climate change

[SWP's back]

Climate change is happening as it always has. What is the scale and nature of the anthropogenic contribution? We haven't a fucking clue and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar, ignorant or as yet undiscovered genius. There simply is not a high enough LoSU for most forcings and independent scientific method has been violated by political motives insofar as all the funding being channelled towards forcings which are likely to be positive.

So pleased you saved me the time of writing this post most or less verbatim.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

The world has always been in close state of equilibrium up until 200 years ago. Human contribution can cause the world from leaving this state of close equilibrium and it can have an unpredicted effect on climate. What would happen?

The right definition of Sustainability is the "ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations from meeting their own needs". A lot of studies, unbiased studies, need to be done to figure our what we are actually doing to the planet. Putting in extra carbon dioxide, that otherwise would not have been released in the atmosphere is obviously unnatural.

That is irrelevant. Future humans will be, and it is unfair to them to suffer what we've done.

We may not be causing climate change but our ways are wasteful and if we keep our ways the future is not going to be bright.

Thats how I see it too. If we keep carrying on how we are now, then I don't think its going to be a happy ending.

 

[Damocles]

I'm sorry Skashion, but you're wrong. The IPCC has said that there is now "very high confidence" that climate change is caused by human activities. As I'm sure you're aware, very high confidence constitutes a certainty of 90% or above. AR4 should have been the end of the issue. The debate rages on because of politics, not science. The science was conclusive a long time ago. AR5 will push this into even more definitive language when it is released.

 

[urmston]

Prince Charles and Al Gore are so worried about climate change they tell the rest of us to live simple lives with a low carbon footprint.

Meanwhile they each have several large homes, fly all over the place on both public and private business and use gargantuan amounts of energy.

Al Gore's electricity bill at just one of his homes is 20 times the average for a US home.

 

[Damocles]

Prince Charles and Al Gore are so worried about climate change they tell the rest of us to live simple lives with a low carbon footprint.

Meanwhile they each have several large homes, fly all over the place on both public and private business and use gargantuan amounts of energy.

Al Gore's electricity bill at just one of his homes is 20 times the average for a US home.

So what? This has nothing to do with climate science.

 

[SWP's back]

I'm sorry Skashion, but you're wrong. The IPCC has said that there is now "very high confidence" that climate change is caused by human activities. As I'm sure you're aware, very high confidence constitutes a certainty of 90% or above. AR4 should have been the end of the issue. The debate rages on because of politics, not science. The science was conclusive a long time ago. AR5 will push this into even more definitive language when it is released.

30 years ago climate science expected us to be going into a new ica age at this juncture did it not?

 

[Damocles]

I'm sorry Skashion, but you're wrong. The IPCC has said that there is now "very high confidence" that climate change is caused by human activities. As I'm sure you're aware, very high confidence constitutes a certainty of 90% or above. AR4 should have been the end of the issue. The debate rages on because of politics, not science. The science was conclusive a long time ago. AR5 will push this into even more definitive language when it is released.

30 years ago climate science expected us to be going into a new ica age at this juncture did it not?

A few hundred years ago, people thought the planet was the centre of the Universe, what's your point?

Also, you should probably read this

 

[Skashion]

I'm sorry Skashion, but you're wrong. The IPCC has said that there is now "very high confidence" that climate change is caused by human activities. As I'm sure you're aware, very high confidence constitutes a certainty of 90% or above. AR4 should have been the end of the issue. The debate rages on because of politics, not science. The science was conclusive a long time ago. AR5 will push this into even more definitive language when it is released.

Go and look Dam, tell me how many forcings have a low or very LoSU versus how many have a high or very high LoSU. Next tell me how massive the margin of error bars are for anthropogenic aerosol effects (negative forcings). Why are they so massive and why is the LoSU for negative forcings low whereas the inverse is the case for positive forcings? I'm all ears. True, we pretty much know it's net positive but the scale is far from established and we need a lot more science to determine anything like an accurate value. We need to ascertain that value in order to know what needs to be done. Next you move onto the nature of it. Is it better to resist climate change by reducing the very likely net positive forcings or is it better to adapt. If we go for reductions how do we manage it without the absurd premise that we should use less energy and all have showers instead of baths and drive hybrids and other douche bag ideas that have nothing whatsoever to do with science.<br /><br />-- Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:51 pm --<br /><br />

A few hundred years ago, people thought the planet was the centre of the Universe, what's your point?

That hasn't changed at all, as well you know. ;-)

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Whether the science is right or wrong it is still pointless unless the question of population is addressed. This, because of religion and attitudes in 3rd world countries will not be happening soon, so to commit vast resources chasing a theory without accepting this is futile and extremely damaging economically.

 

[BulgarianPride]

I'm sorry Skashion, but you're wrong. The IPCC has said that there is now "very high confidence" that climate change is caused by human activities. As I'm sure you're aware, very high confidence constitutes a certainty of 90% or above. AR4 should have been the end of the issue. The debate rages on because of politics, not science. The science was conclusive a long time ago. AR5 will push this into even more definitive language when it is released.

What was the cause of climate change some 10 000 years when the last ice age ended ?