Climate change- discuss

[Pumpy]

I can pick your expert opinion

 

correction, that was meant to be "can I" that's my dyslex6ia showing

[cerneARB]

this may be of intrest.

 

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis | Press

[Marko]

I was catching up on some podcasts yesterday and this one made me smile: BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Material World, 23/02/2012

 

"hope on the horizon for mimicking one of nature's greatest secrets, photosynthesis, the ability to turn sunshine into fuel" Scientists were pondering 'Solar Fuel' and how to harvest the power of the long summer days for use at night/winter preferably in a fashion that made the fuel portable.

 

Can anyone on this forum possibly suggest how this might be achieved?

 

Scientists, tchh, they can't see the wood for the trees.

[Albedo]

I mentioned 'forcing' and 'feedbacks' earlier... heres a quick explanation for anyone who's still awake.

 

I don't like adding links but for anyone who wants to read further its from here Climate Feedbacks: Part 1 | Climate Change

 

"A forcing is a change in some variable that alters the planetary energy budget (e.g., sunlight, CO2, volcanic eruptions) by modifying the incoming sunlight, the ratio of absorbed to reflected sunlight, or by changing the rate of outgoing longwave radiation to space; however, forcings themselves can be considered to be independent of the current climate (e.g., the sun doesn’t really care what is happening on Earth, and aside from possible subtle effects of an ice sheets weight on the land surface or something like that, volcanic eruptions don’t really care what the current climate is like either). Radiative forcings will be expressed as a surface temperature change only if they are large enough or persistent enough to overcome the large heat capacity of the ocean.

 

Feedbacks, on the other hand, change only in response to an underlying climate trend and then further modify the radiative budget. This can amplify the initial forcing (positive feedback) or dampen it (negative feedback). The distinction also depends on the timescale; greenhouse gases for instance are generally feedbacks over millennia since the carbon cycle can easily be perturbed, by say, orbital changes while fossil fuel combustion is clearly a much faster process and is external to the climate system."

 

 

Note to B101UK who is making thoughtful posts. When I said the loss of the gulf stream would put us on the same latitude as Canada. I didn't make myself clear. We are already on the same latitude but the gulf stream keeps us warmer than them.

[woodpile]

I was catching up on some podcasts yesterday and this one made me smile: BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Material World, 23/02/2012

 

"hope on the horizon for mimicking one of nature's greatest secrets, photosynthesis, the ability to turn sunshine into fuel" Scientists were pondering 'Solar Fuel' and how to harvest the power of the long summer days for use at night/winter preferably in a fashion that made the fuel portable.

 

Can anyone on this forum possibly suggest how this might be achieved?

 

Scientists, tchh, they can't see the wood for the trees.

 

 

I really was cheered up by that post, thanks for that. (This will probably be deleted, I don't know why. Maybe a mod would like to explain...)

[skyhuck]

I really was cheered up by that post, thanks for that. (This will probably be deleted, I don't know why. Maybe a mod would like to explain...)

 

You have breached no forum rule, so why would it be deleted???

[Albedo]

I wanted my contribution to this thread to be about helping people to be informed about the issue so that they can make their own decisions.

 

I know/knew quite a bit about it and a lot of people are confused so I thought I could help.

 

That’s why I’ve been going on and on about bite sized chunks and minimizing links to lengthy articles.

 

At first I thought you were helping Pumpy by pointing out some of the issues so that people could learn and make their own decisions.

 

But it turned into a debate between the two of us that I felt was of no use to anyone in terms of my initial reason for contributing. I would like to take a step back and see if I can be of use in the way that I originally intended.

 

I don’t give a damn which choice people make but I do care that folks generally make that choice from as informed a place as possible.

 

I think you have a lot to offer in this respect because of your understanding of the issue although you are deeply entrenched on your side of things.

 

I am being in some ways a ‘Devils advocate’ here, I’ve said at least once that although not a sceptic I am not convinced 100% either. That's not a bad thing as science kinda works this way...open to debate not dogma.

 

I have said that I am somebody who is interested enough to get informed. It’s a massive and complex issue but there is nothing to stop anybody trying to get informed. That’s why I keep saying I’m happy to give pointers.

 

I can arbitrate some of the BS that gets posted, because I have a pretty good picture of the arguments in my head. This could help the majority of interested people.

 

I also think that we’re putting people off as they don’t want to come in to the debate at this level.

 

There is a lot of misinformation out there funded by oil companies and such like. A good place for a thread like this to be would be some kind of honest appraisal of the arguments that are out there.

 

So, Has anybody got any questions?

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

if you thought live aid was about hard times, you have seen nothing yet.

 

Very true...

 

I think there is enough in the one square mile around my house (or anybody's house for that matter) to stimulate me for the whole of my days on this earth - socially,culturally, scientifically or in any way you can think.

Why do you feel travelling the world and doing all these things is what we should be doing?????? Will they really make you happy???

I have tried that for a bit and found it very unsatisfying and would be happy to stay around home for ever more - if I could and is in fact what I am working towards within this very crazy world we are living in.

Your previous comments regarding capitalism concern me. Our current version of capitalism is hardly a good, democratic one. In fact it is complete pie in the sky. Perpetual growth in a finite world???

It worked sort of OK for a bit when a handful of people benefitted at the expense of the majority, but now that the majority want their share, we realise the problems and this is the biggest logjam in getting things going in the right direction regarding Tony's original topic of climate change.

The current financial crisis is the natural evolution of an unsustainable capitalistic system that has been twisted and turned in every possible way to squeeze a bit more out of it, but there is nothing more to squeeze.

 

Excellent comment imo. Funny; people and governments can't figure out what matters; one minute it's the economy, next it's climate change, then it's political correctness, next war and so on. History teaches that history teaches nothing!!!

[Matthew Storrs]

Very true...

 

 

 

Excellent comment imo. Funny; people and governments can't figure out what matters; one minute it's the economy, next it's climate change, then it's political correctness, next war and so on. History teaches that history teaches nothing!!!

 

Did you make that quote up? if so its genius!!

[Pumpy]

There is a lot of misinformation out there funded by oil companies and such like

 

Yeah, a lot of the alarmist rubbish is funded by big oil. e.g WWF, originally started by Royal Dutch Shell, it's worth looking at the WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money for some perspective on "green funding". More on the WWF here

 

So, Has anybody got any questions?

 

Did you miss a page mate?