Remember me
▼ Content

What to think about this problem?

What to think about this problem?14-09-2012 10:24
I am concerned so I tried to listen to both sides. These are the temporary conclusions I have arrived at:

The climate is changing, no doubt, but hasn't it been changing for millions of years?

I have taken seriously the opinion that climate change scientists have an ax to grind, much research funding money would dry up if there was no reason for major concern. I've heard of smear campaigns and persecution against some skeptics.

I have also heard that some skeptics favour the views of major corporations and are defending the status quo not entirely objectively.

In my case, I have no ax to grind, research or otherwise, so I have decided that there is evidence for perhaps man-produced CO2 increase in the atmosphere, etc., BUT what believers fail to point out is that the trends they show are short lived (50 years or so), we would need what it doesn't exist, that is, trends covering many hundreds of years.

Let's remember that there seems to have been a warm period in England in the Middle Ages when people seemed to have been making local wine from local grapes and a mini-ice age in the 18th Century or so when people went ice skating on the Thames.

So, if the present scientific results advanced by believers are right, and they are the result of natural phenomena, then we should take action to get over the inevitable bad results, but without changing our current way of life; but if believers come up with overwhelming data to show that the changes in the environment are due to industrial activity and are leading to catastrophic events, then we should listen to them and act accordingly, but I have not seen any evidence at all of such firm and alarming evidence, all they say and I have read or heard is open to debate.

Then, I would recommend to sit and wait before taking any action and we should not allow ourselves to be pressured by horror stories from the media and extreme believers. As time goes by, the graphs and curves that studies will produce will show us which way the earth is going and if we are responsible for that or not.

There are political agendas at play from both sides and caution seems to me the best policy.

Edited by branner on 18-09-2012 19:10
21-09-2012 21:15
Nice logic. Much has been said about the "lack of warming" during this past decade. Skeptics are using this to claim that the entire campaign has been fradulent. Believers have placed the blame on everything from Chineses aerosols to a prepnderence of La Ninas to a solar minimum. At this point, we may be best served to wait and see what may occur in the next few years. If the believers are correct, then the warming should resume with a vengence, and we shuold act appropriately. If not, then we have not wasted any energy or resources on a non-problem.
08-11-2012 23:19
I somehow think I must be reading a whole different set of scientific studies/papers/Reviews/presentation than you Guys?

The past two years of data alone has shown us how important the 'albedo flip' across the Arctic is on both warming and the circulation in the northern hemisphere but also the data from the 'dimming' of solar energy (the flip side of AGW) by the particulate/sulphate pollution elements of fossil fuel burning!

We are deep within a PDO-ve Phase with a number of Nina's and yet we still post 'Top 10' global warmest years with Global dimming sapping the solar input by 10% and more???

If you recall most previous climate models ran simulations with particulate 'shielding' only accounting for 0.5 to 1% reduction of incoming solar.

With China (and parts of India) now reducing particulate pollution from their power stations (with our help and scrubber technologies) the next 6 years will see a steady reduction in the 'umbrella' that the sulphate/soot/nitrates produced. 1998 had a super Nino but a summer Arctic with much more reflective surface to reflect out the heat and the Asian brown cloud reducing rain drop sizes by over 50% (producing higher albedo clouds and so reducing incoming solar Radiation even more) so what will global temps do when we step up the power of the sun by 5 or 6% whilst dramatically 'darkening' the surface of the planet (a planet now with a lot more CO2 in the air than 98' to hold onto more of that heat).

As for Antarctica? well there is good news! The ozone hole is showing real signs of healing! We stand to find out if the science of enhanced circumpolar winds/current driven by the ozone hole holds true and that global temps have been being kept at bay , for the last 20 years, by this circulation 'tweak' by the hole?

Thing is Guys we are well into the impacts of AGW but they will become worse very quickly so you don't have long before you decide you should have taken the hint more quickly? There is no point arguing the toss anymore. The science has been there for years and now the physical proofs are beggining to turn up (many far ahead of time and worse than initially thought). Just either sit back and let it unfold or gen up real fast and decide if you have any help to offer? (someone will have a solution...we just gotta make sure that 'someone' has their mind on the problem and that won't happen if folk won't accept the problem????)

Like any Addict we will just keep making excuses or looking for ways to deflect responsibility until we accept we have a problem and see our 'addiction' for what it is. I'm sure we can enjoy as finer life without Fossil fuels as we do with them, we just need to replace them as our drug of choice in favour of one less damaging (but just as efficient?).
Edited on 08-11-2012 23:20
09-11-2012 00:01
I'm afraid you misrepresent the issues.

Global climate change and global warming (and cooling) has been going on since the time the earth was born.

Limited trends do not prove anything unless they are REALLY long term and irreversible and mainly due to human agency, THAT has not been proven.

The example of the drug addict is so bad that implies that climate change is bad like drugs are in the long term for us, that people like us remain skeptic because of lethargy or addiction to the good life, nothing farther from the truth.

Some like apocalyptic scenarios because it pays for their research, no matter how useless it can be, or just because they make darkly exciting prospects, I'm a logical person unmoved by exaggerated or faulty arguments, so I wait and see, like all reasonable people should do.

"What you know will never hurt you, what will hurt you is what you don't know"
09-12-2012 13:38
Tim the plumber
The predictions of the IPCC don't seem very bad to me.

A less than knee high sea level rise(by 2100) just doesn't scare me.

Abandonment of our industrial society does.
15-12-2012 02:00
Seeking Bliss
Dear All,

According to research done by the Spiritual Science Research Foundation, they published an Abstract on causes of global warming and global warming facts.

There is a spiritual root cause of global warming according to research.

For the Article published
16-12-2012 00:06
Tim the plumber
According to spiritual research, the primary cause of global warming is a cyclic process that occurs in the Universe over time. The effects of global warming we have so far witnessed are just the beginning of a destructive phase which will increase in intensity over the next 5-10 years. The destructive phase of a cycle can be worsened by humankind's poor behaviour towards nature. The poor behaviour which we see nowadays is an outcome of the reduced spiritual consciousness of humans and resultant inability to gain protection against the influence of negative energies. Spiritual practice is the only way to truly transform our spiritually polluted mind into a pure one.

Sounds like most of the warmist/alarmist drivel. "Spiritual research" so not the real world but the spirit world... OK, so there's a problem in the non-real world but we are OK in this real one.
29-04-2013 23:45
just Google '400ppm' and see what global temps and sea levels we should inherit once the system reacts fully to the forcings.
14-05-2018 19:30
Google 15,000 ppmv for water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas.
Its infrared spectrum is broader than that of carbon dioxide.

Humans produce a paltry 3.76% of the 1.36 ppmv annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, so we're quite inconsequential.

Moreover, in the context of China and India burning increasing quantities of coal to raise the meager standard of living of their billions, anything we do in the U.S. is immaterial EVEN IF you believe the ecohypocrites, which I do not.
14-05-2018 22:20
Into the Night
Gray-Wolf wrote:
just Google '400ppm' and see what global temps and sea levels we should inherit once the system reacts fully to the forcings.

There are no 'forcings'. Earth's temperature is simply a function of what the Sun puts out and what is absorbed by the Earth.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Carbon dioxide is incapable of warming the Earth.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The Parrot Killer

Join the debate What to think about this problem?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?








Don't know

Thanks for supporting
Copyright © 2009-2019 | About | Contact