Global Climate Change Science News

[Cunt]

Look, there is constant change, and sometimes people can predict what that change will look like into the future. It's not that hard to understand my position, as one of very skeptical of all claims pushed by gov't and the celebrities (who I am sure are VERY sincere)

There ARE some facts available, like governments tend toward corruption, if things get a lot warmer, we're screwed, anyone trying to govern the world should be a presumed moustache-twirling villian, if things get a lot cooler, we're screwed, governments are to be trusted, as they always have the best interests of the governed in mind, China might agree to an overall reduction in greenhouse gasses, a blowjob is usually not a bad idea.

From those facts, you can make a lot of assumptions, and some of them might be right.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know why you keep focusing on governments and celebrities. The science is clear. Pity you don't do data and evidence.

[JimC]

I don't know why you keep focusing on governments and celebrities. The science is clear. Pity you don't do data and evidence.

He feels bullied by people who know more than he does...

[JimC]

I think I have a way of analysing the issue of global warming denialism, in a variety of stages:

1. Does the data show that average global temperatures have been increasing over the last 100 years?
It takes a fairly moronic denier to claim that they haven’t…

2. Does the data show a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 levels during this time?
Again, the data should speak for itself, except to the scientifically illiterate…

3. Is this increase the result of human combustion of fossil fuels?
There are two separate pieces of evidence here. One is simply a summation of global consumption of coal, oil and gas, and a very straightforward calculation of the amount of CO2 added from this activity. The other involves looking carefully at the isotopic signature of the CO2, which is different in fossil carbon to carbon involved in the current carbon cycle. This requires some understanding of physics, of course…

4. How do greenhouse gases affect global temperatures?
This involves an understanding of the frequency profile of solar radiation impinging on Earth, and its very low rate of absorption by atmospheric gases, in comparison to the low wavelength infra-red radiation produced by the warmed Earth, radiated to space. This range of frequencies resonates with the molecular structure of a few atmospheric gases, notably CO2 and methane. When absorbed, it adds heat energy to the atmosphere. The more of these gases are present, the more heat energy on its way to space is absorbed, and the thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere changes…
I have rarely met a denialist who truly understands this straight-forward piece of physics…

5. Whatever humans are doing, isn’t it just part of natural changes which have occurred in the past, for a variety of reasons including orbital changes etc?
Past climatic changes have involved multiple factors, it’s true. However, the majority of changes occurred at a rather glacial pace, and the Earth’s biota was able to adapt. Exceptions involving rapid change include the Great Permian Extinction Event, whose name speaks for itself…

6. Can we use this information to predict future climatic change?
This certainly becomes complex, and involves the construction of sophisticated computer models of global temperature, based on specified increases in CO2 levels. Here, the important thing to understand is the competitive nature of science. A wide variety of science teams have created such models, and they will be critical of other team’s methodology. They are not all identical, but all predict increases in global temperatures. It is not a situation where half the teams are saying ‘no worries, it ain’t happening” while the other half report increases. All models predict increases…

7. Given that one accepts that future global temperatures will increase, is that necessarily a bad thing?
Again, we need to create models of such effects. One fairly straightforward consequence is an increase in sea levels, with dire consequences to low-lying human occupied land. Others involve bad outcomes for various populations of plants and animals, already stressed by human impacts. Humans living in already hot environments will be in danger of serious health risks, and global food production will, on average, suffer. Severe weather events are also likely to become even more extreme.

8. Given all this, how can humans act to at least reduce the potential impact?
This is where I would agree that there is room for debate on the best courses of action available, something that is worthy of a separate post…

[pErvinalia]

Yebbut Canada is cold, so global warming can only be a good thing.

[Scot Dutchy]

8. Given all this, how can humans act to at least reduce the potential impact?
This is where I would agree that there is room for debate on the best courses of action available, something that is worthy of a separate post…

First you have to get them all on board. That is a monumental task and one I would say is impossible. Start with China. Just try. SE Asia where every living thing is consumed. Russia where people are so egoistic. Then of course the United States of America whose leader believes it is all a lie. Central and South America? You are joking. Where recycling is only a way to earn a few bucks for their drug bosses and dont ask where the rubbish goes. It is not healthy. In Mexico City the refuse trucks are armed to fight off other gangs.

I am far from optimistic.

[Sean Hayden]

Ebola is our only hope! :deadnamedman:

[Rum]

8. Given all this, how can humans act to at least reduce the potential impact?
This is where I would agree that there is room for debate on the best courses of action available, something that is worthy of a separate post…

First you have to get them all on board. That is a monumental task and one I would say is impossible. Start with China. Just try. SE Asia where every living thing is consumed. Russia where people are so egoistic. Then of course the United States of America whose leader believes it is all a lie. Central and South America? You are joking. Where recycling is only a way to earn a few bucks for their drug bosses and dont ask where the rubbish goes. It is not healthy. In Mexico City the refuse trucks are armed to fight off other gangs.

I am far from optimistic.

China could move to zero emissions pretty quickly given the way their command economy works, despite some really filthy industries beltching out shit like nobody’s business. India I think would find it harder given that most of its industry seems to consist of slightly out of control chaos.

[pErvinalia]

I am far from optimistic.

There's a surprise.

[pErvinalia]

8. Given all this, how can humans act to at least reduce the potential impact?
This is where I would agree that there is room for debate on the best courses of action available, something that is worthy of a separate post…

First you have to get them all on board. That is a monumental task and one I would say is impossible. Start with China. Just try. SE Asia where every living thing is consumed. Russia where people are so egoistic. Then of course the United States of America whose leader believes it is all a lie. Central and South America? You are joking. Where recycling is only a way to earn a few bucks for their drug bosses and dont ask where the rubbish goes. It is not healthy. In Mexico City the refuse trucks are armed to fight off other gangs.

I am far from optimistic.

China could move to zero emissions pretty quickly given the way their command economy works, despite some really filthy industries beltching out shit like nobody’s business.

China is doing the most out of all countries concerning renewable energy. Unfortunately they are still building a significant number of coal-fired power stations.

[Scot Dutchy]

8. Given all this, how can humans act to at least reduce the potential impact?
This is where I would agree that there is room for debate on the best courses of action available, something that is worthy of a separate post…

First you have to get them all on board. That is a monumental task and one I would say is impossible. Start with China. Just try. SE Asia where every living thing is consumed. Russia where people are so egoistic. Then of course the United States of America whose leader believes it is all a lie. Central and South America? You are joking. Where recycling is only a way to earn a few bucks for their drug bosses and dont ask where the rubbish goes. It is not healthy. In Mexico City the refuse trucks are armed to fight off other gangs.

I am far from optimistic.

China could move to zero emissions pretty quickly given the way their command economy works, despite some really filthy industries beltching out shit like nobody’s business. India I think would find it harder given that most of its industry seems to consist of slightly out of control chaos.

They all could Rum but... That is the problem. Look at India and China. I dont see much movement there. Their mentality is not one that really cares about fellow beings now is it? Saw a report about how poor people live in two square metres of space in Hong Kong. I dont think they worry too much.

[rainbow]

Yebbut Canada is cold, so global warming can only be a good thing.

Canadians enjoy being miserable.

Would you want to live in a world with cheerful Canadians?
I think not!

[Scot Dutchy]

Yebbut Canada is cold, so global warming can only be a good thing.

Canadians enjoy being miserable.

Would you want to live in a world with cheerful Canadians?
I think not!

That is an oxymoron and a really horrible thought.

[Cunt]

The science doesn't matter as much as political science.

I look at the world around me, rather than the church of climate change.

What the issues are roll out to be opposing pipelines, despite the fact that they spill, waste and consume less oil than alternative oil handling.

Hydro power is lauded by everyone, except when their home is threatened by this 'progress'. There are small communities here in the north, who are fighting that battle now ('now' meaning the last few decades). They will absolutely lose, since energy companies just keep trying and trying. The world might like the fact that another renewable energy source is online.

I'm not in. I would rather let the locals burn carbon to heat and feed their families.

I'm not 'in denial' about climate change, I'm just looking at things that are real, and happening.

If everyone really wanted to reduce emissions, they would support more nuclear energy production. Unless it's political opposition, rather than science-based opposition.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Oh yeah, politics. Some are no doubt applauding the hard line taken in quashing non-conforming reports.

As for science, the studies described below used scientific data to reconstruct past climate fluctuations, so they're easily dismissed if somebody were so inclined.

'Climate is warming faster than it has in the last 2,000 years'

In contrast to pre-industrial climate fluctuations, current, anthropogenic climate change is occurring across the whole world at the same time, according to new studies. In addition, the speed of global warming is higher than it has been in at least 2,000 years.

Many people have a clear picture of the "Little Ice Age" (from approx. 1300 to 1850). It’s characterized by paintings showing people skating on Dutch canals and glaciers advancing far into the alpine valleys. That it was extraordinarily cool in Europe for several centuries is proven by a large number of temperature reconstructions using tree rings, for example, not just by historical paintings. As there are also similar reconstructions for North America, it was assumed that the "Little Ice Age" and the similarly famous "Medieval Warm Period" (approx. 700 – 1400) were global phenomena. But now an international group led by Raphael Neukom of the Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern is painting a very different picture of these alleged global climate fluctuations. In a study which has just appeared in the well-known scientific journal "Nature", and in a supplementary publication in "Nature Geoscience", the team shows that there is no evidence that there were uniform warm and cold periods across the globe over the last 2,000 years.