Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ashy)
    What if they're not? Worth the risk?

    There are plenty of reasons to save energy, stop burning fossil fuels, use renewable energies etc that have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is just yet another symptom of an underlying problem caused by fossil fuels.

    hey hey hey, theres no need to go blaspheming like that

    just because theres a slight relation to fossil fuels and global warming it doesnt mean we should stop burning them

    i think in hard times like these of recession etc. we need to keep the back bone of society, the geologists, in employment with lots of money until it runs out

    either than or give us a higher demand for uranium george bush told us the iraquis were, or maybe the afghans? is it korea now? but im not getting any jobs because of it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    hey hey hey, theres no need to go blaspheming like that

    just because theres a slight relation to fossil fuels and global warming it doesnt mean we should stop burning them

    i think in hard times like these of recession etc. we need to keep the back bone of society, the geologists, in employment with lots of money until it runs out

    either than or give us a higher demand for uranium george bush told us the iraquis were, or maybe the afghans? is it korea now? but im not getting any jobs because of it
    Loving the sarcasm, but aww.

    You chose the wrong profession :yep: :console:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ashy)
    Loving the sarcasm, but aww.

    You chose the wrong profession :yep: :console:
    never!!!!!!!!!!!!

    i want to study a phd proposing that if i can get a big enough drill we can dig deeper into the earth and steal the unlimited energy source of the mole people

    then the whole world will be saved and i will be worshipped as god

    thats not just thinking out of a box, thats thinking outside of an m and s box
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    never!!!!!!!!!!!!

    i want to study a phd proposing that if i can get a big enough drill we can dig deeper into the earth and steal the unlimited energy source of the mole people

    then the whole world will be saved and i will be worshipped as god

    thats not just thinking out of a box, thats thinking outside of an m and s box
    :rofl:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ashy)
    What if they're not? Worth the risk?

    There are plenty of reasons to save energy, stop burning fossil fuels, use renewable energies etc that have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is just yet another symptom of an underlying problem caused by fossil fuels.
    I just don't understand why people who 'don't believe' in climate change thinks that means it's fine to keep burning fossil fuels. What do they do when it runs out? Claim it's a conspiracy and the environmentalists are hiding it all?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peanut42)
    I just don't understand why people who 'don't believe' in climate change thinks that means it's fine to keep burning fossil fuels. What do they do when it runs out? Claim it's a conspiracy and the environmentalists are hiding it all?
    cheers for the + rep

    btw, best picture ever!!!!!!!1

    muffincat, rofl :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    prediction made - climatic hazards noticably floods and hurricanes will increase in numbers
    observation - more climatic hazards, e.g. the mumbai flood
    you - fail
    Predicting a flood will happen at any time is not proof of anything. If I predict there will be floods in the future and floods happen over the next 100 years it doesnt mean I have suddenly started correctly predicting the weather. That, and the Mumbai floods were due to heavy rain, not coz the Arabian sea suddenly overflowed coz of melting of glaciers.
    cooling during the holocene was controlled by milankovitch cycles, a process where the earth becomes further away from the sun, becomes angled away from the sun and its eccentricity increases - when these corellate cooling occurs.
    this happens every 30,000 years, not 30. and just so you cant get confused by a scale were not in a relevent stage of the milankovitch cycle hence it cannot apply, do you think you can read your data next time?
    Do you think you can stop "refuting" points I never made? I never talked of the earth cooling, my argument doesnt even say the earth has not had a temperature rise at all(I can read the graph for that, and I did that which is why my previous post said "temperature rises over the past 30 odd years). My argument is more or less against the assumption that temperatures will continue to rise, and that this is not just a small aberration in the graph. Seems like you dont even read what I say before you attempt to "refute" it.
    the measurements showing warming appear over the last 200 years, therefore is classed as climate, each rise could fit in with a 30 year average, and so is deemed as climate, unlike the holocene therefore recent data is relevent
    you - fail
    Same argument as the previous one. Is 200 years a sufficiently long time to measure climate patterns over and learn all there is to learn about them? And do we really know of every single factor affecting climate to start making models of them? I seem to post this just about everytime, you overlook it. The one who needs to pull his head out is not me, its you.
    And please dont make the ridiculous assumption that just coz I am skeptical of the idea of global warming in the future, I work for a oil company/like burning fossil fuels. You dont have to do either, seeing there are other reasons why we shouldnt be wasting resources, depend on them as we do or use them up at the rate we are(hint:toxic gas levels=bad air=people going to suffocate, saving bills, wasting=resources run out=energy needs not met). I am not against the effects the idea of global warming seems to cause amongst people or the results it achieves to stop wastage of resources, I am just against the idea that we use that, instead of more practical and provable reasons to convince people on why they need to stop keeping the lights on when they go out.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)

    Do you think you can stop "refuting" points I never made? I never talked of the earth cooling, my argument doesnt even say the earth has not had a temperature rise at all(I can read the graph for that, and I did that which is why my previous post said "temperature rises over the past 30 odd years). My argument is more or less against the assumption that temperatures will continue to rise, and that this is not just a small aberration in the graph. Seems like you dont even read what I say before you attempt to "refute" it.
    im just going to point out this bit as its the main cause of you being wrong.

    My argument is more or less against the assumption that temperatures will continue to rise, and that this is not just a small aberration in the graph.
    im going to have to go through this step by step as you still dont understand your own bloody data let alone my point


    so your point is that the rise in temperature could only be a small blip, and we havent taken in data from long enough ago to compensate for smaller changes?

    yes or no?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    so your point is that the rise in temperature could only be a small blip, and we havent taken in data from long enough ago to compensate for smaller changes?
    Nope, my point is this could be a small aberration, and that we might not have enough knowledge of climate patterns or the factors which affect them to start predicting they will go up in the future. My argument has nothing to do with smaller changes.
    Since you are so convinced that the models we have are quite accurate, here's some links for you to read:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/pr...te_crisis.html
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6043
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    i think in hard times like these of recession etc. we need to keep the back bone of society, the geologists, in employment with lots of money until it runs out
    too right! geologists make the bedrock, after all.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Nope, my point is this could be a small aberration, and that we might not have enough knowledge of climate patterns or the factors which affect them to start predicting they will go up in the future. My argument has nothing to do with smaller changes.
    "Nope, my point is this could be a small aberration
    My argument has nothing to do with smaller changes"

    would it be too patronising to explain the meaning of aberration or when put together can you see what a load of ******** youre coming out with

    by definition of global waming and climate change both are and have happened.


    you still have no idea what either are - we know co2 causes temperature rises, we release more co2, its going to get hotter

    deep seas and land ice release meathan when warming, methane increases temperature, it gets warmer

    as it gets warmer there is increased evaporation, increasing condensation levels in the atmosphere - this increases temperature

    this is why it is not "a small aberration" were seeing the affects of each as time goes on.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    ish90an you get the idea i dont know how people can argue against it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    we know co2 causes temperature rises, we release more co2, its going to get hotter
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-rock...l-warming.html
    http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike11.htm
    would it be too patronising to explain the meaning of aberration or when put together can you see what a load of ******** youre coming out with
    Would it be patronising to tell you to not be arrogant while posting in a debate, cool down and learn to reply to the point instead of resorting to cheap shots? You first start by telling me to read a book coz I dont know anything, then you resort to judging me by my university without knowing an iota about me and then you go on with ridiculous snide remarks instead of just replying to the argument itself(if you think its that rubbish, you can refute it without the additional commentary cant you?). No one asked your opinion on me, just reply to the argument.
    Climate change is change which occurs over a long period of time, not the last 30 years. But the temperature rise in the graph is over a relatively shorter period of time(approximately 200 years) and even then, the high temperatures on that graph have only come about over the last 100 odd years. Can you really say that is a sufficiently long period to be classified as significant climate change(which has to occur over long periods of time) and not a minor change? If you look at the curve, there have been other spikes and falls which have also lasted for any between 50-200 years, do you call them as significant climate change as well?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    wouldnt more co2 mean more plants
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-rock...l-warming.html
    http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike11.htm

    Would it be patronising to tell you to not be arrogant while posting in a debate, cool down and learn to reply to the point instead of resorting to cheap shots? You first start by telling me to read a book coz I dont know anything, then you resort to judging me by my university without knowing an iota about me and then you go on with ridiculous snide remarks instead of just replying to the argument itself(if you think its that rubbish, you can refute it without the additional commentary cant you?). No one asked your opinion on me, just reply to the argument.
    Climate change is change which occurs over a long period of time, not the last 30 years. But the temperature rise in the graph is over a relatively shorter period of time(approximately 200 years) and even then, the high temperatures on that graph have only come about over the last 100 odd years. Can you really say that is a sufficiently long period to be classified as significant climate change(which has to occur over long periods of time) and not a minor change? If you look at the curve, there have been other spikes and falls which have also lasted for any between 50-200 years, do you call them as significant climate change as well?
    i havent read the second and third, if theyre as stupid as the first one i dont see the point

    "a warm hotpot 10Km up in the atmosphere above the tropics"

    basic AS knowledge would show that as wrong

    apart from the effect of losing heat as you tise through the atmosphere, the heat in is is homogenus due to hadley cells - air currents that balance out temp flows, so even if heat originated 10km up at a point it would be homogenised, like stirring cooking food.

    second, as youve stated yourself temperature has increased over 200 years, a nice thing he dodges with "drops of 0.6 degrees this year" apparently he also has no idea of climate and weather

    third point "there is an 800 year lag between temp rises and co2 increases"
    dont know where his data is but he clearly has his own that he wont show to anyone else, the most used example is: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalcha...ges/fig11.html

    and fourth, i think he says it himself in his text, people do this research for funding. well done, NERC scientists who encourage the idea of global warming get paid provided they do research, doesnt matter what the research says. he gets paid until he disagrees with his company, i wonder who may have some sway in their findings?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    wouldnt more co2 mean more plants
    on its own (and maybe ultimately, as in the Carboniferous) yes. but plants aren't all that keen on growing in deserts. A CO2 rise ain't no good if there's less places for you to grow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The lag he talks of is quite popular actually. Example links:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
    http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

    NERC scientists who encourage the idea of global warming get paid provided they do research, doesnt matter what the research says. he gets paid until he disagrees with his company, i wonder who may have some sway in their findings? And dont you find it a bit wrong when you first say that scientists who encourage the idea of global warming get paid and then say they are paid no matter what their research says? There is a clear contradiction there; would a scientist who did not encourage global warming also get paid?
    You said it yourself, he got paid until he disagreed with the company. Would you then say he was the one biased, or was it the company which didnt pay him when he disagreed with them which was biased?
    i havent read the second and third, if theyre as stupid as the first one i dont see the point
    The 2nd is an article by the NIPCC on the link b/w CO2 and temperature rise. The 3rd is a report on the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. You might want to read those just to see if there are flaws in the reasoning given. Else how can you form a decision by refusing to read all available information?
    second, as youve stated yourself temperature has increased over 200 years, a nice thing he dodges with "drops of 0.6 degrees this year" apparently he also has no idea of climate and weather
    If we are saying increase in CO2 causes global warming, then the graph you gave is certainly a rise in temperatures and CO2 levels over the last 100 odd years. Seeing that you argued earlier that climate change has to happen long term, this graph is certainly not showing a long enough time scale.
    Something more for you to think of:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-EDF6D8150789
    apart from the effect of losing heat as you tise through the atmosphere, the heat in is is homogenus due to hadley cells - air currents that balance out temp flows, so even if heat originated 10km up at a point it would be homogenised, like stirring cooking food.
    Even so, would temperatures overall not rise at all if we were to take your claim that increased CO2 emissions increase temperature as true? Even if the heat is lost while going into the atmosphere, surely the heat reaching the atmosphere would still be larger than what it would be without carbon emissions, if carbon emissions are leading to more heat? Or do temperatures only rise on the earth's surface and not in the atmosphere coz the heat is homogenised?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    If we are saying increase in CO2 causes global warming, then the graph you gave is certainly a rise in temperatures and CO2 levels over the last 100 odd years. Seeing that you argued earlier that climate change has to happen long term, this graph is certainly not showing a long enough time scale.
    that says it all tbh

    every single post youve made ignores the relevent time scale. YOU are the one who proposes climate is thousands of years.


    feel free to quote when i said climate is usally assumed as a 30 year averge.

    so a graph that shows 200 years of data isnt long enough time scale to 30 years.

    STOP MISQUOTING PEOPLE
    UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN DATA
    UNDERSTAND CLIMATE AND WEATHER (i cant beleive youve been as retarded as not to have even looked up the difference yourself)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pocket Calculator)
    on its own (and maybe ultimately, as in the Carboniferous) yes. but plants aren't all that keen on growing in deserts. A CO2 rise ain't no good if there's less places for you to grow.
    i was thinking in terms of algae
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    feel free to quote when i said climate is usally assumed as a 30 year averge.
    "officially climate is something like the 30 year average, and seeing the prediction was correct to within 10 years thay have predicted climate

    officialy climate is something like a 30 year average"
    Your words, not mine.
    so a graph that shows 200 years of data isnt long enough time scale to 30 years
    If you draw a graph, with just around 6-7(200/30) points(only half of which really show high temperatures) and claim it is evidence, clearly your graph is not complete and needs a lot more study before you can use it to make predictions.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
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.