Global Warming - So What

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Adopting the ostrich position isn’t going to help the situation. We all need to play our part and if that means having less money in the bank so be it.

    Comment


      #17
      Cheaper than these space reflectors would be aluminium paint on flat roofs to reflect suns heat away. Or covering deserts with bacofoil.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Codger View Post
        Cheaper than these space reflectors would be aluminium paint on flat roofs to reflect suns heat away. Or covering deserts with bacofoil.
        I think the idea is to stop the heat etc reaching the planet not just to deflect it back into the atmosphere.

        The "shield" mentioned actually needs to be wider than the Earth so a bit of paint from B&Q isn't going to work
        My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

        Comment


          #19
          Given that the heat came in through the atmosphere surely it can go out that way.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Codger View Post
            Given that the heat came in through the atmosphere surely it can go out that way.
            The energy (heat) coming in has a shorter wavelength than any reflected back would have, the UV coming in cuts straight through the atmosphere/clouds but the IR trying to get out bounces back off them so stays trapped.

            That's the basic principle of the greenhouse effect, without it the Earth would be a permanent snowball.

            Water vapour (clouds) is the greenhouse gas which has the biggest effect on Earth, with CO2 coming second.
            Other gases are more opaque to IR, but there's less of them in the atmosphere so they don't have as much effect.

            We can't do much about preventing water vapour (clouds) in the atmosphere.
            Hence the current focus (obsession?) with cutting CO2 emissions.
            And even down to suggestions that we all go vegetarian to stop cattle herds farting out methane, another greenhouse gas.
            Notice the problem? Whatever we do the water vapour which has by far the most greenhouse effect is still going to be there.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
              ...FACT...


              If you are going to try and claim that your denial of any scientific position is based on fact, you really should make sure that:
              (a) You have got the facts right.
              and (b) You understand what they mean.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.
                When you have a tendency to base your beliefs on conspiracy theories, and 'support' your claims with (at best) Youtube videos and blog posts that most semi-intelligent twelve year olds could easily demonstrate are laughable, you really shouldn't be surprised when people disagree with you.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Macromia View Post


                  If you are going to try and claim that your denial of any scientific position is based on fact, you really should make sure that:
                  (a) You have got the facts right.
                  and (b) You understand what they mean.
                  Er I never denied Climate Change was real.

                  But were focussing on trying to delay a natural evolution of the planet when we should be focussing on how best to manage when it happens - and it will.

                  FACT


                  My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                    Er I never denied Climate Change was real.
                    No, you didn't - but I didn't say, suggest, or imply that you did.


                    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                    But were focussing on trying to delay a natural evolution of the planet when we should be focussing on how best to manage when it happens - and it will.

                    FACT

                    And there you go again, denying the science.

                    What you are saying here is about as far from being a fact as is possible.
                    Literally no one who even comes close to understanding the science thinks that any of the action currently being taken, or proposed, is to delay anything natural. It is entirely concerned with trying to limit the effects that human actions are having on climate.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      THE SCIENCE states that man is contributing to and speeding up Climate Change - and Ive not claimed that to be innacurate, it is 100% true.

                      However, THE SCIENCE also states that our planet has gone through many climate changes to date, going between ice ages and hot phases, over millions of years.

                      THE SCIENCE states that since the last ice age, we are on a natural evolution to a hot phase - and will then likely go to another ice age in many years time.

                      THE SCIENCE states that weve had hot phases in our past where temperature and CO2 levels were a lot higher than now.

                      So, I repeat - WHY are we trying to delay what will happen? We can try and delay it but its going to happen.

                      We need to look at coping in those extreme environments by planning very long term now - yes for 500 5,000 and 50,000 years - all the heat pumps in the World aren't going to stop it - but (as just an example) a 25 metre sea wall around the UK might.

                      SCIENCE - https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/s...w%20format.pdf

                      And just to throw it in the mix - we should be building things like the Severn Barrage to make use of the Worlds second highest tidal range which occurs naturally twice a day. That would produce power similar to the new Hinkley Point Nuclear Reactor just 10 miles down the coast.
                      My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        THE SCIENCE states that man is contributing to and speeding up Climate Change - and Ive not claimed that to be innacurate, it is 100% true.
                        No.
                        The overwhelming scientific consensus is that current climate change is pretty much entirely due to human actions – and that, without human influence, the planet would actually currently be cooling slightly (exactly the opposite of what is happening).
                        And before anyone tries to claim that “scientists only say that so they can get funding”, or similar lame arguments, a scientific consensus doesn’t mean scientists taking a vote based on their beliefs, politics, or what they think might benefit them – it means that the vast preponderance of scientific evidence points to a particular conclusion. At this point, denying that current climate change isn’t being driven almost entirely by human activity is on a par with denying that the Earth is roughly spherical and billions of years old.

                        Even the article that you shared a link to yourself (in post #12) gives a summary of the scientific position that explains this.


                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        However, THE SCIENCE also states that our planet has gone through many climate changes to date, going between ice ages and hot phases, over millions of years.
                        This is correct, but the problem is that you are trying to claim that this means that current warming is natural because the Earth’s climate has gone through different temperature phases in the past.
                        There are numerous factors that are known to affect global temperatures and, if human activity is removed from the equation, the Earth should be cooling. Although Nukecad incorrectly says in post #11:
                        “ What we see now is simply the same planetary warming process continuing, the planet is still getting warmer following the last ice-age.”,
                        …they had begun that post by stating:
                        “But not fully because he has a factor missing, and we should currently be heading towards another ice-age and not staying in a hot spell.”
                        The second article shared in post #11 gives a simplified summary of the scientific understanding.


                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        THE SCIENCE states that since the last ice age, we are on a natural evolution to a hot phase - and will then likely go to another ice age in many years time.
                        Not at all. In fact, technically, we are still in an ice age, we are just in an inter-glacial period within that ice age. The informal use of the term is different and refers to the glacial periods within ice ages (the Earth should currently be very slowly cooling and heading towards a glacial period in 25,000+ years).
                        Current estimates suggest that human induced warming may have pushed the next wide-spread glaciation back to perhaps at least 500,000 years in to the future.


                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        THE SCIENCE states that weve had hot phases in our past where temperature and CO2 levels were a lot higher than now.
                        Yes it does. But again, the science also states that the current warming is not due to any of the various natural factors and is instead directly due to human activities.
                        What you are doing is something that a majority of science deniers tend to do – you are ‘cherry-picking’ the science that agrees with what you want to believe and misapplying it to try and use it as support for you position, while simultaneously ignoring the science that directly contradicts you. That isn’t how science works.


                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        So, I repeat - WHY are we trying to delay what will happen? We can try and delay it but its going to happen.
                        The next natural ‘Greenhouse period’ for the Earth is unlikely to even start to begin for many hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of years.
                        To put that into context, Homo sapiens has been on the Earth for perhaps 400,000 years, with the earliest Homo species having been around for just 2-3 million. We really don’t need to be worrying about any significant natural warming, but it’s worth recognising that humans have never lived in anything other than during the Earth’s current ice age period.


                        What will happen (which is what some people are trying to avoid), is very well documented in the scientific literature. The problem though, is that most people don’t have a particularly good grasp of science, or understand how scientific papers are written, and instead rely on ‘popular’ science articles or, even worse, media articles and blogs written by non-scientists.
                        The primary science will usually consider as many potential variables as they reasonably can, and will then describe a variety of potential outcome scenarios.
                        The media, and many bloggers, then cherry-pick the most extreme scenarios (often scenarios proposed by individuals that the vast majority of scientists disagree with), and then add their own exaggerations and misrepresentations.

                        The public then come away believing that the scientific position in 2000 was hypothetically something like:
                        “Half of the UK will be underwater and UK temperatures will be as high as 50ºC in 20 years” – and then say “see the scientists were talking rubbish” when, 20 years later, that hasn’t happened.
                        In reality what the scientists said in this hypothetical example was:
                        “If sufficient action isn’t taken within 20 years, and population growth, emissions and deforestation continue to increase exponentially, half of the UK will be susceptible to winter flooding and occasional summer heatwaves are likely to reach 50ºC by 2100”.
                        Additionally, during the 20 years, governments did take action meaning that this extreme outcome was likely to have been avoided anyway – even by 2100.

                        A significant part of the current issue is the speed at which the planet is warming, and the potential for this to lead to climatic changes that are difficult to predict and pretty much impossible to plan for.
                        For example, if global warming leads to significant changes in the gulf stream, this could result in very dramatic changes to the climate in large parts of the world. If this was to happen, even though average global temperatures would be warmer, Europe would likely need to have to cope with far lower temperature than we currently experience.


                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        We need to look at coping in those extreme environments by planning very long term now - yes for 500 5,000 and 50,000 years - all the heat pumps in the World aren't going to stop it - but (as just an example) a 25 metre sea wall around the UK might.
                        A significant part of the current issue is the speed at which the planet is warming, and the potential for this to lead to climatic changes that are difficult to predict and pretty much impossible to plan for.
                        For example, if global warming leads to significant changes in the gulf stream, this could result in very dramatic changes to the climate in large parts of the world. If this was to happen, even though average global temperatures would be warmer, Europe would likely need to have to cope with far lower temperature than we currently experience.

                        It’s also worth recognising that, when the Earth’s climate has gone through significant natural changes, this has usually been accompanied by widespread extinctions of both plant and animal species, and has meant that large areas have become (at least temporarily) uninhabitable by almost all life.


                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        Without meaning any offence, did you actually read this article and make sure that you understood what it says?
                        Or did you scan through and only take note of the bits that you thought supported your position (i.e. the fact that it makes frequent mention of past natural climate changes)?

                        The article that YOU linked actually agrees with everything that I have said, and is explaining that, although the Earth's climate has changed naturally in the past, current change cannot be linked to anything natural but can be linked to the effects of humans (it also mentions the problems that changes like the warming now linked to man are likely to cause).

                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        And just to throw it in the mix - we should be building things like the Severn Barrage to make use of the Worlds second highest tidal range which occurs naturally twice a day. That would produce power similar to the new Hinkley Point Nuclear Reactor just 10 miles down the coast.
                        Here I agree. We should also probably be looking at making more use of nuclear power.

                        The solutions to anthropomorphic global warming/climate change are very much up for debate.
                        The fact that it is human activity that is the main factor behind current warming/climate change really is not.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                          So, I repeat - WHY are we trying to delay what will happen? We can try and delay it but its going to happen.
                          Two reasons

                          One, because the likely pattern of change is gradual, then very sudden. So things get steadily worse over time, then a tipping point is reached and change becomes vary rapid indeed. So, the longer the gradual change phase can be, the more chance we have to prepare for the catastrophic rate of change,

                          And, because we're not remotely ready for the gradual displacement of up to a billion people, who will be living in areas that will be horrible or impossible to live in, either permanently or for months at a time.

                          If there's a band of massively inhospitable landscape round the equator and large areas of the world either submerged or prone to regular serious flooding, the populations of those areas are going to move elsewhere.

                          And the world doesn't seem to ready for massive, mainly northwards, migration.


                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Why?

                            Perhaps most obviously because the timescales for natural and anthropogenic climate change are completely different.
                            There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                              THE SCIENCE states...
                              I've answered everything that you said in your last post but the post has been held for approval, I suspect because I used the scientific binomial for humans.
                              I'm not going to repeat anything (hopefully a moderator will eventually approve the post), apart from suggesting that you perhaps read the article that you linked in post #25 a little more closely.
                              That article quite clearly, but in fairly simple terms, explains that current warming is not natural, despite the fact that we know that the Earth's climate does change, and it briefly mentions the reasons why taking action prevent this climate change is important.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                                Two reasons

                                One, because the likely pattern of change is gradual, then very sudden. So things get steadily worse over time, then a tipping point is reached and change becomes vary rapid indeed. So, the longer the gradual change phase can be, the more chance we have to prepare for the catastrophic rate of change,

                                And, because we're not remotely ready for the gradual displacement of up to a billion people, who will be living in areas that will be horrible or impossible to live in, either permanently or for months at a time.

                                If there's a band of massively inhospitable landscape round the equator and large areas of the world either submerged or prone to regular serious flooding, the populations of those areas are going to move elsewhere.

                                And the world doesn't seem to ready for massive, mainly northwards, migration.

                                But that's the whole point - we should be focussing our energy and money on ADAPTING to live in these climates, because no matter how much we dislike it, the change IS going to happen.

                                IF the Worlds population is growing too quickly, we need to address that too.

                                But it's easier to implement similarly costly "band aid" schemes - a bit like putting a plaster on a gun shot wound.

                                We should be looking at far-fetched and extreme ways to cope with what's coming - whether that is a "space shield", continent-wide desalination schemes or whatever can be imagined to become plausible in 100 or 500 years time.

                                We also need to remove ourselves from the idea of cost - there is no $$ cost on a planet Earth basis because we aren't trading with any other planet - money is just something our civilisation decided to make up.
                                My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X