GLOBAL WARMING: the truth! (1 Viewer)

[Upland Birder]

it's ruoghly 4.5 billion years old and a main sequence star. In roughly that time again it will become a red giant and a lot later, a white dwarf. Larger stars explode into supernovae

we teach this at KS4 at the moment

Tim

Hi Tim,

Thanks for this. I used thave a big interest in Astronomy when I was a child through to my teenage years and remember reading about this and black holes. It all became a little mind blowing at that point.

At that time of my life (1973) I was then introduced to Pink Floyds Dark Side Of The Moon and early Led Zep!! This musical adventure took me away from the realms of astronomy and then I found the great outdoors and wildlife.

So we have a few more years to go then !!

Cheers

Dean

 

[Big Phil]

Just an aside here. Can anyone remember the series a few years ago (on C4 oddly enough) that linked a series of social/political upheavals and a cooling period of about 100yrs in the ?6th century to a large volcanic event (similar to krakatoa etc). My remembered details are rather sketchy, but I do remember the arguments and geological evidence were quite convincing.

Dunno about the 6th Century, but the Tambora eruption in Indonesia (1815) seems likely to have caused the infamous 'year without a summer' in Northern Europe and America (1816) during which crop failures were rife. The evidence is pretty persuasive.

 

[Moonshake]

Environmental change, by its very nature, will have winners and losers. Global warming, regardless of whose predictions you use, is certain to also benefit some species and some areas.

...but overall the trend will be decreasing biodiversity, quite possibly on a massive scale. Going back to the study I referenced before (which is the leading study on the effects of global warming on biodiversity), over a million species will be heading towards extinction by 2050 if carbon-driven global warming is not curbed.

And, as for people, I would also guess this much depends of where you live.

Indeed, you'll be laughing your socks off in Lithuania. Not so cool if you're living near the Equator perhaps.

 

[turkish van]

Just curious, why did all of TB's posts get deleted? I didn't get a chance to read that article!

 

[Moonshake]

Oh no - what has humanity lost?

 

[John Eaton]

Just curious, why did all of TB's posts get deleted? I didn't get a chance to read that article!

???????? I can see them.
Seek and yea shall find...........

 

[turkish van]

???????? I can see them.
Seek and yea shall find...........

Nope, they're gone at this end. You must be special!

 

[gordon g]

That would be the start of the dark ages:

http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm

Certainly there are several examples of civilisations that have possibly collapsed due to volcanic activity e.g. the Minoan civilisation after Santorini erupted in 1700BC.

Thanks - that looks like the one. It was the discussion on global dimming that reminded me. The minoan collapse was down to a direct 'local' effect of the santorini eruption though, I think, rather than the global consequences of high altitude volcanic debris.

 

[dafi]

that was realy intresting. I liked the corelations between sun spots and temp rise and the lags in co2 in the time scale, and the fact that it has been far warmer than now in recent history, also the scale of co2 in the atmosphere dident seem to be sutch a huge problem from thier point of view. Intresting how the global warming polution suporters within the political system were portraed as as a fund gobeling jugernaut.
lots of intresting ideas but im not over convinced by one program and would like to see these views explored some more before i plumped for one side or the other what it dose do is open a real chink of doubt in the co2 causal debate. And if that causes real debate and inspection of the issues then its got to be a good thing. I have thought of co2 warming as a done deal and the diniers as the enemies of the planet funded by the vested intrests of the poluters.It seems that this may not be the case but its to early for me to make up my mind one thing is for shure a whole new vista has opened up befor me and i want to have a good look around and try to see whats happening out there.
totaly fasinating

 

[Moonshake]

I liked the corelations between sun spots and temp rise

Yes, sunspots are an important factor determining climate. Problem is, there hasn't been a significant change in solar activity in the last 30 years, but temperatures have still kept going up.

temp rise and the lags in co2 in the time scale

This is where the idea of feedback comes in. The hotter it gets, the more CO2 enters the atmosphere from various sources e.g. carbon released from melting permafrost.

the scale of co2 in the atmosphere dident seem to be sutch a huge problem

Human carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources are indeed a small chunk of the global carbon cycle, but they are enough to tip the scales, particularly when their effect is amplified by the aforementioned feedback mechanisms.

 

[griffin]

several of his young chums threw their toys out of the pram.....

...that really is me done with this thread, and I leave it up to TV / Griffin / Jos etc to finish slagging me off as ill-informed / senile / ageist / patronising / fascist etc etc.

When did I "slag you off" ? ! My general comments, including the ones regarding age, were all opinions and never referred to you or anyone in the first person !

It is not fair to accuse someone of that when they have been fair and unpersonal, however I can understand your frustration.

Linz

 

[bitterntwisted]

Has Tranquility Base really just lectured us on the wisdom that comes with age, and then deleted all his posts and gone off in a childish strop?

 

[rozinante]

I apologise in advance for not reading all the thread. I have previously found that questioning the unsubstantiated claims of global warming deniers rather pointless. By definition they are not usually interested in scientific evidence and this just makes it a fruitless exercise in trying to discuss the matter. It seems that it is increasingly supported with the blind faith and loyalty more usual in a life long football fan and reason is rarely allowed to play a part in their support.

I have enough headaches trying to encourage people with little or no interest in the natural world not to accept claims which are contrary to all the best available scientific evidence without validating the source. I am amazed that the same needs to be said here in a forum ostensibly concerned with aspects of science and the environment.

Already the "evidence" is crumbeling "Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

The reputation of Martin Durkin for engaging in sensationalist misrepresentation should be evident to anyone with access to Google. From breast implants through GM foods to global warming, this man claims to know better that the scientists in any field of research. A fruit cake maybe but I don't think his true agenda has yet been revealed. Certainly not a Marxist in my opinion. We do have some standards.

 

[Tyke]

I apologise in advance for not reading all the thread. I have previously found that questioning the unsubstantiated claims of global warming deniers rather pointless. By definition they are not usually interested in scientific evidence and this just makes it a fruitless exercise in trying to discuss the matter. It seems that it is increasingly supported with the blind faith and loyalty more usual in a life long football fan and reason is rarely allowed to play a part in their support.

I have enough headaches trying to encourage people with little or no interest in the natural world not to accept claims which are contrary to all the best available scientific evidence without validating the source.

Perhaps you might alleviate your headaches if you approached the people you are trying to persuade, with a little more humility & a little less arrogance.

You do well to apologise for not reading this thread, given your sweeping & prejudiced assumptions about many of it's contributors.
If by "global warming deniers" you mean people who do not believe that global average temperatures are trending up, then I must say I don't recall many-if any of them here.Indeed I doubt whether there are a significant number of people in that category.

If, however "global warming deniers" includes people who wish to understand more about -for example :-
*The exact contribution of atmospheric CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
*The exact contribution of human activity to total atmospheric CO2.
*The exact contribution of non-human factors to temperature change.
* The veracity of climate change models, and the % probability of the outcomes they predict.
*The real chances-or otherwise of affecting those predictions by our future actions.
*The best actions for us to take in order to further mitigation of GW and/or adaptation to it.
....then yes there are a number here(including me)-and no they are most certainly interested in scientific evidence.
But speaking for myself I just want the references please. "Discussion" is most welcome-being told what to believe & what not to believe is not welcome.

Colin

 

[scampo]

Has Tranquility Base really just lectured us on the wisdom that comes with age, and then deleted all his posts and gone off in a childish strop?

I don't know about TB but having been seduced by the programme and then drawn to read more deeply, I've come to realise that the programme was pretty weak and that we are, to put it mildly, up to our necks in it. Some of the postings on this thread have been pretty misinformed.

 

[turkish van]

I don't know abut TB but having been seduced by the programme and then drawn to read more deeply, I've come to realise that the programme was pretty weak and that we are, to put it mildly, up to our necks in it. Some of the postings on this thread have been pretty misinformed.

Lets just hope it had that effect on the rest of the population!

 

[turkish van]

No matter what people think of George Monbiot, he has (finally) written a very nice review of the programme, http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more-1047

Most importantly addressing the main points argued by referencing the cruical papers... Everyone should read this, and I should have access to all the journals - ask for a paper and I will post it here. I'm hoping for at least a couple of requests!

Edit - no point asking for reference 3 - I don't have access to that journal, darnit!

 

[cuckooroller]

Well, as complicated as I usually am, and in spite of having raised objections as to the ethical mandate of those pushing the global-warming debate of late, I am really pretty simplistic in the few assumptions that I have held for years. Continued consumption of fossil fuels is bad. Alternative energy technologies (exception made for nuclear) should be encouraged. Habitat must be preserved. These tenets are enough for me and I will not change my mind about them.

What I have been objecting to of late is being pushed by the increasingly shrill rhetoric of people taking a position on anything - that either you second what they say in everything they say, or you are just wrong-headed and dumb, and have to be shown the light. Nobody has the patent on being right in all things, and in particular, in subjects as complicated as global-warming. This must be a campaign of gentle persuasion.

Sooner or later, some group of courageous souls will have to take on the "bull in the china shop" - human demographics. No one wants to talk about it. No one wants to talk about birth control. Personally, the inaction in this sphere is much more dangerous than the current evidence for global-warming.

 

[scampo]

Lets just hope it had that effect on the rest of the population!

Hope so, L - but I don't think there's much chance of significant change. There just isn't the will from on high, no attack whatever.

On a Tesco TV ad this evening "they" praised "us" for saving 30m plastic bags this year. They shouldn't be allowed to use plastic for such a trivial use. Everywhere I look in supermarkets I am sickened by the utterly decadent level of waste. Madness.

 

[Tyke]

Thanks for that Laura. Like Steve I had decided the programme did not contribute any serious debate.

Cuckooroller I so much agree with you.( except on nuclear if you meant no nuclear !)).Population growth has clearly done the damage-but no one wants to talk about it.It's a very emotive subject of course. When mass starvation afflicts large groups of people living in areas which can barely support them-do we say this drought culls this population to sustainable levels-or do we say we must feed them because they are fellow humans & we can.

Mankind's existence on earth has long since passed the point of sustainability. We are devouring natural resources of every kind in a ravenous fashion.

Even if we achieve a post carbon economy before fossil fuels run out the population growth will still demand more & more land for agriculture ( including biofuels!),grazing,living space, mining, roads, airports, dams, tourism.

What I think is missing from the GW action plans is a clear & unequivocal assessment of time scales.Mark Lynas has a book (Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet ) coming out in which he assesses the global effects of every additional degree of temperature rise in the IPCC range-+1.4C to +6.4C in 100 years. +6C is very very frightening . At +4C permafrost melts & a variety of feedbacks cause unstoppable escalation.This is said to be unavoidable if +3C is reached-which in turn is described as probable if +2C is reached.This latter is only avoidable given 60% reduction in GG in the next TEN YEARS.
All of this stuff is taken from a Hadley Centre paper essentially.
Today our Government committed itself to a 60% reduction in CO2 levels in the next FOURTY YEARS.
Yesterday I watched on TV a re-run of the UK parliamentary Committee questioning Sir Nicholas Stern-author of The Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change. I heard him say that because of time lags in shedding existing atmospheric CO2 there are inbuilt temperature rises of up to +3C...!!!!

I really think these doomsters need to agree on a single view of temperature outcomes & timescales & a clear statement of their likely effects.

I think that over population & fossil fuel emissions may both come to an abrupt & rather unpleasant end!

Colin