Climate change- discuss

[L W Woodlands]

saw this pic on a bookface group about the serengeti highway (look it up more wanton destruction of a large ecosystem) thought it sums up a lot of the comments on here:

[Albedo]

Pumpy you've missed my last point completely. Its there in black and white. And off you go again.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Is that an old Entec? Mr LW woodlands .... good pic it makes a point.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Albedo

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

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

 

One of my better moments then!

[Graham]

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

 

 

 

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

[Albedo]

Baffles me as to the amount of people that have such strong opinions on climate change. In short how can you have a thought out logical opinion on the subject unless your a scientist that knows all the ins and outs. Ideas are put in peoples head constantly through media and then people believe it.

 

My view on it: I don't understand it enough because I am a tree surgeon not a climate scientist so I honestly don't have a clue.

 

We may as well be discussing in depth rocket science really, none of us really know what were talking about so it's just people clashing their opinions and some knowing slightly more than others.

 

 

...Honest enough and truthful post guys?

 

Pumpy will take bits of this and attack. But this is an honest appraisal of the climate change thing for you Will. I appeal to Pumpy to calm down and allow others to get up to speed. This is not all about your view Pumpy.

 

“To stay at a constant temperature, the Earth must radiate as much energy as it receives from the Sun. We receive this energy mostly as visible light, which warms the surface. The Earth re-radiates most of this energy back into space at night. A planet at our distance from the Sun, emitting the same total amount of energy as it receives, will have a temperature well below freezing. Then why is the actual average surface temperature higher, about 14°C? Infrared radiation re-radiating up from the surface is intercepted by "greenhouse" gas molecules in the lower atmosphere, and that keeps the lower atmosphere and the surface warm”.

 

Fossil fuels (coal and oil) were in the ground…. We put them into the atmosphere in the form of…. You guessed it C02 amongst other things.

 

The debate is about whether anthropogenic (man made) contributions to this melting pot (the atmosphere) can change our climate.

 

Its that simple… that’s it in a nutshell….Not so hard aye.

 

This debate has been raging for decades.

You may have heard of the Kyoto Protocol (early 1990s). This was an attempt by governments of the world to agree on what to do about it. They agreed on some token targets for reductions of emissions but failed to act. America, Australia and others didn’t even agree to this.

 

The doom scenarios referred to earlier in this thread are referring to the possibility that we have reached the stage where a certain amount of, climate change is inevitable. Bad for some places and less bad for others, but by no means the end of the world.

 

As these predicted effects start to happen which is happening now (hard to prove cause and effect here), we are going to have to do something to stop further escalation of these events.

 

What we do now will have no effect for decades so it’s a question of how bad do we want it to be… this is what the campaign group 350.org is about.

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Albedo, seeing you chatting away makes me realise how chilled out ive become!

 

That maybe in part due to withdrawing from UKTC for a bit!

 

you take it too seriously, no ones digging you out or on the attack! RELAX.

 

Good stuff guys.

[Albedo]

Albedo, seeing you chatting away makes me realise how chilled out ive become!

 

That maybe in part due to withdrawing from UKTC for a bit!

 

you take it too seriously, no ones digging you out or on the attack! RELAX.

 

Good stuff guys.

 

I’m chilled as a chilled thing Tony.

 

Just been trying to get Mr P to make some of his posts a bit more independant of mine rather than quoting me all the time. As I explained earlier, I found it was leading my contributions to the thread rather than me leading my own contributions. That’s all.

 

Turning into a full time job it was …

 

Yours chillingly chilled, Paul.

[Pumpy]

With respect Albedo, no-one is attacking you mate, this is a discussion thread, we were asked to discuss, that's all I'm doing. I asked about the Ozone hole because you stated....

 

With regard to the ozone hole bit...

 

I had to remember all the formulas for my Science degree... its as irrefutable as science gets. I used to walk around Brighton memorising all 4 pages of formulae... it did come up and I did remember it.

 

"Irrefutable" and "science" rarely belong in the same sentence, otherwise it has the potential to become dogma. Since you didn't answer my questions on ozone I did some reading. A quote from James Lovelock after Climategate bears repeating:

“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

 

"Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.

 

There is a lot of year to year variability, in 2007, the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter......Van der A said natural variations in temperature and atmospheric changes are responsible for the decrease in ozone loss, and is not indicative of a long-term healing....As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78C (-109F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears."

 

from here

 

So, it appears the ozone hole is a NATURAL phenomena. Further it seems the science was politicised for profit by Dupont as it was about to lose it's monopoly it's patented refrigerant gas. Hows that for irrefutable science?

 

The similarities with global warming science should speak for themselves IMO.

 

Nullius in verba.

 

Pumpy.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

With respect Albedo, no-one is attacking you mate, this is a discussion thread, we were asked to discuss, that's all I'm doing. I asked about the Ozone hole because you stated....

 

 

 

"Irrefutable" and "science" rarely belong in the same sentence, otherwise it has the potential to become dogma. Since you didn't answer my questions on ozone I did some reading. A quote from James Lovelock after Climategate bears repeating:

 

 

"Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.

 

There is a lot of year to year variability, in 2007, the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter......Van der A said natural variations in temperature and atmospheric changes are responsible for the decrease in ozone loss, and is not indicative of a long-term healing....As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78C (-109F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears."

 

from here

 

So, it appears the ozone hole is a NATURAL phenomena. Further it seems the science was politicised for profit by Dupont as it was about to lose it's monopoly it's patented refrigerant gas. Hows that for irrefutable science?

 

The similarities with global warming science should speak for themselves IMO.

 

Nullius in verba.

 

Pumpy.

 

thats interesting!

[skyhuck]

With respect Albedo, no-one is attacking you mate, this is a discussion thread, we were asked to discuss, that's all I'm doing. I asked about the Ozone hole because you stated....

 

 

 

"Irrefutable" and "science" rarely belong in the same sentence, otherwise it has the potential to become dogma. Since you didn't answer my questions on ozone I did some reading. A quote from James Lovelock after Climategate bears repeating:

 

 

"Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.

 

There is a lot of year to year variability, in 2007, the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter......Van der A said natural variations in temperature and atmospheric changes are responsible for the decrease in ozone loss, and is not indicative of a long-term healing....As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78C (-109F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears."

 

from here

 

So, it appears the ozone hole is a NATURAL phenomena. Further it seems the science was politicised for profit by Dupont as it was about to lose it's monopoly it's patented refrigerant gas. Hows that for irrefutable science?

 

The similarities with global warming science should speak for themselves IMO.

 

Nullius in verba.

 

Pumpy.

 

Says it all really.