Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Discuss.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Discuss.
    I don't really know much of the science behind it. I would like to know more.

    As I see it, some degree of climate change is normal. During the Little Ice Age from the 1600s-1800s the Thames used to regularly freeze over solidly enough to hold markets on it!

    However I do also think there's some truth in the argument that the globe is warming a little too quickly to be fully natural. Thousands of scientists have looked at this in thousands of different ways and most have reached that same conclusion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Can confirm its not a scam.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst I don't think it is a scam, I do think that some of the measures we are putting forward to try and tackle it are pointless. For example people are opposed to Fracking even though it will dramatically reduce energy prices, as it will release some CO2 into the atmosphere. Considering we produce less then 2% of the Earth's total, I don't think going full out on being completely Eco friendly is worth it at this point
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not necessarily a scam, but massively over egged by some in the environmental lobby with another agenda.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Not necessarily a scam, but massively over egged by some in the environmental lobby with another agenda.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
    On the contrary, it is massively suppressed by the oil industry with a far bigger agenda than the green industry.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyroncs)
    Whilst I don't think it is a scam, I do think that some of the measures we are putting forward to try and tackle it are pointless. For example people are opposed to Fracking even though it will dramatically reduce energy prices, as it will release some CO2 into the atmosphere. Considering we produce less then 2% of the Earth's total, I don't think going full out on being completely Eco friendly is worth it at this point
    Wrong, fracking won't drive down energy prices, as they will still be controlled by private firms. Also, fracking does untold damage to the surrounding areas, wildlife and has the potential to cause earthquakes.

    High investment in Green resources will produce "free" electricity as we no longer need to import anything. Global warming is going to lead to species extinction and redistribution, rising temperatures for instance have led to mosquitos settling in Europe instead of being limited to Africa.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Not necessarily a scam, but massively over egged by some in the environmental lobby with another agenda.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
    And what AGENDA do the environmentalists have?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Wrong, fracking won't drive down energy prices, as they will still be controlled by private firms. Also, fracking does untold damage to the surrounding areas, wildlife and has the potential to cause earthquakes.

    High investment in Green resources will produce "free" electricity as we no longer need to import anything. Global warming is going to lead to species extinction and redistribution, rising temperatures for instance have led to mosquitos settling in Europe instead of being limited to Africa.
    In the USA they started widespread fracking and as a result the prices of natural gas for them dramatically lowered. And there is a debate on the environmental impacts, and this gov.uk report says

    US operations have been associated with larger earthquakes, registering up to magnitude 4 or 5 on the Richter Scale, but only where large quantities of waste water has been re-injected into
    the rock2
    . This practice is not likely in the UK and any application would be closely scrutinised.
    Whilst the electricity may be 'free' you still need to build the infrastructure in which to harness it such as wind turbines, which don't even pay themselves off until 25 years later. As well as this Denmark has the largest number of wind turbines in Europe and the highest electricity prices. A coincidence? I think not

    I think that we all have to acknowledge that being reliant completely on carbon neutral environmental friendly methods of producing energy isn't feasible yet. Fracking gives us a cheap source of gas with a relatively low level of carbon dioxide emissions
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    On the contrary, it is massively suppressed by the oil industry with a far bigger agenda than the green industry.
    I'm still undecided. The predictions made so far, and I've been hearing them since the 80s when it first kicked off, haven't materialised.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    And what AGENDA do the environmentalists have?
    What agendas do believes in religion have?


    Watch this and it'll explain one possibility.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

    When you get the founding member of Greenpeace saying the movements been hijacked, there's something in it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm still undecided. The predictions made so far, and I've been hearing them since the 80s when it first kicked off, haven't materialised.
    The models used to model the climate are extremely complicated. Nobody, including those against global warming, has correctly predicted what would happen. However we have seen a clear trend in global temperature increases which is far too quick to be natural (without something like a volano erruption). Even if there is only a 1% chance of us causing global warming, the consequences are so bad that we should act anyway. The worst that happens is we end up paying a bit more for our energy. If we do nothing the worst that happens is massive enviromental disaster around the entire world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    The models used to model the climate are extremely complicated. Nobody, including those against global warming, has correctly predicted what would happen. However we have seen a clear trend in global temperature increases which is far too quick to be natural (without something like a volano erruption). Even if there is only a 1% chance of us causing global warming, the consequences are so bad that we should act anyway. The worst that happens is we end up paying a bit more for our energy. If we do nothing the worst that happens is massive enviromental disaster around the entire world.
    I'd agree that the models are incredibly complicated and that's why I worry when I see people talking with such confidence about them. This I think is our first problem, we're putting too much reliance on computer says yes, or computer says no.

    We have seen a clear trend in increases in global temperatures (which haven't increased now for about 15 odd years.) we've seen similar trends in increases and decreases in the past. Remember that in the 60s scientist spoke of impending ice age due to the dramatic fall in temperatures.

    If you look at variations in temperatures over longer periods, because the graphs always seem to show the last 60 odd years and zoom in, we'll see that global temperatures fluctuate and we've seen the global temperatures higher in the past.

    The medieval warm period was a boom time for Europe. It didn't bring death and destruction.

    I however, will continue to recycle, attempt to reduce waste because both are positive things to do. Not necessarily because of environmental issues but because we're running out of land fill sites and because they're economically responsible things to do.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyroncs)
    In the USA they started widespread fracking and as a result the prices of natural gas for them dramatically lowered. And there is a debate on the environmental impacts, and this gov.uk report says



    Whilst the electricity may be 'free' you still need to build the infrastructure in which to harness it such as wind turbines, which don't even pay themselves off until 25 years later. As well as this Denmark has the largest number of wind turbines in Europe and the highest electricity prices. A coincidence? I think not

    I think that we all have to acknowledge that being reliant completely on carbon neutral environmental friendly methods of producing energy isn't feasible yet. Fracking gives us a cheap source of gas with a relatively low level of carbon dioxide emissions
    If it's strictly regulated, which I'd be sceptical of if done by a private firm. We only keep a small percentage of what would be claimed. The environmental impact isn't questionable, it's a complete interference in the ecosystem which could be catastrophic, or it could be moderate.

    My example is tidal, we are surrounded by sea FFS.

    Great rebuttals, but I still firmly disagree with fracking.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Anyone claiming this clearly hasn't looked at the science. There are so many people in the climate change argument - both environmentalists and deniers - who haven't actually bothered to take the time to go through the evidence and to make decisions for themselves. I honestly believe that if everyone here spent less time arguing about the agenda of various political groups and the inherent problems with the IPCC and actually investigated the science, they'd reach the conclusion that climate change is not a scam and it's actually a pretty bloody big problem.

    This isn't a matter of debate, it's a matter of science. And as far as I can see, the science is very solid.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'd agree that the models are incredibly complicated and that's why I worry when I see people talking with such confidence about them. This I think is our first problem, we're putting too much reliance on computer says yes, or computer says no.

    We have seen a clear trend in increases in global temperatures (which haven't increased now for about 15 odd years.) we've seen similar trends in increases and decreases in the past. Remember that in the 60s scientist spoke of impending ice age due to the dramatic fall in temperatures.

    If you look at variations in temperatures over longer periods, because the graphs always seem to show the last 60 odd years and zoom in, we'll see that global temperatures fluctuate and we've seen the global temperatures higher in the past.

    The medieval warm period was a boom time for Europe. It didn't bring death and destruction.

    I however, will continue to recycle, attempt to reduce waste because both are positive things to do. Not necessarily because of environmental issues but because we're running out of land fill sites and because they're economically responsible things to do.
    The temperature increases happening now are much faster than the natural ones that usually occur. The lack of icnrease in temperatures in 15 years is missleading. It is the air temperatures that have not increased although sea temperatures certainly have which is something that is expected (due to the cycles of how heat exchanges between air and sea, currently the sea is taking in heat).
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by james22)
    The temperature increases happening now are much faster than the natural ones that usually occur. The lack of icnrease in temperatures in 15 years is missleading. It is the air temperatures that have not increased although sea temperatures certainly have which is something that is expected (due to the cycles of how heat exchanges between air and sea, currently the sea is taking in heat).
    Critically, it's the deep oceans that have appeared to have been warming. We've had a lot of heat exchange from the surface waters to the deep ocean, cooling the surface waters and in turn resulting in an apparent halt in surface temperature change. However, this surface to deep ocean energy transfer seems to have been slowing recently and most people think that accelerated warming will soon commence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Critically, it's the deep oceans that have appeared to have been warming. We've had a lot of heat exchange from the surface waters to the deep ocean, cooling the surface waters and in turn resulting in an apparent halt in surface temperature change. However, this surface to deep ocean energy transfer seems to have been slowing recently and most people think that accelerated warming will soon commence.
    And here in lies the problem. Now after decades of global warming it's the deep oceans that are warming.

    Remember two years ago when the North Pole would be ice free?

    It appears to be going back up now.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And here in lies the problem. Now after decades of global warming it's the deep oceans that are warming.

    Remember two years ago when the North Pole would be ice free?

    It appears to be going back up now.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    I don't understand the problem here? You're talking about a tiny anomaly based on one year. There is absolutely nothing supporting any kind of trend on that page. Arctic sea ice has been falling consistently for decades now. The climate system is extremely complex and anomalies from time to time are expected - anything else would suggest we're not collecting data properly. If the Arctic ice starts gaining volume year after year from now, then there would clearly be something wrong with the science. An anomaly in one year doesn't suggest anything and on that exact page, it suggests it could be explained by a natural cycle.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't understand the problem here? You're talking about a tiny anomaly based on one year. There is absolutely nothing supporting any kind of trend on that page. Arctic sea ice has been falling consistently for decades now. The climate system is extremely complex and anomalies from time to time are expected - anything else would suggest we're not collecting data properly. If the Arctic ice starts gaining volume year after year from now, then there would clearly be something wrong with the science. An anomaly in one year doesn't suggest anything and on that exact page, it suggests it could be explained by a natural cycle.
    Went up in 2013. Then again in 2014.

    You do know that accurate ice coverage records only go back to 1979 and changes in the climate happen over a period of decades?

    What was the ice coverage like before 1979 when satellites started recording the plat caps?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 13, 2017

1,111

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.