Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

I'm glad I'm going to be dead in about 20 years, but I fear for my children.

Your children and their children will simply adapt to changing conditions and crack on - as all species and ecosystems have done for millions of years. Of course being born into a "changed" environment will mean that that generation will regard that environment as "normal", so they will have a different baseline to us.

E.g. I imagine life must have been pretty horrible in northern Europe during the low parts of the mini ice age in the 17th century, given that most folk were already living on a knife edge as subsistence farmers to begin with. However most of them seem to have survived long enough to create our generations, and they regarded their environment as so "normal" that they didn't record much about it and we've had to deduce it from scientific data.

Maybe there will be unpleasant human population stress due to climate change in some of the world's vastly overpopulated zones - but that will arguably occur anyway with or without climate change as an added factor. Those zones are probably not biologically sustainable in any case.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Maybe there will be unpleasant human population stress due to climate change in some of the world's vastly overpopulated zones - but that will arguably occur anyway with or without climate change as an added factor. Those zones are probably not biologically sustainable in any case.
And anyway, it is better to meet weather problems (whatever are they) when fuel prices are low, than they are high.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Climate change isn't just about temperature. That's a massive over-simplification. CO2 also causes acidification of the sea amongst other things.
Really? Just compare buffers capability of the Ocean and amount of fossil fuel.

I spent several years doing computer modelling. One thing that I can tell you is that very large systems do unexpected things. I had a period of modelling very large (>50,000 tons) oil tanks exposed to fires. Nothing much happened until a certain temperature profile was reached at which point a phenomenon called "tank roll-over" occurred i.e. the superheated lower oil would suddenly change places with the cooler upper layer and the tank contents would then boil over.
Bla-bla-bla. Did you modelling warming effects of water vapour and cooling effects of ash? If no, you can print all this model, roll it in the tube and use in a European way.

I won't bore you wil the details, but what I can tell you is that once you start a big system moving, it takes a hell of a lot to stop it and you probably won't like the results. The larger the system the more of a b'stard it is to stop.
Ha! System is moving, and has been moving billions of years. And, as we see, there are a lot of negative feedsbacks, that dinamically stabilisate it, and can deal with the affects (like asteroid strikes and large volcanic erruptions) billion times more powerful than human activity.

Right now we are shagged. It doesn't really matter what the little UK does, the Chinese are building 2x 750 MW coal fired power stations every week.
Coal is more 'clean' because it produce only CO_2, while oil and gas burning produce both CO_2 and H_2O. And yes, it is much better to have energy, than not to have ( whatever climatic changes were predicted).

Some crazy kunt in Brazil is talking about razing rain forests to plant palm oil,
Forests are the largest land evaporators, and H_2O is the most significant greenhouse gas. Choping trees is a prevention of global warming, you know.

many people in the UK think having a 3rd runway at Heathrow is a GOOD IDEA [not me] and domestic appliances are obsolete after 3 years..
It is better to have possibility to evacuate people, or contrary, supply them by air (in case of any possible problems) than not to have.
 
...domestic appliances are obsolete after 3 years...
That would be the climate aware, madly recycling millennials wanting the latest and greatest at every turn, no?

Stove and fridges in my kitchen are getting on for 40 years plus now. Sister's kids reckon they're cool and retro.
 
Really? Just compare buffers capability of the Ocean and amount of fossil fuel.


Bla-bla-bla. Did you modelling warming effects of water vapour and cooling effects of ash? If no, you can print all this model, roll it in the tube and use in a European way.


Ha! System is moving, and has been moving billions of years. And, as we see, there are a lot of negative feedsbacks, that dinamically stabilisate it, and can deal with the affects (like asteroid strikes and large volcanic erruptions) billion times more powerful than human activity.


Coal is more 'clean' because it produce only CO_2, while oil and gas burning produce both CO_2 and H_2O. And yes, it is much better to have energy, than not to have ( whatever climatic changes were predicted).


Forests are the largest land evaporators, and H_2O is the most significant greenhouse gas. Choping trees is a prevention of global warming, you know.


It is better to have possibility to evacuate people, or contrary, supply them by air (in case of any possible problems) than not to have.
You nearly had me there, I though for a minute you were being serious, either that or you didn't turn up for science classes at school
 
That would be the climate aware, madly recycling millennials wanting the latest and greatest at every turn, no?

Stove and fridges in my kitchen are getting on for 40 years plus now. Sister's kids reckon they're cool and retro.
It's always said that the most environmentally friendly car (production, lifecycle and disposal costs taken into account), is the one you've currently got.

Unless it's a 2CV with a 'Nuclear Power - No Thanks' sticker in the rear side window
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
How many of these 'climate change' scientists are relying on perpetuating man made climate change myth for their sinecures and positions.

The plant has been around for 6.4 billion years and climate has always changed and will continue to do so.
 
How many of these 'climate change' scientists are relying on perpetuating man made climate change myth for their sinecures and positions.

The plant has been around for 6.4 billion years and climate has always changed and will continue to do so.
It used to be called 'Global Warming' until the data showed that that's not necessarily the case
Then it was called 'Saving the Planet' until it was pointed out that the planet will survive anyway, at least until the Sun implodes
It used to be called 'Man Made Climate Change' until someone pointed out that that's a bit hard to pin down
So it's now 'Extreme Weather'

I blame some Chinese guy accidentally stamping on a butterfly in Bejing
 
How many of these 'climate change' scientists are relying on perpetuating man made climate change myth for their sinecures and positions.

The plant has been around for 6.4 billion years and climate has always changed and will continue to do so.
This shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the case. Historical change is a complete straw man.

The Holocene climate is relatively well understood. It is now changing, when natural cycles that have driven previous change are taken into account (milankovitch, sun spots etc) they still cannot explain the change being observed. The massive input of greenhouse gases being input by humans can.

Only the fringe deny this.

That this change will have palpable effects is also not particularly controversial and may include sea level rise, desertification etc which could lead to mass-movement of people and species extinction.

Whether those changes are a good or bad thing is a moral rather than scientific issue. Whether humans should accept moral responsibility for changing the world climate is another moral issue. I doubt strombotalites cared, nor have they been vilified.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
You nearly had me there, I though for a minute you were being serious, either that or you didn't turn up for science classes at school
Ha! Do you want to say, that modern British schoolchildren can't even read Wikipedia?
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
-------
Greenhouse gases
Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:

 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
The Holocene climate is relatively well understood. It is now changing, when natural cycles that have driven previous change are taken into account (milankovitch, sun spots etc) they still cannot explain the change being observed. The massive input of greenhouse gases being input by humans can.
What about massive inputs of greenhouse gases as result of volcanic activity? Can you show peaks of temperatures after great erruptions on the temperature graphs?

Only the fringe deny this.
Thats what we call 'demagoguism'.

That this change will have palpable effects is also not particularly controversial and may include sea level rise, desertification etc which could lead to mass-movement of people and species extinction.
The deficiency of cheap fuel, wars and economical criseses cause more mass-movements of people.

Whether those changes are a good or bad thing is a moral rather than scientific issue. Whether humans should accept moral responsibility for changing the world climate is another moral issue. I doubt strombotalites cared, nor have they been vilified.
What would you preffer - "Earth for humans" or "Earth without humans"?
 
Yes,

Ice cores have pretty good gas and ash concentrations.

And as for demagoguery - can you briefly explain which cause external to humans explains observed change.

Can you also link it to as many peer reviewed papers as exist that suggest otherwise?
 
Ha! Do you want to say, that modern British schoolchildren can't even read Wikipedia?
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
-------
Greenhouse gases
Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:

Perhaps if you read and understood the wiki page as opposed to just randomly quoting the first section you see, you might have digested the bit about water vapour being a self regulating system that doesn't have a long term significant impact. Maybe that's why the IPCC isn't urging us to boil fewer kettles.
 
That would be the climate aware, madly recycling millennials wanting the latest and greatest at every turn, no?

Stove and fridges in my kitchen are getting on for 40 years plus now. Sister's kids reckon they're cool and retro.
My bait fridge is the one Mum & Dad bought when they were married in 1956.
I've added another layer of insulation & it uses no more power than a modern one.
 
My bait fridge is the one Mum & Dad bought when they were married in 1956.
I've added another layer of insulation & it uses no more power than a modern one.

Eco, schmeeko..

Triumph Herald, 1200 cc’s of early 60’s snarling death, no catalytic converters etc.
Can pass a modern emissions test.
 
Climate change isn't just about temperature. That's a massive over-simplification. CO2 also causes acidification of the sea amongst other things.

I spent several years doing computer modelling. One thing that I can tell you is that very large systems do unexpected things. I had a period of modelling very large (>50,000 tons) oil tanks exposed to fires. Nothing much happened until a certain temperature profile was reached at which point a phenomenon called "tank roll-over" occurred i.e. the superheated lower oil would suddenly change places with the cooler upper layer and the tank contents would then boil over.

I won't bore you wil the details, but what I can tell you is that once you start a big system moving, it takes a hell of a lot to stop it and you probably won't like the results. The larger the system the more of a b'stard it is to stop.

Right now we are shagged. It doesn't really matter what the little UK does, the Chinese are building 2x 750 MW coal fired power stations every week. Some crazy kunt in Brazil is talking about razing rain forests to plant palm oil, many people in the UK think having a 3rd runway at Heathrow is a GOOD IDEA [not me] and domestic appliances are obsolete after 3 years.

I'm glad I'm going to be dead in about 20 years, but I fear for my children.

In 1952, 4,000 people died in London over a 5 day period due to smog, 12,000 in total over the following month.

Greens talk utter Horlicks about pollution. There was no glorious unpolluted past.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Perhaps if you read and understood the wiki page as opposed to just randomly quoting the first section you see, you might have digested the bit about water vapour being a self regulating system that doesn't have a long term significant impact. Maybe that's why the IPCC isn't urging us to boil fewer kettles.
Actually, CO_2 is self-regulating system, too.
Forests are most effective land vapourisators, and both the large-scale forestation and deforestation are results of human activity. Former is a result of hunters activity, latter - result of farmer's and lumberjacks activity. May be, extincion of large herbivores by Upper-Paleolithic hunters (and futher forestation) caused the end of the previouse Ice Age, and may be agrarian deforestation caused global cooling (in which every next wave of warming was less than previouse). May be not. Nobody knows, and nobody cares (including ecoalarmists).
 
How many of these 'climate change' scientists are relying on perpetuating man made climate change myth for their sinecures and positions.

The plant has been around for 6.4 billion years and climate has always changed and will continue to do so.
The meteorologists I work alongside don't need to and work in the commercial sector....none disagree with the consensus. Which is that we're in the shit.
 
It used to be called 'Global Warming' until the data showed that that's not necessarily the case
Then it was called 'Saving the Planet' until it was pointed out that the planet will survive anyway, at least until the Sun implodes
It used to be called 'Man Made Climate Change' until someone pointed out that that's a bit hard to pin down
So it's now 'Extreme Weather'

I blame some Chinese guy accidentally stamping on a butterfly in Bejing
It's still climate change and still pretty much us, which sounds vain but the data points to us.
 

Latest Threads

Top