Climate change (was: Long, boring post...)

[LMC]

Trying to compare todays temperatures with measurements made 20 years ago ought not to be too hard, but comparing against 100 years ago is difficult to do with any degree of precision.

Especially in built up areas - urban heat island effect.

[Barry Shnikov]

The ice caps are melting. This is big news. Living anywhere near water will be much more at risk from flooding.
Nuclear energy is the worst

Well, part of the ice caps are melting. Elsewhere, the ice is expanding.

[Dreadful Scathe]

i thought, due to displacement of water by glaciers, if they all melt the sea level will actually go down

[Tessalicious]

i thought, due to displacement of water by glaciers, if they all melt the sea level will actually go down

That'd be icebergs surely - glaciers are ice-rivers on land.

I have to say I'm not convinced about the general theory of climate change as a man-made phenomenon, or even as an irreversible trend, but this documentary (although I didn't see it, I've been following the news since) has undermined the credibility of anyone with an argument against the man-made catastrophe theories. Which is a shame for public perception of science and scientists.

[Lynn]

I have to say I'm not convinced about the general theory of climate change as a man-made phenomenon, or even as an irreversible trend, but this documentary (although I didn't see it, I've been following the news since) has undermined the credibility of anyone with an argument against the man-made catastrophe theories. Which is a shame for public perception of science and scientists.

Climate change is occuring yes, the reasons for that are IMO still open to some level of debate, but I don't think programmes like this are helping the debate.

Didn't see the programme myself, but from general chat around the office, several of the contributors to the programme are not highly regarded by their peers in the scientific community because of the methods they choose to employ.

Another comment is that the programme would have had far more credibility if it was presented in terms of debate, with both sides represented.

Personally I feel it will be seized upon by people who don't really want to, or are unable to, understand the science, but who want an excuse not to have to change their resource heavy consumer lifestyle and/or the 'I don't trust the government so anyone saying the opposite must be right' brigade.

[Astro]

Personally I feel it will be seized upon by people who don't really want to, or are unable to, understand the science, but who want an excuse not to have to change their resource heavy consumer lifestyle and/or the 'I don't trust the government so anyone saying the opposite must be right' brigade.

Yes Lynn, I agree. Also by people who are in denial because it is too scary to face up to.
Everyone has a carbon footprint. Women have a larger one because they wash more - the carbon stilletto!
I think the carbon dance shoe must be quite large because we are all sweet smelling at ceroc

That'd explain a lot about Finchley cerocers...

Yeah, they are always late. The green one's anyhow.

[Dreadful Scathe]

That'd be icebergs surely - glaciers are ice-rivers on land.

..er.yeah, them things

[MartinHarper]

On obtaining information about global warming:

1. Random "documentary" on Channel Four.
2. Threads on dance forums.
3. A bloke in the pub told me about "urban heat islands".
4. Wikipedia.
5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reporting to the United Nations.

[Dreadful Scathe]

i'd go for number 2 myself...hey...

...spooky

[Lynn]

On obtaining information about global warming:

1. Random "documentary" on Channel Four.
2. Threads on dance forums.
3. A bloke in the pub told me about "urban heat islands".
4. Wikipedia.
5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reporting to the United Nations.

Naw, I'm just opting for informed and educated work colleagues.

[stewart38]

One of the best programmes ive seen in along time and fair due to Channel 4 for having the guts to broadcast it

The problem we have now is anyone that goes against the norm will be burnt at the stake and no one dares to.

God the green party is just another disgruntle political party. Global warming is big big business

I’m glad the ‘facts’ were actually given. I wonder what the people of the Russian Stepps think about global warming

The papers go on endlessly now about ‘global warming’ and its boring but people believe it.

Hey 18 months ago we were going to have perpetual drought, don’t see that one at present

[stewart38]

My questions are: 1) so what was this 'other thing' that started off the temperature rise, and how do we know it isn't what's causing our problem today? and 2) how come - with increasingly warm climate and ever-larger proportions of CO2 - we don't have an atmosphere like Venus? Something drastic must have happened to reduce temperatures in the teeth of all that CO2 accelerated warming...

ans

Spacecraft that have reached the surface have found temperatures of 470C (878F). These harsh conditions are mostly due to Venus being 30% closer to the Sun. Venus receives twice as much solar heating however. This apparently never allowed water to condense and therefore to form oceans. Without oceans there was no effective way to absorb carbon dioxide.

[Dreadful Scathe]

re: last 2 posts


What happened to that "Big Box of Punctuation" Lou got you for Christmas ?

[stewart38]

re: last 2 posts


What happened to that "Big Box of Punctuation" Lou got you for Christmas ?

Clearly a member of the green party who is no longer interested in the environment but will bury the truth under a sea of punctuation

Climate change is occuring yes, the reasons for that are IMO still open to some level of debate, but I don't think programmes like this are helping the debate.

Didn't see the programme myself, but from general chat around the office, several of the contributors to the programme are not highly regarded by their peers in the scientific community because of the methods they choose to employ.

Another comment is that the programme would have had far more credibility if it was presented in terms of debate, with both sides represented.

Personally I feel it will be seized upon by people who don't really want to, or are unable to, understand the science, but who want an excuse not to have to change their resource heavy consumer lifestyle and/or the 'I don't trust the government so anyone saying the opposite must be right' brigade.

This is a classic, not that you didn’t see it but think it was rubbish, DJ has being doing that about dance weekenders for years not being there but saying they were rubbish , that’s not the classic bit

You miss the whole point, how can you debate global warming ,go google it for ‘debate’.

We have heard 25000 times man causes global warming

This was another view from a few brave people who don’t risk their political scientific career by saying something different

ps why was the hurrican season less active last year ?

:

[Lynn]

This is a classic, not that you didn’t see it but think it was rubbish, DJ has being doing that about dance weekenders for years not being there but saying they were rubbish , that’s not the classic bit

Classic, not actually reading my post, but think it was rubbish.

My comments were based on chat I've heard round the office - something which I clearly stated. From people who had seen it and are informed on the global situation on climate change, who know some background on the 'science' and scientists involved as well as knowing the other side. Who know how important it is to have scientific claims backed up by credible data.

[David Bailey]

Clearly a member of the green party who is no longer interested in the environment but will bury the truth under a sea of punctuation

Scarily poetic - what have you done with the real S38?

This is a classic, not that you didn’t see it but think it was rubbish, DJ has being doing that about dance weekenders for years not being there but saying they were rubbish , that’s not the classic bit

Hey, it's classic when I do it

This was another view from a few brave people who don’t risk their political scientific career by saying something different

It's a tricky question - when is iconoclasm constructive, and when is it done just to get publicity? In fact, this very topic is being debated on Radio 4's the Moral Maze tonight.

But when you look at the immense damage done to the country's health with the MMR scare, you have to be very sure of your facts before you raise this sort of alarm. And, unfortunately, both Ch 4 and the programme's producer have form in "crap sensationalist science" documentaries.

At the moment, I feel it's healthy overall for there still to be some form of debate - for example, I personally have learnt a lot about the issue, which I wouldn't have otherwise.

[Barry Shnikov]

ans

Spacecraft that have reached the surface have found temperatures of 470C (878F). These harsh conditions are mostly due to Venus being 30% closer to the Sun. Venus receives twice as much solar heating however. This apparently never allowed water to condense and therefore to form oceans. Without oceans there was no effective way to absorb carbon dioxide.

Well, more exposition than answer. I was simply making a comparison - Venus possibly never made it out of the greenhouse stage; the RealClimate explanation for CO2 lag as against global temperatures never once explains how what would certainly appear to be a runaway effect - warming increases CO2, CO2 accelerates warming - was brought to a halt.

You know, generally, when one conversationalist observes to another 'X is like Y, really', it isn't common for the second conversationalist to respond with a list of ways in which X and Y are not identical.

[Spin dryer]

I read today that standard lightbulbs are to be phased out starting now. 60w and 40w bulbs will be around for a couple more years, but the manufacture of 100w bulbs will cease very soon.

I plan to stock up on standard bulbs whilst they are still around because I really don't like the cold, harsh light given out by the new type of bulbs. It's impossible to create a really cosy environment with the new bulbs.

This might sound a little selfish, but my carbon foot print is otherwise conservative.

[ducasi]

I read today that standard lightbulbs are to be phased out starting now. 60w and 40w bulbs will be around for a couple more years, but the manufacture of 100w bulbs will cease very soon.

I plan to stock up on standard bulbs whilst they are still around because I really don't like the cold, harsh light given out by the new type of bulbs. It's impossible to create a really cosy environment with the new bulbs.

This might sound a little selfish, but my carbon foot print is otherwise conservative.

More than half of the light bulbs in my house cannot be energy saving bulbs due to the switches they are connected to or the sockets they are in.

What are my options?

[Spin dryer]

More than half of the light bulbs in my house cannot be energy saving bulbs due to the switches they are connected to or the sockets they are in.

What are my options?

Yes, I have a vague idea that you can't use the new ones with dimmers (which most of my lights are on). Don't know what the answer is I'm afraid.