Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

Of course people deal with natural disatsers (nothing new there), I was referring to war/conflict that are mitigated by shift to alternative energies or reduction in CO2 emissions, the link betweeb these and to climate change may not be very obvious, tough one still left with zillions of other reasons to go to war

ESSEX, United Kingdom

human populations adapt, grow, shrink, die and move

….so we expect those who survive in northern Europe.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Mathias wrote:

And since CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas the temperature on the earth’s surface is inevitably going to increase

That’s the naive 1st grade school logic, but it’s not the truth. It’s infinitely more complex than that. The first thing to understand is that the climate is ruled by the oceans, not the atmosphere. The energy capacity of the oceans are 1000 times higher than that of the atmosphere. What this means is that if the entire atmosphere was heated by 10 degrees, and all this energy was transferred to the oceans, this will only heat the oceans by 0.01 degree. Will the heating of the oceans by 0.01 degree make any difference? probably not. Heating of the atmosphere only enables it to carry more moisture, it will be more rain, more “weather”, and that’s it. Nothing will truly change.

Also, we have had several ice ages. It’s a normal thing in the recent history of the earth. The mechanisms of what made those ice ages come and go is still is a complete mystery. No one can explain it with the current knowledge of the climate. If such phenomenon is a mystery, a normal phenomenon that has utterly devastating effect on all life on earth, then this tells me there is much more to know before anyone can predict a single thing about the future. The only thing that is known is it has something to do with the oceans, and the ocean currents.

Everything has a cause and effect. It’s just that on the grand scheme of things, the statistics tends to wreak havoc of easily predictable relations and turn everything upside down. Not much can happen within a time frame of one year, because the probability of something odd happening is small. In the time frame of 100 or 1000 years, the situation is very different. In these time frames there are large probabilities that odd things will occur. This can be big volcanic eruptions or large meteors or sudden larger changes in the oceanic currents (due to tectonics or whatever). All these events have the capacity to wipe out every civilization on earth. In a time frame of 10k years, it is almost certain that such an event will occur. Take Crand Canaria. It is a ticking bomb. Sooner or later it will explode and create tsunamis that will wipe out every city on the east coast of America + whatever it will do to the climate afterward due to ashes. Not to mention the probability of a new world war. In a time frame of 100 years, a devastating war is almost inevitable, no matter how unlikely it seems today.

The human civilization has literally exploded in the last 100-200 years. But, these have been 200 years of nothingness in terms of the odd stuff. We have had a few wars, but that’s it, and nothing of the kind if nuclear weapons are unleashed. The human civilization has grown, but at the same time it has become super fragile. Any one of the odd things that we can expect within a time frame of 100-1000 years will wipe out huge chunks of it, maybe to the point it will never recover.

What I see today is that people are afraid. People have always been afraid of the future, and so humans have invented countless religions. All this fear has now been put into one single bag, one single religion labelled “climate change”. Right now the fear mongers are thriving as never before. That’s the climate crisis in a nutshell as far as I’m concerned. Nothing good comes out of fear. We cannot have a society ruled by fear and fear mongers. We are all going to die at some point. There is a good chance society will be wiped out by some reason or another. The only sensible thing to do is to increase the robustness of our lives, increase the independence.

Off_Field wrote:

This seems to be your response any time some of the wild claims come out.

Well, wild claims are often just “wild claims”… Media logic dictate that you pick up the most outrageous things to attract readers.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Climate change fantatic logic is exactly the same. And this then leads to children genuinely thinking that we are in a mass extinction event with no way of turning it round. But the only way to fix it is to complain to western nations that have already taken large steps, totally ignoring the largest polluters.

Let us not forget in the Al Gore’s claim over 10 years ago that the north polar ice cap would dissapear in 5-7 years.

I again what I said towards the beginning of this thread:
1) Yes, the atmosphere is warming, but at a MUCH slower rate that almost all the “global warming” models predicted, thus the science is not correct yet. Mankind is probably contributing to this warming, but the extent is not at all clear.
2) The warming so far has been net positive – higher temperatures and especially higher CO2 concentrations have improved crop yields, forest growth and reduced the extent of marginal lands such as the Sahel. There has NOT been an increase in catastrophic weather events so far.
3) There is no reason to panic at all, and the vast sums mankind is sinking into subsidising renewable energy is money down the drain. Better we should watch and wait and invest some of that money into nuclear fission research. Nuclear fission is the only proven way to produce baseload power on scale without CO2 emissions.

BTW – I resent the characterisation that some will label me with of “climate change denier”. I have studied this topic with care for over a decade and have a PhD from Oxford University (organic chemistry).

Last Edited by Buckerfan at 05 Oct 11:13
Upper Harford, United Kingdom

Buckerfan wrote:

PhD from Oxford University (organic chemistry)

In what way does that qualify you for an expert opinion on climate science? I myself have a PhD in Computer Science.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Education in research methods is invaluable in many fields.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As I said, I am surprised to see so many deniers here.

If you have a background in physics or PhDs in other sciences you should be familiar with the process that mankind has developed for establishing any kind of real understanding of our world. This process is one of measurement, experiment, the formulation of theoretical models and verifying whether they hold water by comparing their predictive power against reality.
It does not involve “opinions” or annecdotal evidence.

Our collective backgrounds, opinions, beliefs, wishes and hopes do not matter.

The only thing that matters is scientific evidence.
And with regard to climate change there are heaps of it.
The overwhelming majority of all scientist world-wide that have actually studied the subject in-depth all say the same thing.
And over the course of the last decades they have been becoming more and more vocal about their findings, because they are indeed alarming.

If you want to challenge them because you have a better model that explains the data you definitely should!
Science is no dictarship. Anyone is open to contribute and take part in the process.

But until someone actually convinces the majority of people that actually know the subject properly because they work in climate research of the grave errors that you see in their work I am not inclined to follow your thinking.

Because: Why should I?
Why should anyone listen to you and base their decisions on your opinions when there is so much actual evidence that decisions can be based on?

In fact, IMO, the time for discussing the question whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not is over!
The cheese has been eaten, Elvis has left the building and the train has left the station.
This question has been discussed at length in the past two decades and the result is crystal clear.

We simply have to accept reality and move on to the much more important question of how to best deal with it.
What we can do to offset, curb and potentially reverse the processes we as mankind have set into motion.

That is the only discussion that everyone should be focussing on by now.

If you want to remain a denier then fine.
But accept that you live in the past and will feel more and more alienated by the world around you as this world that will move on while you are left behind.

When it became clear that the world is in fact round a lot of people had a very hard accepting that it’s not flat.
Many probably never did.
However, back then the realization that the earth is a sphere did not require any real action on part of mankind, AFAIK.

Today things are different.
Action is required and will come.

You can be in a huff on the sidelines or embrace reality and try to contribute to shaping the future.

Cheers,
Mathias

EDTF
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top