Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Climate Change watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: When would you have intervened?
    I wouldn't intervene.
    24
    30.38%
    Now.
    19
    24.05%
    Before India and China industrialised.
    15
    18.99%
    Before the Middle-East started pumping oil.
    3
    3.80%
    Before the USA emerged as a superpower.
    7
    8.86%
    Before the Industrial Revolution.
    8
    10.13%
    Before man discovered fire.
    3
    3.80%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The article speeks of a myth of climate change yet sums up with a warning of a global cooling
    The article speeks of peoples support of global warming as rash and silly, where as Sir John Houghton CBE, FRS states that "Global warming and the resulting climate change are amongst the most serious issues facing the world community"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ali567149)
    The article speeks of a myth of climate change yet sums up with a warning of a global cooling
    You launch in to the utter misrepresentation immediately, it's like every word of the article flew over your head.
    The article speaks of a myth of human caused climate change, not a myth of climate change as the whole article speaks about natural climate change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ali567149)
    The article speeks of a myth of climate change yet sums up with a warning of a global cooling
    Actually the article happily accepts climate change as a phenomenon. It questions the extent to which these broader natural patterns are significantly affected by human activity and suggests that within macro scales our current position in the cycle indicates that we will soon enter a truly sustained period of global cooling.


    (Original post by ali567149)
    The article speeks of peoples support of global warming as rash and silly, where as Sir John Houghton CBE, FRS states that "Global warming and the resulting climate change are amongst the most serious issues facing the world community"
    A truly convincing argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yet the article denounces the possiability of global warming and its possiable impacts upon climate change. It would be niaive to assume that there is no link between the two.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i recomend a read of houghton's book
    he puts across a very detailed and user friendly guide
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ali567149)
    Yet the article denounces the possiability of global warming and its possiable impacts upon climate change. It would be niaive to assume that there is no link between the two.
    Are you sure you really mean what you are saying here?

    (Original post by ali567149)
    i recomend a read of houghton's book
    he puts across a very detailed and user friendly guide
    Can you provide a brief summary to specifically counter the points made in the article I provided?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    you will have to appreciate that at 1:20 in the morning a summary of a detailed 350+ page book is not going to be a simple task.
    the article argues as far as i can tell over the gramaticla errors more usually associated with the guardian that the human influence is negligable. And that there is to be a period of cooling not warming, based mainly on the assumption that over an 8 year period from 98 we were in statis and that over the past 3 million years its be a wee bit cooler, along with the no existant link between CO2 and climate change.

    Well firstly CO2 is one of the most ifluentual green house gasses after H2O
    Secondly The natural changes in the earths climate are not fully understood yet and indeed we are currently in an interglacial period wating suposedly for an ice age, however the projected rise in global temperatures based on CO2 for 2100 is 1.2 0c a potentially significant rise.
    Thirdly is it yet possiable to dimiss the impact of humans, is that a reason not to mitigate aginst a potential global warming? i think not not many things a certian in this world, yet we still act with a precautionary approach is he attempting to argue that we do not do this now?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tell me, if global temp.s have not risen in the past few years, how is the significant melting of the polar ice caps accounted for?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thing is, global temperature changes of about 6 centigrade are normal over a period of 10000 years. It is not normal for these changes to occur within less than a century.

    As for evidence. Even if the evidence was as uncertain as some people claim ( it is not ) it still suggests that the CO2 emissions do have a significant impact and that the consequences would be sewere if nothing is done about it. The argument from the more comfortable arm-chair scientists here appears to be "The evidence is not that reliable, so lets assume we can double the atmosphere's CO2 concentration without any problems arising". Now, we know for certain that:

    a)We do release an lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    b)The amount of CO2 we release causes a massive change in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.
    c)CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    d)CO2 plays a vital role in the ecosystem.

    Now, even without further evidence ( which more or less unanimously suggests that increasing the CO2 concentration would be a bad thing ) the above facts on their own should tell any person with even a fraction of common sense that there is a reason to be concerned.

    Maybe there is some mysterious unknown mechanism by which releasing CO2 will not cause a problem, but without any evidence suggesting that to be the case ( and a reasonable chunk of evidence suggesting it will be a problem ) I'd say it is relatively obvious that simply ignoring the situation would be a rather foolish thing to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here is a piece of maths for the people who still think there is nothing to worry about.

    Current amount of carbon in the atmosphere:
    8.02 x 10^15 kg.
    Current amount of carbon emitted from fossil fuel consumption:
    6.50 x 10^12 kg
    Total amount emitted over the next 100 years, assuming emissions do not increase:
    6.50 x 10^15 kg

    In other words, if current consumption of fossil fuels remain constant ( it is currently rapidly increasing ) we would increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem by 79% over the next 100 years.

    Wether you believe in the hockystick graph or not, the above if definitely a cause of concern. You don't just double the concentration of the second most important greenhouse gas and expect that there will be no consequences. Heck, even without global warming doubling the CO2 concentration is bound to have massive consequences for the plantlife on this planet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For those who voted that they would intervene now, why wouldn't you have intervened earlier? If the affect humans have on Climate Change is so great then surely it would have been best to have intervened at some point in the 20th Century or, to be sure of preventing such an affect, before the Industrial Revolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, but to be honest the poll doesn't really make much sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anyone has mentioned that limestone within the sea releases the most CO2 into the atmosphere, so there's another reason why it's a natural occurence. I think everything is being blown out of proportion, climate change is the norm. All the people who said they would intervene, what are you doing? Do you still travel in a car, do you still wear clothes? Those are just two things that were produced using energy causing more greenhouse gases. Lets face it when LEDCs develop undoubtably the GHGs curve will increase, but this will only have a minor impact when you compare it to the past 4 million years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Telegraph has a good history of publishing articles considering alternatives explanations to/for Global warming something they should be very proud of.

    I think that global warming is a racket being hyped for a number of different reasons, but one of the inevtiable solutions is going to be we need a tax on carbon emitions.

    ali567, you have a BSc Hon in Geography and Environmental Management . Did you study Global Warming on your course? can i ask what they taught you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's one thing to say that temperatures naturally fluctuate, but it's quite another to claim that all such fluctuations must therefore be due to natural causes. What if human activity is having an effect on top of what is a natural occurence, if we do see global temperatures rise beyond expectaions in the next century? We may find that even a 'minor impact' will be enough to destabilise our society. Climate science is so difficult and unpredictable that it can be used to support almost any conclusion, so doubts are inevitably cast on both sides of the argument. I think that the full effects of human activity on climate change remain to be seen, but if the current trends in weather and temperature continue apace, then in a few decades we will look back and ask ourselves why we didn't act sooner.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    And yet more evidence about the nature of the phantom "consensus" on the topic:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wkyoto09.xml

    "Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.

    In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the signatories, the experts praise his recent commitment to review the controversial Kyoto protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment.

    "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

    They emphasised that the study of global climate change is, in Mr Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

    "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

    "Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

    The letter is the latest effort by climate change sceptics to counter claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing global warming."

    Read the letter at: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...59d605&rfp=dta

    "We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

    "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise.""
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    The planet does indeed go through a natural process of heating up and cooling down, however, the increased ammount of greenhouse gases reduce the cooling and increase the heating alas the evidence for this is dismissed as enviromentalist propaganda. It also doesn't help that George W. Bush is convinced that it doesn't happen, largely due to his intrest in the oil business.
    "The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world."

    "First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

    There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity."


    President George W. Bush, June 11, 2001
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    It is pointless to speculate about when the best time to intervene would have been, however the important thing is that we do something now rather than regret when we look back with hindsite.

    Remember at the time of most of the options on the poll the scientific data was not available so even if it would have been better to act before the industrial revolution the technology was not there.
    What methods of intervention are you willing to pursue?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    "The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world."

    "First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

    There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity."


    President George W. Bush, June 11, 2001


    It seems he does believe in global warming, the question remains why is nothing being done about it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    What methods of intervention are you willing to pursue?
    Our current life requires a large ammount of energy to maintain what legnths I personally am willing to go to will make little difference. It is unlikely that countries will want to give up the way their industries work and the way they live. I'm not even going to suggest they should. Moving to more renewable sources of energy would, if done in sufficient quantity allow a substantial reduction in emmisions without a reduction in quality of life. This would be enormously expensive which is why it hasn't been done, my opinion is fossil fuels aren't going to last for ever the movement to renewable energy is inevitable why not now.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.