dioxide?
fataddick
Well-known member
Am I missing something here? I live in Brighton and this is the mildest winter I've known (in my 20+ years here). Or is that what people are concerned about?
hybrid_x
Banned
- Jun 28, 2011
- 2,225
man has helped towards climate change.
but most is to do with the sun.
this old map shows that the recent floods are nothing to do with climate change (see swamp areas).
http://www.sott.net/article/273872-UK-flooding-Met-Office-and-a-map-from-878AD
but the gov will tell you different and charge the people accordingly.....and most will lap it up as they do with austerity.
but most is to do with the sun.
this old map shows that the recent floods are nothing to do with climate change (see swamp areas).
http://www.sott.net/article/273872-UK-flooding-Met-Office-and-a-map-from-878AD
but the gov will tell you different and charge the people accordingly.....and most will lap it up as they do with austerity.
bomber130
bomber130
- Jun 10, 2011
- 1,908
Last edited:
As a scientist myself (though not an environmental scientist), I can say that if I started to find evidence that goes against something that has been believed for many years, I'd be more interested in studying it, not trying to hide it.
With regards to your last point, this may well be true - methane is a more potent greenhouse gas - but CO2 levels are much higher, are still rising and cause other problems as well, for example the acidification of the oceans, which leads to the corrosion of coral reefs.
Resources running out is just yet another reason why we should be looking to find renewable sources of energy.
I don't really go with the argument that it could just be a cycle either. Of course the Earth's climate goes in cycles, and we are largely unable to control that. That goes for any effects the Sun as as well. But it seems fairly clear to me that the actions we've made since the 1800's have meant that there are various chemicals now in our atmosphere that are there in higher concentrations to what they should be. We know that these chemicals (methane, CO2, etc) can act as greenhouse gases, and we've measured a change in our climate that correlates with our activity in producing these chemicals. That change in climate has not really led to anything drastic yet (you certainly can't blame one bad weather event on climate change), but if we carry on doing it, I believe we will start to see more frequent, more drastic changes. Our planet is very very good at absorbing changes to our atmosphere, acting as a buffer, for when unusual events do occur. But if we push this to far, there's only so much that our planet can absorb.
Interesting article. Worth a read imo.
http://www.principia-scientific.org...ate-capers-collapse.html#.Uwdgw3pKV_4.twitter
http://www.principia-scientific.org...ate-capers-collapse.html#.Uwdgw3pKV_4.twitter
Its all bollocks as I told my Scottish barber in North Ferring on Tuesday morning. He was not disinclined to disagree.
''Nae he said, it's cyclical''
Who would disagree when at the mercy of a manical barber wielding a cut throat razor to your neck where your major artery is located.
Despite my physical threat, I wholeheartedly nodded my head and narrowly missed a vicious slash.
''Nae he said, it's cyclical''
Who would disagree when at the mercy of a manical barber wielding a cut throat razor to your neck where your major artery is located.
Despite my physical threat, I wholeheartedly nodded my head and narrowly missed a vicious slash.
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,240
The false information and scaremongering is something i hate about this whole issue, plus if someone doesn't accept the assumption we are to blame straight away and questions it, why are their views usually shouted down and they usually are subjected to abuse without being explored (even if their views actually turn out to be correct - such as the average temperature predictions and global warming which, now seen to be something that actually isn't happening despite the scaremongering and therefore the issue is now called climate change)
The map of what sea levels will be like if the ice caps melt is a great example - there wasn't any ice at the pole when the Vikings arrived in Britain so where was the coast line then? - how much of the melt water just fill the space that was there from the ice (it shouldn't increase the volume because they should occupy the same because they weigh the same and should displace the same amount of water even if the ice extends above the surface of the sea due to its crystalised structure)
Yet material like that is used to claim that we are doing this to the planet and we must change now - yet what exactly are we being urged to do which couldn't be interpretted as saving and prolonging the supply of raw materials?
Countless wasteful practices and products which are potentially very damaging from an environmental point of view are still being actively sold and promoted without limits or taxes to discourage use or being banned because of the risk to the planet so what exactly is it we can do individually which makes a telling difference to the planets climate? - how is that measured? and what are the limits which make the difference between the planets damnation and salvation (sounds very religious to me, especially since religion is no longer important to many people - call me cynical, but that just sounds like a new way to control people and make them pay those with power taxes (just like churches used to collect money from followers)
LargeHadronZugzwang
Active member
The Earth's atmosphere is thinner than an apple skin by comparison. It is hardly likely that it is the case that chucking enormous quantities of CO2 into it without there being consequences. The weather is a multi-faceted holistic thing; clouds, gyres, cycles and even cosmic rays may play a part. We cannot afford to role the dice and think pollution will not matter. If we continue to pollute the Planet we will not be exercising Hawking's suggestion of moving elsewhere, there is no park and ride on Mars, besides which the fuel needed maybe a problem.
Exporting thousands of rolls of toilet paper to Germany who then exports thousands of rolls to us, is a very stupid thing to do. Every day we are buying food from Supermarkets that travels thousands of miles around the World. This has to stop, because the Plutocrats and their derivatives and the casino madness is going to crash the system. There is no better way than to advocate local produce for local people.
Exporting thousands of rolls of toilet paper to Germany who then exports thousands of rolls to us, is a very stupid thing to do. Every day we are buying food from Supermarkets that travels thousands of miles around the World. This has to stop, because the Plutocrats and their derivatives and the casino madness is going to crash the system. There is no better way than to advocate local produce for local people.
Last edited:
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,240
You have forgotten two things though:
1) Icebergs are made of fresh water, the sea is salt water and salt water is more dense than fresh water.
2) Not all the ice is floating in the sea.
Apart from that you all good.
100 metres worth