Climate Change is here and man made

[Chippy_boy]

Um, sure about that? Pretty certain that there's been a rise in sea level which affects some countries. I generally think planning for the future is a good idea rather than seeing what happens and then trying to change something which will take many years to change.



I don't need to google for that. Anyway, google will just throw up opinions and data, with whatever interpretation someone chooses to put on it.
Assume 'a tree' is a metaphor for all plant life.
Are CO2 levels increasing? I'm fairly certain the answer is 'yes'.
If CO2 levels are increasing, then the plant life level, no matter how prosperous it is, is not consuming enough CO2 to stop it increasing. Why is that likely to change?



Why do you find it necessary to be condescending and insulting? It's not a very good way to conduct a debate.
Um, 30 cm on sea level would have quite a lot of impact on the world - an awful lot of people live close to sea level. 2 degrees warmer would mean land turning to desert, and the bits that thaw out aren't generally very fertile as a result of being in permafrost.

I subscribe to the idea that there is something that can be done. It might work, and will certainly be better than doing nothing.

1. There's been no appreciable rise in sea levels at all so far and no countries are adversely affected. You said about the problems happening NOW and there are none.

2. Regards the CO2 discussion, it is an undeniable and indesputable fact that an atmosphere richer in CO2 encourages greater plant growth. I made no comment about whether the amount of additional plant growth would automatically bring CO2 levels down, merely than in a world with higher C02 levels, we'd have more plant growth (provided we don't cut it all down, which is a different problem entirely).

3. I wasn't intending to be condescending and where exactly have I insulted you??? I can be WAY more insulting than this mate ;-) I was merely encouraging an open mind rather than buying the media propraganda. Have you genuinely reflected on the questions I asked?

And whilst I would agree that normally, being "prudent" and acting sooner in the face of potential problems is a good idea, we are dealing with a very special case here. If we are today to genuinely tackle this "problem" (and I am not agreeing that it is a problem) then we would have to make CO2 cuts that are FAR more drastic than the ones we are already struggling to make. The consequences for the world's economy, for the livelihoods of billions of people and indeed the lives of billions of people is at stake. Cutting back CO2 to the levels needed would have DIRE consequences for the developing world, since it would deny them electricity and condemn them to a third-world existence for the next century. This in itself would cost tens or hundreds of millions of lives.

So tackling this problem "just in case" is a very wreckless thing to do indeed.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I got a c in my psychology A-Level, 2:1 in degree, distinction in masters, also have a doctorate and would say most of my students probably have better A-Level results (at a guess), I would say mastering a subject comes over time, however, jumping on the bandwagon in a field which is not his own and then saying he knows fuck all.... Come on now...

Come on now what? I didn't say he knows fuck all, I said he knows fuck all about it.

He's probably a brilliant man now (I don't know any Physics professors who are not) but he's not a climate scientist. I doubt he's done any research in this field, he's most certainly not qualified to critique the work of experts who do specialise in it. He's a clever, interested individual with an opinion, nothing more than you or I. There is a bandwagon and he's going along with it. That's all there is to it.

EDIT:

I might add that if this is a simple question, then why the fuck are tens of thousands of people around the globe being paid to research it, with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers being produced? If it's a simple question that is easily answered, these people are complicit in the the biggest con of all time.

And if it's NOT a simple question, and these tens of thousands of papers have meaningful contribution to a complex debate, then it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone who is not deeply involved in the field can come in, read a couple of documents and conclude with certainty one view or another. You'd need to spend years researching this for yourself, assuming you were even qualified to do so.

So Brian Cox's "opinion" is just an opinion and should carry no more weight than yours.

 

[west didsblue]

Of course. But anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels didn't become potentially consequential until about 1950. That's why the IPCC only claims to be; “95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.”

As such, one could argue the Global Warming began in “the 1950s”. However, if you look at the Met Office – Hadley Center HadCRUT4 Global Surface Temperature record for the last 163 years you can see that temperatures didn’t warm during the 1950s, nor the 60s:

In fact it was not until about 1975 that temperatures began to rise. As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

However, in 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the Beeb: “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?” Phil Jones responded that,”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

Science, huh?

Why would anyone listen to Phil Jones?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

1. There's been no appreciable rise in sea levels at all so far and no countries are adversely affected. You said about the problems happening NOW and there are none.

2. Regards the CO2 discussion, it is an undeniable and indesputable fact that an atmosphere richer in CO2 encourages greater plant growth. I made no comment about whether the amount of additional plant growth would automatically bring CO2 levels down, merely than in a world with higher C02 levels, we'd have more plant growth (provided we don't cut it all down, which is a different problem entirely).

3. I wasn't intending to be condescending and where exactly have I insulted you??? I can be WAY more insulting than this mate ;-) I was merely encouraging an open mind rather than buying the media propraganda. Have you genuinely reflected on the questions I asked?

And whilst I would agree that normally, being "prudent" and acting sooner in the face of potential problems is a good idea, we are dealing with a very special case here. If we are today to genuinely tackle this "problem" (and I am not agreeing that it is a problem) then we would have to make CO2 cuts that are FAR more drastic than the ones we are already struggling to make. The consequences for the world's economy, for the livelihoods of billions of people and indeed the lives of billions of people is at stake. Cutting back CO2 to the levels needed would have DIRE consequences for the developing world, since it would deny them electricity and condemn them to a third-world existence for the next century. This in itself would cost tens or hundreds of millions of lives.

So tackling this problem "just in case" is a very wreckless thing to do indeed.

Sea level - NASA have it at around 3 inches in the last 20 years according to this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
15 inches in a century.

CO2 - I continued the logical argument. While plants like CO2, there will be a limit to how match they can strip out. Any excess will increase CO2 atmospheric levels, and make things warmer.

Reflected on what? I think I commented on temperature rise and sea level rise.
Human behaviour cause increases in temperature, and it is possible to do something about that now.
Solar activity MAY have an effect, but there's naff all we can do, although reducing CO2 to stop trapping of heat would seem logical.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept that we shouldn't do anything because there would be detrimental effects. There will be detrimental effects if we don't do anything and if we do do something. One of those options will serve to reduce CO2 levels/global warming.

It's akin to the maxim that "for evil to succeed, good men only need do nothing."

 

[Chippy_boy]

Sea level - NASA have it at around 3 inches in the last 20 years according to this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
15 inches in a century.

CO2 - I continued the logical argument. While plants like CO2, there will be a limit to how match they can strip out. Any excess will increase CO2 atmospheric levels, and make things warmer.

Reflected on what? I think I commented on temperature rise and sea level rise.
Human behaviour cause increases in temperature, and it is possible to do something about that now.
Solar activity MAY have an effect, but there's naff all we can do, although reducing CO2 to stop trapping of heat would seem logical.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept that we shouldn't do anything because there would be detrimental effects. There will be detrimental effects if we don't do anything and if we do do something. One of those options will serve to reduce CO2 levels/global warming.

It's akin to the maxim that "for evil to succeed, good men only need do nothing."

Sea level. Agreed, no appreciable change, as I said. "in a century" is not "now", is it.

CO2 and plant growth, you've failed again to read or understand what I said, or perhaps purposely chose to ignore it. I won't repeat myself for a 3rd time.

And if "doing something" vs "not doing something" both have adverse consequences, why is "doing something" automatically better? Surely you need to understand what the consequences are and weigh up in the light of that, what is the best option. But actually what you are advocating is "doing something" which most definitely WILL have terrible adverse consequences, JUST IN CASE something bad might happen, when it might not.

And even if it did, how bad would it be? I still don't think you've reflected upon that, btw. I am not sure a 2C warmer world with sea levels 30 to 40cm higher is so terrible that it warrants the cost, pain, and loss of life that would ensue trying (perhaps in vain) to prevent it. We are constantly fed propaganda about the world coming to an end, when in reality, it may just be a bit warmer. (It may not, by the way.)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Good, because I disagree with every part of that, and also with the basis of all of the arguments.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Good, because I disagree with every part of that, and also with the basis of all of the arguments.

Really?

So you said "I think what MAY happen in 100 years is rather less important than what IS happening now." And yet nothing (bad) is happening now.

And you said "Providing more CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster or better." Which we have also established is wrong.

If you aren't going to accept facts and just stick to an erroneous point of view irrespective, then there's really not much point in debating with you is there. I might as well argue with the cat.

 

[aguero93:20]

Of course. But anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels didn't become potentially consequential until about 1950. That's why the IPCC only claims to be; “95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.”

As such, one could argue the Global Warming began in “the 1950s”. However, if you look at the Met Office – Hadley Center HadCRUT4 Global Surface Temperature record for the last 163 years you can see that temperatures didn’t warm during the 1950s, nor the 60s:

In fact it was not until about 1975 that temperatures began to rise. As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

However, in 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the Beeb: “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?” Phil Jones responded that,”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

Science, huh?

So we haven't been burning fossil fuels on an increasing level since the 1760s and on an industrial level since the early 19th century then? That's good to know, nothing to see here, move along.

 

[mancity1]

Sea level. Agreed, no appreciable change, as I said. "in a century" is not "now", is it.

CO2 and plant growth, you've failed again to read or understand what I said, or perhaps purposely chose to ignore it. I won't repeat myself for a 3rd time.

And if "doing something" vs "not doing something" both have adverse consequences, why is "doing something" automatically better? Surely you need to understand what the consequences are and weigh up in the light of that, what is the best option. But actually what you are advocating is "doing something" which most definitely WILL have terrible adverse consequences, JUST IN CASE something bad might happen, when it might not.

And even if it did, how bad would it be? I still don't think you've reflected upon that, btw. I am not sure a 2C warmer world with sea levels 30 to 40cm higher is so terrible that it warrants the cost, pain, and loss of life that would ensue trying (perhaps in vain) to prevent it. We are constantly fed propaganda about the world coming to an end, when in reality, it may just be a bit warmer. (It may not, by the way.)

On what basis do you suggest that reducing the amount of Co2 in the earths atmosphere from 400ppm to 280ppm by being more greenhouse friendly and using the right mix of renewable and fossil fuel driven energy on the basis that a global problem like climate change requires a global solution will cause loss of life and pain.

Near where I live the rising sea levels which will continue to rise will ensure that in your and my lifetime the many hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the low lying South Pacific Islands that have lived for thousands of years will have to relocated.

Many of them might wish to resettle in England.

We talk about resettlement due to mans inhumanity to man which is a major political issue but it will pale into insignificance of resettlement due to nature.

Whether its accelerated by mans thirst for emitting Co2 or natures way of telling us its time to rethink how we inhabit the planet or not the issues are upon us and we have to deal with it.

These issues test the ability of nations on a mass scale to drive the chain of climate change friendly policy forward and the benefits that can give to humanity is worth the effort in itself.

 

[Chippy_boy]

On what basis do you suggest that reducing the amount of Co2 in the earths atmosphere from 400ppm to 280ppm by being more greenhouse friendly and using the right mix of renewable and fossil fuel driven energy on the basis that a global problem like climate change requires a global solution will cause loss of life and pain.

I am not opposed to a sensible, balanced and ecologically "reasonable" approach. I have no problem with our trying to be "greener", in the broader sense of the term. The reason why I said about global loss of life and pain is because the efforts we are making on CO2 reduction are not "free". Have you considered the amount of money being spent on CO2 reduction initiatives globally? What if we spent NONE of that money and spent every penny of it on cancer research instead? I am not suggesting we do that, by the way, but it is an inescapable fact that burning coal, oil and gas is a cheaper way of generating heat and electricity than solar, wind or nuclear. Paying more for our power means we have less money to spend on other things.

But the big problem is the developing world, and in particular Africa. Life expectancy globally, on average is about 71. In Africa, it's 51. Bringing Africa into the 21st century with increasing industrialisation, agricultural output, increasing GDP and better schools, education and health - would bring about a huge improvement and reduction in premature deaths. Severly restricting CO2 output growth in Africa - as we seek to do with our overall limits and carbon-trading initiatives, is a massive inhibitor to development in Africa.

They don't have nuclear power, so their only options for generating electricity are solar, wind or fossil fuels. And although they have access to lots of sunlight, you can't run heavy industry - steel manufacturing for example - on renewables alone.

So our very actions in terms of CO2 reduction initiatives are really bad news for developing countries. And basically we are saying to them "we've reaped the benefits of industrialiation for 150 years, and now we've messed up the planet, we are going to deny you the benefits we've enjoyed"? "It's OK that you are stinking poor and die in your millons of hunger every year, because we have to look after the planet"?

Near where I live the rising sea levels which will continue to rise will ensure that in your and my lifetime the many hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the low lying South Pacific Islands that have lived for thousands of years will have to relocated.

Many of them might wish to resettle in England.

We talk about resettlement due to mans inhumanity to man which is a major political issue but it will pale into insignificance of resettlement due to nature.

Whether its accelerated by mans thirst for emitting Co2 or natures way of telling us its time to rethink how we inhabit the planet or not the issues are upon us and we have to deal with it.

These issues test the ability of nations on a mass scale to drive the chain of climate change friendly policy forward and the benefits that can give to humanity is worth the effort in itself.

Maybe. Maybe the efforts of relocating millions of people are less than the efforts and effects of trying to stop CO2 rising. Or perhaps it may be that we won't be able to stop CO2 rising and temperatures with it, and any efforts we make will prove to be nothing but a very costly waste of time. Or maybe temperatures will decline like they always have done, no matter what we do.