Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I should point out that I don't support using wiki links as evidence. I'm at work and I don't have time to do a lot of research because I'm doing my job. I think the evidence of grapes being grown in colder places kind of says a lot of the people who disagree with it.

---

The reason I said check the wiki, is because much of it is correct. But you have to read all of it.

As for grapes growing in Britain in the medieval warming period, so what? There are plenty of vineyards in Britain at present. I think there may even be one in Scotland, but I am sure the owner is mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I have no bias. I'm simply after balanced discussion. Don't suggest that. If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree. If it turns out you're wrong will you agree or are you to proud to admit you could be wrong?

---

I wasn't saying you were biased. I was saying research paid for by oil companies usually is.

In 50 years it will be too late. In 20 years it will be too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Renewable biofuels means more farmland, which if I understand a previous post, increases methane, a greenhouse gas while at the same time increasing the starvation rates because we're growing fuel, not food, so the populations would drop thereby also having the effect of lowered emissions due to fewer people.

Yeah, could work.

Nature, nature.

---

Biofuels are not much of an answer at the moment. When they are made our of grasses or other easier plants then it could work. It will have to work anyway after peak oil.

No single renewable power source is the key. All of them combined can do it.

Germany is agreat example of what can happen with Govt backing. They are the world leaders in utilising solar power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Duh, came from work to find several more pages in this thread. Good stuff, by the way :up:

So, I'll depart a little from the current subtopic (you Europeans are sleeping, anyway ;) ) and I'll say this: the thing that puzzles me the most about the "consensus" on GW is the catastrophes predicted. One has to deduce from that, that warming of the planet is a bad thing (hard to convince me, when we get -40 in the Winter here ;) ); in any case, does that mean that global cooling would be a good thing? Or, does that mean that the current temperatures are "perfect". I stuggle with that :confused:

---

The problem isn't that the world is warming. The problem is that the world is warming too quickly. If the world was cooling that would be fine, as long as it happened slowly and naturally. Many species on the planet can addapt to a changing temperature, as long as it happens over a few thousand years.

I'm trying not to get too involved in this however an interesting article in the guardian regarding the melting of the Artic Ice Cap here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen.../climatechange

A couple of small quotes:

Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.

Changes in wind and ocean circulation patterns can help reduce sea ice extent, but Dr Serreze said the main culprit was man-made global warming.
"The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Duh, came from work to find several more pages in this thread. Good stuff, by the way :up:

So, I'll depart a little from the current subtopic (you Europeans are sleeping, anyway ;) ) and I'll say this: the thing that puzzles me the most about the "consensus" on GW is the catastrophes predicted. One has to deduce from that, that warming of the planet is a bad thing (hard to convince me, when we get -40 in the Winter here ;) ); in any case, does that mean that global cooling would be a good thing? Or, does that mean that the current temperatures are "perfect". I stuggle with that :confused:

---

The simple short answer is that we adapt to the changes that come, be they man made or natural. Like everything else, some will benefit from and enjoy their new climate and others will have to seek new homes and livelihoods elsewhere. Some will stick it out in place and proclaim it as no big deal. Then 500 years from now, when the climate starts changing back to the way it is now, the same debate and predictions of doom shall start anew.

Fiero, many of the same people were saying we were doomed for an ice age back in the 70's. I don't know what we can do if we are the cause, and short of stopping life as we know it, it likely should have been done 30 years ago. There is no way of knowing exactly what is causing it, but climate modelling is a bit of a joke IMO, and I say that after taking 2 climatology credits in University and having an weather observors certificiate at one point in my life. I know how the weather is forcasted and collected, and I can tell you, there is a great unknown out there on what will happen 2 days from now. To forecast 10 years or 50 years hence is a lot more of a crap shoot....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

The problem isn't that the world is warming. The problem is that the world is warming too quickly. If the world was cooling that would be fine, as long as it happened slowly and naturally. Many species on the planet can addapt to a changing temperature, as long as it happens over a few thousand years.

---

Or course. But as I said and you seem to have ignored. Not so long ago there were vineyards in the north of england and as we know vineyards tend to prefer warmer climates which the north of england still to this day doesn't really provide.

There is also the hockey stick controversy. How long has world temperature been shown to be rising so rapidly? How long have we been accurately measuring termperature? Roughly the same amount of time!?!?!?!?!?!?

As I said I do not doubt that there is warming happening. But I feel that climate study is in it's infancy and although we have lots of tools at our disposal do we nearlly know what the data means? Typically the more complicated an experiment the more data you need to draw a conclusion. Now if we were simply seeing if we could make gold our of plastic and you did whatever you did and made gold out of plastic then that's proof enough. But we're talking about something that's infinitely more complex than our level of current understanding and even if we have computer models they're only interpreting data in a way that we instruct them to.

A lot of theories that seem perfectly reasonable and have data to back them up have been disproven. Up until recently it was said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Guess what! A few weeks ago this was said to have been broken. Of course it could all be smoke and mirrors but I suspect it's probably right.

As I think Mark said previously Einstein was considered a nut back in the 20's and then suddenly he turned everything on it's head and is now considered one of the great minds of the 20th century. Food for thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Do I remember reading somewhere that the technology used in the Soviet reactor was considered risky and not used in the west?

---

I don't know anything about the technology used, I'm afraid, but what was clear was that it was poorly run and maintained.

There is no use crying over spilt milk. Warming is happening and we can't stop it. Adapt and survive.