Climate change

[drsdadsotherson]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... g_research

More people are seeing through the global warming myth

Looks good, but I will only be happy when the majority of politicians also agree. Mind you, I like aliens, so it's a win-win for me.

[Tedwood]

Nice comprehensive reply drsdadsotherson, Have to agree with the IPCC critique i think everyone should read The Real Global Warming Disaster. what research field did/do you work in ?

[Armleywhite]

Reading it now. Have to say, it really opens your eyes to the deciet in which it was put together, the ipcc reports, not the book.

Good read. I'm truley surprised it hasn't gone to a wider audience.

[Tedwood]

Sorry if a little jumbled i'm typing from memory, i'll try to limit science speak. i'm just trying to convey the immense intricacy of climate research

Climate change is now a huuuuge subject and thanks to drsdadsotherson i dont have to have a moany bitch fest at the IPCC report.

Right okay... i think we need a bit of perpesective when dealing with climate change..... climate change is nothing new the earth's climate has been fluctuating ever since it was formed, the earth has seen two of the most extremely possible extremes : the earth has been a molton ball of spewing lava back in the hadean eon and has been a giant ball of ice - or at least mostly covered in ice (depends if you find the flaws in the snowball earth theory compelling enough)

Now at present we are still considered to be in the Quaternary glaciation that stated around 3 million years ago in the northern hemisphere, the most recent period of glaciation for the U.K. was the Devensian or Midlandian (if you're Irish, don't ask !) that ended 10,000 years ago.
Hence the world is going through a natural warming cycle called an interglacial. Thus current warming cannot be attributed solely to human influences.

I think we can all agree that climate change has happened before without human influences, under normal circumstances the earth can regulate its own temperature, however its not untill you start tipping the normal parameters it gets ugly... 'Runaway' processes start to happen eg. Clathrate gun hypothesis in connection with methane release in the permian extinction 251 million years ago, and incidentally something which can happen in the future.

Take for example the Palaeocene - Eocene thermal maximum when 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon and bad stuff (not the technical term) was spewed out from volcanic activity resulted in a global mean temp rise of around 6° and as much as 10° at either poles.

So pumping bad stuff into the atmosphere is not really a good thing....?!

Even if climate change isn't wholly our fault we are still pouring fuel on the fire...
Now even if emissions are stabilised now that sea level and temp. would rise regardless due to the fact that the delay in equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of oceans.

The thing that is insanley difficult to get across is the myriad of 'forcing' and 'feedback's' that goes on it is insanely intricate because there are a lot of factors that influance climate - one part of the ocean for example a shutdown of the Atlantic's meridional overturning circulation would have a huge effect with regards to climate.
Then we have sun output to contend with, Milanlovtic's cycles... the list of factors that influence is endless.

Yes people have a right to be skeptical, that's what made science what it is... through a process of asking questions.

Now scientists themselves have to blame themselves for not being more transparent for example the prof. at uni at east anglia phil jones 'lost' some data under firce criticism about one of his studys and wouldn't share any data with anyone (including me, i might add) (not bitter at all !!!!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... nised.html

My experience is that it has been known for scientists/researchers to 'sway' results for a more favourable outcome be it funding, business, or political reasons. Although I am prepared to say it does happen, it is not widespread, as most people get found out due to the fact the majority of research is peer reviewed and about either confirming or rejecting previous studies on the same/similar subject, also having more researchers reduces the likelihood of mistakes in data anomalies and 'errors'. It is also true to some extent they/we hold a monopoly on scientific truth etc. So i do in some way get where the climate skepticism stems from but to suggest its a conspiracy from governments is a tad far fetched.

This has a bad effect for the majority scientists who try and do good (they do exist!) and the proper science gets disregarded as it has done recently.

Also if you have time or interested read Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by naomi oreskes and erik conway

Now i'm not one of these sensationalist ball wranglers, i'm not trying to push an agenda or force feed people information, i'm glad it is being debated and talked about.

Sorry if it sounds a little disjointed i'm typing from the missus's parents at the min. if people would like a coherent version i might write one up when i get back home.

And I think i may have babbled on far too much, i shall end with one of my favourite quotes on climated change

The earth couldn't care less. We will be recorded as a minor perturbation in the Earth system. The Earth will go on. The question is will we ?

[andywatson]

There is actually incredibly strong evidence linking CO2 levels (we need to get subscript- writing CO2 offends my chemistry background) and global warming. Unfortunately for the hippies it is entirely in the opposite direction to the line normally spun.

Basic widespread theory- Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Earth to warm up.

Evidence based theory: Increasing temperatures reduces solubility of CO2 in the oceans- increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This suggests (note I say suggests- this is another theory (albeit a very credible one) not a definitive answer) that instead of increasing CO2 causing warming, but that warming causes increased CO2.

This explains why it is possible to produce a link between CO2/temperature, but also explains why the CO2 levels have a nasty habit of lagging 800 years behind the corresponding temperature rise they are supposed to have caused.

finally- don't believe anyone who tells you they know what causes global warming (which is a fact). There are a number of theories, and none fully explain every piece of evidence. And that's what makes science such fun kids!

[drsdadsotherson]

Two excellent posts there Tedwood and Andywatson, and I say that not because they happen to agree with my stance on the issue, but because they are reasoned and not the PC knee-jerk reactions that society has been conditioned for. Please note I am not a conspiracy theorist harping on (HAARPing on?) when I mention conditioning in this regard. It's more of a social meme than any malicious brainwashing.

To answer your question Ted, my background degree is Biochemistry and Genetics and I have done peptide research with a view to developing a synthetic treatment for Parkinson's using N(kappa)2 receptors in the brain. I left research a while ago and went into teaching for 12 years at high school level. Lots of the stuff in the new slimmed-down curriculum which people are complaining about is about scientific method as opposed to base knowledge and I have spent many a lesson debating the merits and pitfalls of the anthropogenic climate change models. I usually ended lessons by telling the kids 'If they ask in the exam, say this, because they will mark you down for having your own opinion...' Leading, I know, but what the hell?

Andy, I totally agree with your last statement. Nobody knows the truth of climate change. My opinion lies with the sceptics thus far but further evidence may change my mind. That's simply the nature of scientific study, as we all know. One of my favourite quotes from Richard Feynman applies perfectly here. 'Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts'. To my mind that applies to both camps in the climate change saga and it is dangerous to assume that because evidence points in one direction it is pointing at the answer. Nothing in science can ever be proved.


What can be proved, however, is the lunacy in the way this topic has been approached by the media and by the politicians. Power and wisdom are wonderful things. Power and gullibility are catastrophic.

[Armleywhite]

Brilliant posts by you clever people

I don't think that anyone is denying the fact that climate change is real and happening now, in fact happening all the time. Even the chaps in the film I posted state that, the climate IS changing. However, a good point they make is that Human activity is not to blame. Sure, it doesn't help, but the planet copes with the miniscule amount we kick out, as opposed to the oceans and such releasing their quota.

What really upsets me is that the chaps in that film and the likes of Lindzin, McCitrick, mcintyre and others are always dismissed by the media as people just trying to upset the good work of those connected with the IPCC.

I just put on FB an article about CG and how the bbc disgracefully reported the meeting of the CG sceptics as mad men. Typical and I really shouldn't be surprised at the articel and the way it was written. I'd still like the various govmnts and IPCC to explain to me how putting prices up stops the world over heating?? Thats the crap that gauls me. This ever increasing money making scam by companies and their use of Climate Change to justify ripping off the people. Still, how much as Gore made so far??

Yes, there is a lot of sh1te being pumped into the atmosphere and yes, there is a lot of rubbish were breathing in. All that needs curbing, if not for our immediate health being damaged by the lethal doses of chemial cocktail we breath. However, imo, the real threat is the deforrestation that is occuring at a rate of something like the area of wales a year being cut down and not replaced. That isn't helping at all.

Or am I being too simplistic there?

[drsdadsotherson]

The massive deforestation that is happening is a major concern without a doubt, but not for reasons linked with climate change.

People call the rainforests of South America 'The lungs of the world' because of the huge amount of CO2 (Yep, annoys me too...) that is fixed from the atmosphere by the trees by photosynthesis, a process that also releases oxygen. There are a couple of problems with looking at it as being a major factor in CC.

1. You have to assume that CO2 is the driving force of climate change for the statement to work. Although it is undoubtedly a factor I believe the evidence is now showing it to be a minor player at most.

2. Chaos mathematics underlies everything in nature. Chaos can absorb a huge amount of change before its nature is fundamentally altered. CO2 is a resource for all plants, algae and photosynthetic micro-organisms, so reducing the amount fixed by one means increases the availability for other organisms which will increase in population, maintaining the balance. In science it's known as a dynamic equilibrium, and is best thought of as 'Weebles wobble but they don't fall down'.

3. Rainforests are not as densely populated as people think. The huge majority of photosynthesis happens in the canopy where the tops of the trees catch and block the sunlight from reaching the forest floor. At ground level in a rainforest you will find very few plants at all because of this reduced light availability, and much of the biodiversity can be found growing high in the trees themselves, like orchids and spider plants. If you remove the trees you encourage the growth of ground-level plants which take their place and continue photosynthesis in that location. (I've really oversimplified there, there are issues around combustion, topsoil, weather patterns and ground stability too. People have written huge books about this and I don't intend to go on for that long )


Of more concern regarding deforestation in the Amazon and other places is the loss of biodiversity. We have no idea how many species of plants, insects etc have been wiped out already by our actions, and no idea how many more remain. Many of our best drug therapies and treatments come from the study of chemicals produced by such organisms (For example aspirin from willow bark and quinine, the malaria treatment, from the cinchona tree). For all we know there are plants out there that produce cancer treatments or perhaps even cures. Maybe a treatment for the common cold or HIV/AIDS. We simply do not have the time to study them all at the rate the forest is being destroyed. I can highly recommend a film called Medicine Man with Shaun Connery as an example of how this can work.
As well as the potential benefits to us, the rainforest is home to many thousands of animal species which are also impacted by loss of habitat and are at risk of extinction.

So in my opinion, is deforestation a major issue that must be addressed? Absolutely. Is it a major player in climate change? Possibly, the jury is still out on that one.

[Dr.Leeds]

2. Chaos mathematics underlies everything in nature.

Unusual for a non-football related thread to go off-topic onto the Leeds United defence...

[Armleywhite]

Wow. Clever tw@t

Aye, seen the film. Although I'm not religious but even the bible states that a cure for all of mans ills can be found in nature. Who knows, but if we lose such a diverse environment we'll never know will we?

[Tedwood]

2. Chaos mathematics underlies everything in nature. Chaos can absorb a huge amount of change before its nature is fundamentally altered. CO2 is a resource for all plants, algae and photosynthetic micro-organisms, so reducing the amount fixed by one means increases the availability for other organisms which will increase in population, maintaining the balance. In science it's known as a dynamic equilibrium, and is best thought of as 'Weebles wobble but they don't fall down'.

Have you read Chaos by james gleick - bloody amazing book

[drsdadsotherson]

Have you read Chaos by james gleick - bloody amazing book

Can't say that I have, but I will keep an eye out for it

[drsdadsotherson]

Unusual for a non-football related thread to go off-topic onto the Leeds United defence...

Nah, chaos is a thing beautiful to behold. Our defense is..... well..... not.

[Dr.Leeds]

Have you read Chaos by james gleick - bloody amazing book

Yeah. It only made sense once I read the pages in completely random order. :mrgreen:

[Armleywhite]

This is interesting. Forgetting for a moment that this came from alex jones. The rest of it is quite illuminating. However, nothing really new. Interesting that gores own house is such an energy vacuum

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-24- ... lshit.html

[Armleywhite]

Another one from alex jones sure not sure how credible this is. Can't see it anywhere else. This, if true is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientists- ... imate.html

Edit to add, just found this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... iment.html

[drsdadsotherson]

Another one from alex jones sure not sure how credible this is. Can't see it anywhere else. This, if true is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientists- ... imate.html

Edit to add, just found this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... iment.html

Dear God... The height of stupidity is fiddling with something you do not understand, which ALL climate scientists will agree they do not. At least, they will if they are not horrifically arrogant.

Why can they not accept the most basic of facts? The climate changes - get over it! Trying to keep it the same is not only impossible but could also have enormously disasterous consequences that nobody can foresee. I am pleased he claims to be decades away from succeeding because that gives everyone else a chance to stop him...

The only thing of merit I can find in those articles is this quote. ''We are still decades away from doing this and it's not simply a science decision,'' said Dr Watson. ''There are ethical and governmental decisions around this that are huge. Just because we can do it doesn't mean that we have the right to do it.''

Let's hope he actually means those last words.

[Armleywhite]

Wow. It seems that those that want desperately to prove and force their ideas on the rest of the world will apparently stop at nothing

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world ... nda&st=cse