# Only God controls the weather



## Purple (5 May 2016)

Yes, that's right, there's no such thing as man made global warming, only God controls the weather. What about the ice age, sure there was one year when the sun didn't shine at all at all. Danny Healy Rae thinks so anyway.

If you are from Kerry you should be deeply embarrassed that you, or your neighbours, voted for such a person.


----------



## thedaddyman (5 May 2016)

Ice age? Don't tell me you are one of those evolutionists? Next you'll be saying the world was not created in 7 days. Straight to hell for you


----------



## Sunny (5 May 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> Ice age? Don't tell me you are one of those evolutionists? Next you'll be saying the world was not created in 7 days. Straight to hell for you



But it wasn't. He rested on the Sunday which is only fair. Also He was probably in violation of the working time act at that stage anyway.


----------



## Leo (5 May 2016)

Sunny said:


> Also He was probably in violation of the working time act at that stage anyway.



He's lucky that doesn't apply to the self-employed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 May 2016)

Oh we're all real smart city slickers  What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise. Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing. 

Greens give me the pip, riding around on their bykes as if that could make a blind bit of difference.  Arrogance and hubris of the highest water.

And if you are embarrassed by our rural politicians note that his views are shared by possibly the world's greatest city slicker, you know the one who is in with a very good chance of leading the most powerful country on earth before the year is out.


----------



## thedaddyman (6 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh we're all real smart city slickers  What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise. Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.
> .



Excuse me, wash your mouth out. Culchie mass going farmer's son here for starters. I might live in a town now, but definitely not a townie

DHR's comments show an  incredible element of ignorance, there is tons of scientific evidence that show that since the industrial age began, the world is warming up and that is having an impact on the weather with polar ice caps melting. Everything is connected. Whilst I am no fan of the Greens, I'd be more scared of the impact of climate change deniers then anything the Greens would ever do. As for dredging the rivers, the cynic in me would wonder if he would be tendering for a contract.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh we're all real smart city slickers  What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, we have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise.


 That's not what he said but it's a habit of the religious to take ridiculous statements and try to put a rational spin on them 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Danny's reference to God has been pounced upon here to indulge in some very puerile religion bashing.
> 
> Greens give me the pip, riding around on their bykes as if that could make a blind bit of difference.  Arrogance and hubris of the highest water.


 That's it, the last thing we need is people practicing what they preach.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And if you are embarrassed by our rural politicians note that his views are shared by possibly the world's greatest city slicker, you know the one who is in with a very good chance of leading the most powerful country on earth before the year is out.


 Don and Danny... now there's a meeting I'd like to be at! I think they'd get on; they have a lot in common.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What Danny was saying is that we should get off our high horse, *we* have nowhere reached the stage were we can control the weather either for bad or for worse and either inadvertently or otherwise.


Is that "we" as in "I refute the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggest that mankind has contributed to global warming because I know better" or "we" as in "I accept that as a whole we need to change our ways but personally I don't need to change my own ways cause what difference can I make"?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 May 2016)

Most of you are probably too young to have heard of Y2K. Let me tell you the story briefly.  Just before this millenium was about to turn, the learned ones warned that because computers were badly programmed 1/1/2000 would precipitate a virtual armageddon.  Zillions were spent in trying to prevent this catastrophe except notably in Italy who did a kinda DHR on the whole thing.  The rest is history.

Or what about the AIDS scare.  Around about 1990 the actuaries were telling us that before long more than half of all male deaths below the age of 50 would be as a result of AIDS. Life assurance rates naturally soared for said males.  In the event, except for a few unfortunate pop singers the scare turned out to be largely a non event at least in these parts.

Back a bit further still all the talk was of the "population explosion", there would not be enuff space on the planet by the year 2000 given world population growth.  And so on and so on back to Nostradamus and before.  Notice that we never get predictions of pending Nirvana and yet by and large we live in an unbelievably better place today than in previous centuries.

So I share Danny and Donald's skepticism on global warming.  Not to deny any scientific evidence but to question the age old human propensity to rush to an Armageddon like prognosis when faced with similar phenomena.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Or what about the AIDS scare.  Around about 1990 the actuaries were telling us that before long more than half of all male deaths below the age of 50 would be as a result of AIDS. Life assurance rates naturally soared for said males.  In the event, except for a few unfortunate pop singers the scare turned out to be largely a non event at least in these parts.


 
Ah yea, sure only 38,000,000 people have got it, 25,000,000 of whom have died. That's with the massive global reaction, the $20,000,000,000 spent yearly and the fantastic work done by people like Bono and George W Bush (yes, that's right; those two).
Sure it's only a blip. We shouldn't have bothered doing anything about it. If we'd ignored it it would have gone away all by itself.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Back a bit further still all the talk was of the "population explosion", there would not be enuff space on the planet by the year 2000 given world population growth.


 Sure, it's not as if the population has grown from 4 billion in the 1970's to 7.4 billion today with a minimum peek of 11 billion in 2100 and the possibility of no peek. 
And sure population growth and global warming have nothing to do with each other.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> And so on and so on back to Nostradamus and before.  Notice that we never get predictions of pending Nirvana and yet by and large we live in an unbelievably better place today than in previous centuries.


 There's little need to galvanise the international community to face the threat of things getting better.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So I share Danny and Donald's skepticism on global warming.  Not to deny any scientific evidence but to question the age old human propensity to rush to an Armageddon like prognosis when faced with similar phenomena.


 Indeed, it's not like the realistic assessment of impending crisis and the resultant actions of nations have mitigated any of the things you mentioned above. Sure just take Smallpox; that went away all by itself as well.


----------



## Betsy Og (6 May 2016)

There's a huge industry of fear, I think we need to break it down to tangible steps for people.

So while I'm not cowering in the corner over climate change (the artist formerly known as global warming), and I realise that makes me no better than a holocaust denier , I do believe in cleaner air for people living in Ireland and elsewhere today, so I do agree with CO2 incentivisation for the motor industry (& maybe we need to get onto NOX while we're at it). I look forward to owning an electric car as better for the environment and means it shifts the balance of power away from certain A-rab states. And if that allegedly benefits the world climate then great. 

So I think it people toned down the rhetoric and explained the tangible current benefits they would get a better response. Oversell leads to suspicion/scepticism/cynicism. AIDS was never going to be the world threat because it was fairly clear how it spread and how to avoid it. I'd say most of the millions are in Sub-Saharan Africa where that message never got through, or the cultural norms facilitated the spread.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 May 2016)

Okay, _Purple_, you have made some valid ripostes.  But here is my honest take on this climate change thing.  Yes the temperatures must be rising, I presume that is empirical fact though I read somewhere that there was a 20 year recent glitch in the progression.  That aside the scientists must be right when they assert as fact that the planet is warming.

Next strand in the argument is to claim that this phenomenon is mainly man made and therefore potentially man reversible.  This is not so proven and is where DHR comes in - he sees it as hubris for humankind to think they have that sort of influence on the weather. For me the jury is out on this second strand of the argument.

But for me it is the third strand that is the most dubious - the prognosis of armageddon if this is not arrested. And the scientists are guessing as much as the rest of us on that front.  I could just as easily concoct a theory of happy long sunny and fertile days ahead esp. for places like Ireland.  But I could equally speculate about floods and tornadoes and all the four horsemen of the apocalypse.  And here's my point, we seem to have a big propensity as a group to latch onto the doomsayer version and we easily buy into arguments that it is all our fault and we have to put on the sackcloth and ashes to save ourselves.


----------



## Leo (6 May 2016)

Betsy Og said:


> AIDS was never going to be the world threat because it was fairly clear how it spread and how to avoid it. I'd say most of the millions are in Sub-Saharan Africa where that message never got through...



Surprisingly ~5.3% of cases are in the US, but they only account for ~4.4% of world population. So they're over-represented given you'd imagine they don't have the education/ awareness excuse.


----------



## Betsy Og (6 May 2016)

Perhaps they are also overrepresented in the, shall we say, 'at risk' activities so that result may not be too bad.


----------



## Firefly (6 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Most of you are probably too young to have heard of Y2K. Let me tell you the story briefly.  Just before this millenium was about to turn, the learned ones warned that because computers were badly programmed 1/1/2000 would precipitate a virtual armageddon.  Zillions were spent in trying to prevent this catastrophe except notably in Italy who did a kinda DHR on the whole thing.  The rest is history.



Hi Duke, thanks for reminding me of Y2k...never before did I make so much money for jam as that little beauty! "God" be with the days!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 May 2016)

In a way the eco warriors are the same as the bible thumpers.  To them man(woman) has sinned by his abuse of the environment.  Only by confession (that s/he caused it) and by penance (riding bicycles) can s/he be saved from a self inflicted armageddon.


----------



## Firefly (6 May 2016)

The only real way I believe global warming will be prevented is down to economics. I hope that we run out of fossil fuels (or that they become too expensive to extract) before irreparable damage is done. Once something approaches a certain cost, behaviours will change and it will be the same for fossil fuels. Unless technological changes happen such as electric cars etc, people will travel less by car but instead walk/cycle. I know when petrol got very expensive a few years ago I was certainly conscious of my journeys. Market forces are already planning for the next stage with the advent of electric cars. It's probably a pity that oil has dropped in price just when these cars were starting to hit the roads. The market will always provide a product where the demand is there and a return to be made.

Government policies through taxation will only work if the governments from the major polluters sign up but I have little faith in this, and God help us if that fruitcake across the Atlantic gets into power. In fact, there is probably a better chance of all the governments signing up to a global taxation policy and that's certainly not going to happen. I'm not saying that reducing your footprint is not worthwhile - of course it is and should be taught to our children. It's a nice idea and will certainly help, but it's like putting plasters in the holes of a sinking ship. Everything we consume, from transport to clothing to food to house building results in fossil fuel usage.

Just to add to this - one of the issues here also is that whilst everyone would benefit from a reduction in carbon emissions, it is not worth it for most people as so many others are not taking part. It's like 20 people going out for dinner and the first 19 order starters. The 20th person (even if they're not bothered) might as well order a starter too as not having one will only make the meal a tiny bit cheaper for himself & everyone else.

It's going to take economics to change this in any meaningful way.


----------



## cremeegg (7 May 2016)

Lots of people here who seem to know that the world is warming. Does anyone have any evidence for that?

I know that 2,000 years ago the Romans grew grapes in Northumbria, and that they had settlements in what is now Holland in places that are now under water. From this I conclude that the climate was warmer and sea levels higher 2,000 years ago in North Western Europe than it is today.

In 1658 the Swedish army marched across the Baltic sea from Jutland to Zealand. Between the 17th and early 19th century winter fairs were held in London on the frozen Thames. Neither of these things would be possible in the last 100 or more years. From this I conclude that the climate was colder in North Western Europe 200 years ago than it is today.

What exactly is it that the global warming believers know ?


----------



## Purple (9 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> What exactly is it that the global warming believers know ?


NASA have an excellent site detailing the cause and effect as will as linking to many reputable bodies which agree that it is real and it is man made.
It's all about the Carbon.
It traps heat within the atmosphere and causes temperatures to increase.
The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and it's impact on the saline levels in the sea could also be catastrophic as it is the salt levels within the sea which cause water to flow around the world, specifically between the Pacific and Atlantic. The weather currents follows the sea currents.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2016)

Purple said:


> The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and it's impact on the saline levels in the sea could also be catastrophic as it is the salt levels within the sea which cause water to flow around the world, specifically between the Pacific and Atlantic.



*


			
				wiki said:
			
		


			Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
> 
> 
> Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[149][150][151]
> ...


_Purple_, try the following experiment.  Empty a vase of fresh salt water down the sink, and then empty a vase of fresh water, see if you notice any discernable difference in flow.  It is scientists coming up with these bizzarre predictions that make me skeptical.

What I will say is that  the doomsayers *might* be right so why take a chance.  Unfortunately this makes us prey to every crackpot theory.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_, try the following experiment.  Empty a vase of fresh salt water down the sink, and then empty a vase of fresh water, see if you notice any discernable difference in flow.  It is scientists coming up with these bizzarre predictions that make me skeptical.


That's a nonsensical comparison.
From [broken link removed] link;
_"Deep ocean currents are density-driven and differ from surface currents in scale, speed, and energy. Water density is affected by the temperature, salinity (saltiness), and depth of the water. The colder and saltier the ocean water, the denser it is. The greater the density differences between different layers in the water column, the greater the mixing and circulation. Density differences in ocean water contribute to a global-scale circulation system, also called the global conveyor belt.



The global conveyor belt includes both surface and deep ocean currents that circulate the globe in a 1,000-year cycle. The global conveyor belt’s circulation is the result of two simultaneous processes: warm surface currents carrying less dense water away from the Equator toward the poles, and cold deep ocean currents carrying denser water away from the poles toward the Equator. The ocean’s global circulation system plays a key role in distributing heat energy, regulating weather and climate, and cycling vital nutrients and gases."_


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2016)

_Purple_ this is exactly what makes me skeptical.  That may all be very right or maybe according to which scientist you listen to very wrong.  But why is it that this very arcane change in deep ocean currents is spelling doom.  Could it possibly be that this will be wonderful news.  Back to my main point.  We ignore the scientists who say this is wonderful but latch on to those who predict catastrophe.  And there is good reason for that as you have aready pointed out.  There is no need for us to do anything if greaty bounty beckons but we need to batten down the hatches when faced with pending catastrophe.

So you see here a kind of valve at work which let's doom type predictions seep into the human psyche but prevents optimistic theories gaining traction.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2016)

Read the NASA site. It shows the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the topic and that the overwhelming body of evidence supports the case for man made climate change.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So you see here a kind of valve at work which let's doom type predictions seep into the human psyche but prevents optimistic theories gaining traction.


It's only a doom scenario if we don't think we can do anything about it. Those who want to change things are the optimists.


----------



## trasneoir (10 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ this is exactly what makes me skeptical...
> So you see here a kind of valve at work which let's doom type predictions seep into the human psyche but prevents optimistic theories gaining traction.


I think that brand of skepticism will serve you well. If it came to it, we already know of ways in which humanity could actively intervene to control the climate. Nobody talks about it, because the notion is scary.

Even if the danger of climate change is over-hyped, is a useful stalking horse for fossil fuel conservation. Humanity _is _going to burn every hydrocarbon we can drill, frack, or pray for _until_ the day that nuclear (or renewable) energy presents a cheaper alternative. The sooner that happens the better, because we don't want the developing world priced out of the energy market in the mean time, and it would be nice to have a decent stock of leftover hydrocarbons for plastics and medicines.


----------



## Purple (11 May 2016)

trasneoir said:


> I think that brand of skepticism will serve you well. If it came to it, we already know of ways in which humanity could actively intervene to control the climate. Nobody talks about it, because the notion is scary.


 It’s also unproven and the unintended consequences could be massive. It is only in the last 10 years we have understood the influence of sea on the weather and the influence of deep water currents on the sea and, indeed, the influence of plate tectonics on the saline levels of the sea and their function as a carbon sink. Therefore I would be slow to screw around with something we don't fully understand. Better to stop screwing it up and just let nature balance itself out again.




trasneoir said:


> Even if the danger of climate change is over-hyped, is a useful stalking horse for fossil fuel conservation. Humanity _is _going to burn every hydrocarbon we can drill, frack, or pray for _until_ the day that nuclear (or renewable) energy presents a cheaper alternative.


 Agreed; Fusion and/or small nuclear generators are the only viable renewable power source which could conceivably replace most of our hydrocarbon reliance.




trasneoir said:


> The sooner that happens the better, because we don't want the developing world priced out of the energy market in the mean time, and it would be nice to have a decent stock of leftover hydrocarbons for plastics and medicines.


 This is also a very good point. The immigration crisis we see now will be dwarfed by what we will face if those most exposed to climate change decide to move in with the people most responsible for that climate change. Small nuclear reactors are particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa where the power grid is grossly inadequate and there is a massive over reliance on diesel generators. The security concerns have to be addresses of course but they are not insurmountable. It goes without saying that if other forms of renewable power become viable then they should be used as well or instead but to date neither wind or solar power have any chance of doing that job.


----------



## cremeegg (11 May 2016)

Purple said:


> NASA have an excellent site detailing the cause and effect as will as linking to many reputable bodies which agree that it is real and it is man made.
> It's all about the Carbon.
> It traps heat within the atmosphere and causes temperatures to increase.
> The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and it's impact on the saline levels in the sea could also be catastrophic as it is the salt levels within the sea which cause water to flow around the world, specifically between the Pacific and Atlantic. The weather currents follows the sea currents.



That is a very interesting website. That the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased is clear. In fact that seems to me the only answer to my question, "What exactly is it that the global warming believers know ?" The next issues featured on the website are all about retreating glaciers, well I had already mentioned the fact that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more. That suggests to me that the process started well before the increase in carbon. (there are no pics of glaciers from 1700).

No one really knows what the significance of increased carbon in the atmosphere is. The climate models being used have no evidence base, and pretending that they do has made a lot of people sceptical. Until recently the effects of the ocean as a carbon sink was ignored, there is no reason to believe that current models which incorporate that effect do so correctly. As for plate tectonics role in carbon, well I was unaware of that, I don't believe that it features in current climate models, perhaps it should, but to what effect?

Michael O Learys comment that "these guys cannot tell us if it will rain next tuesday" was dismissed as flippant, but it is an important point that current models of weather are very poor beyond about 3 days. In reality they amount to little more than asking, where is the wind coming from, and predicting that the weather there, will be the weather here, soon. Science has been trying to predict the weather, (as distinct from climate) for at least a century, and we are still not much good at it.

And people expect the world to change based on models for climate, which seem to me to be less well developed, and inherently more difficult.


----------



## Purple (11 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> No one really knows what the significance of increased carbon in the atmosphere is.


 Yes they do. It is beyond doubt that increasing levels of carbon cause the planet to warm up. The effect can be demonstrated in a lab. What other factors influence climate change is still not fully understood.



cremeegg said:


> Michael O Learys comment that "these guys cannot tell us if it will rain next tuesday" was dismissed as flippant, but it is an important point that current models of weather are very poor beyond about 3 days.


 It is utterly flippant. Predicting short term weather patterns and longer term changes to global climate are entirely different things.


----------



## cremeegg (11 May 2016)

Purple said:


> Yes they do. It is beyond doubt that increasing levels of carbon cause the planet to warm up. The effect can be demonstrated in a lab. What other factors influence climate change is still not fully understood.
> 
> It is utterly flippant. Predicting short term weather patterns and longer term changes to global climate are entirely different things.



Predicting both short term weather patterns and long term changes to global climate have many things in common.

Both depend on building up mathematical models of the interaction of the various driving factors. This requires knowing what the factors are and what effect they have on the outcomes. At best we have only general ideas of what the driving factors are and less idea of how they interact. Your comment about the warming effect of carbon dioxide being demonstrated in a lab is only a little less ridiculous than the Dukes point about water down a sink.

The major difference between models of weather patterns and long term climate change is that results predicted by weather models can be tested in light of actual results. If my model predicts rain next Tuesday, I can use the actual weather outcome on next tuesday to improve my model. Long term climate change models cannot be tested in this way as they are long term.

After more than a century of developing scientific weather models we haven't achieved a reliable one yet.

The challenge to develop model of climate change is much more difficult. We know almost nothing about long term climate trends.


----------



## Purple (11 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Predicting both short term weather patterns and long term changes to global climate have many things in common.
> Both depend on building up mathematical models of the interaction of the various driving factors. This requires knowing what the factors are and what effect they have on the outcomes. At best we have only general ideas of what the driving factors are and less idea of how they interact.



No, predicting the weather in a specific area requires one to say what is going to happen based on specific local factors which are often extremely variable. Measuring climate change requires measuring what has happened based on the analysis of meta-data from multiple sources and disciplines over multiple locations over many years. There is enough data for it to be statistically robust.

The more local and specific the location the less data is available and so the less reliable the prediction can be. For example it is scientifically and statistically sound to say that next year it will rain more in Cork than in Dublin because for the last 100 years Cork has had more rain and we know the reason why this happens; the Gulf Stream. That doesn’t mean we can say that it will rain more in Cork at 2.35PM on the 18th of October. For the same reason predicting short term weather patterns and long term climate change are not the same thing.




cremeegg said:


> Your comment about the warming effect of carbon dioxide being demonstrated in a lab is only a little less ridiculous than the Dukes point about water down a sink.


 No, we know that increasing carbon dioxide in an atmosphere increases heat retention. That can be shown in a lab.




cremeegg said:


> The major difference between models of weather patterns and long term climate change is that results predicted by weather models can be tested in light of actual results. If my model predicts rain next Tuesday, I can use the actual weather outcome on next tuesday to improve my model. Long term climate change models cannot be tested in this way as they are long term.


See Cork/Dublin comment above.





cremeegg said:


> After more than a century of developing scientific weather models we haven't achieved a reliable one yet.


 Again, there is a major difference between longer term trends and short term occurrences. Apples and Oranges.




cremeegg said:


> The challenge to develop model of climate change is much more difficult. We know almost nothing about long term climate trends.


 Yes we do. We have masses of data! We know what factors have changed, how much they have changed and what the impact has been. What we can’t be quite sure of is if we know all of the factors which influence it and if major changes in one factor will impact on the whole process i.e. heating from CO2 causing he sea temperature to rise, moving the Gulf Stream, melting the Greenland ice cap causing a decrease in saline levels in the Atlantic causing the Gulf Stream to move more and changing deep water currents, changing the frequency and scale of El Niño. How does that all interact and feed back into the holistic climate loop, how does it impact on water temperatures and thus cloud formation and thus rainfall and thus food production and river flows and saline levels in the sea and fish life and plant life and animal life and increased desertification? etc. etc..


----------



## QED (13 May 2016)

It's a great day, thank God.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2016)

QED said:


> It's a great day, thank God.


I hope you're not being fascias or he'll punish you and make it rain! (or is that Ming the Merciless?).


----------



## Gerry Canning (16 May 2016)

We have just had a full week of sunshine and Mediterranean type weather here in Donegal.
You lot can blame Global warming if yous like .
For me its the fault of the Millenium Falcon in Malin Head.

May the force be with you.!
ps , still a great day , thank God.


----------



## Purple (16 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> May the force be with you.!
> ps , still a great day , thank God.


That's the religious version of mixing your metaphors!

Anyway, it's the doings of the Celestial Teapot you should be thanking.


----------



## Gerry Canning (17 May 2016)

Purple ,

As said before, you are an unconverted heathen !
Maybe I should say (may the faith be with you)
So have a nice day.


----------



## Dan Murray (18 May 2016)

The link below is a good summary of the threats posed by global warming. It addresses the urgency in which action is required in order for us all not to be attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis.

http://grist.org/climate-change/climate-change-is-simple-we-do-something-or-were-screwed/

I find these arguments much more compelling than those presented by the "sure there is nothing we can do about it" campers amongst us.

Finally, a point of clarification - climate change, in this context, is a derivative of global warming. No one is saying that we can change the weather (everyone accepts that's God's job)...........what environmentalists argue is that we have influence over our greenhouse gas emissions which in turn impacts on atmospheric temperatures which in turn influences weather and climate patterns.


----------



## PaddyW (19 May 2016)

Someone would want to have a word with God this morning, the rain is unacceptable!


----------



## Purple (19 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple ,
> 
> As said before, you are an unconverted heathen !


I am, thank God.


----------



## johnwilliams (20 May 2016)

here is a new study from nasa as to why the arctic ice cap is melting and the antarctic ice cap is slightly growing  http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-helps-explain-sea-ice-differences-at-earths-poles


----------



## Dan Murray (21 May 2016)

johnwilliams said:


> here is a new study from nasa.........



In fairness john, it's a hard one to call. Who should the non-scientist amongst us give more credence to?
Lots of questions arise: NASA or Healy Rae; NASA or Trump?

If I had to call it - and I understand that this may well give some tolerant folk the pip, may even be seen as arrogance and indeed hubris - but I'm tilting towards NASA for some reason that I just can't quite put me toe on at all at all....


----------



## cremeegg (21 May 2016)

Dan Murray said:


> In fairness john, it's a hard one to call. Who should the non-scientist amongst us give more credence to?
> Lots of questions arise: NASA or Healy Rae; NASA or Trump?



But what are NASA saying. Having looked at their website as suggested by Purple, it seems to me that all they are saying is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

They are not saying how this has happened.

They are not saying that this has an overriding influence on the climate.

They are not saying what we could or should do in response to this increase in CO2 levels.

They are not saying that we need to create a panic of over reaction.


----------



## Dan Murray (21 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> But what are NASA saying. Having looked at their website as suggested by Purple, it seems to me that......



Eh no - this is getting a little farcical and depressing. Cremmeegg, have you honestly taken the trouble to visit the NASA site? I would urge you to take the time to familiarise yourself with its content. Please look, in particular, at this section which explains the evidence, the causes, the effects, the scientific consensus, etc.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Let me take quote just one extract which addresses a lot of your questions....

*Is it too late to prevent climate change?*

_Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.

In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 *°*C (10.8 *°*F), according to the latest estimates. Some scientists argue a “global disaster” is already unfolding at the poles of the planet; the Arctic, for example, may be ice-free in the summer within just a few years. Yet other experts are concerned about Earth passing one or more “tipping points” – abrupt, perhaps irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state.

But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach: 1) “mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and 2) “adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is: what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come? Recycling and driving more fuel-efficient cars are examples of important behavioral change that will help, but they will not be enough. Because climate change is a truly global, complex problem with economic, social, political and moral ramifications, the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next._


----------



## cremeegg (21 May 2016)

Im sorry but this is just verbiage. It does not address anything



Dan Murray said:


> Let me take quote just one extract which addresses a lot of your questions....
> 
> *Is it too late to prevent climate change?*
> 
> _Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, _



What evidence is this statement based on ?


_


Dan Murray said:



			and we have set in motion more changes still.
		
Click to expand...


and again what evidence?




Dan Murray said:



			Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries.
		
Click to expand...

_
Hold on now, we have gone from_, "major climate change" which has seemingly happened already. While there may be evidence for this I just ask where; to "global warming would continue", well without a proven cause and effect, a demonstrable model, this is just speculation.

Now NASA is entitled to speculate, but I ask where is the evidence and so far no one is pointing me to it.



Dan Murray said:



			That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.
		
Click to expand...


Complete speculation. there seems to be no evidence, any model can only be speculative and who knows what is in the model. Let me ask you does the above statement take into account the plate tectonic effects on CO2 levels. 



Dan Murray said:



			In the absence of major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by an average of 6 *°*C (10.8 *°*F), according to the latest estimates.
		
Click to expand...


Why 6 degrees, why not 3 or 9. Cause the model predicts 6, but the model is just made up.



Dan Murray said:



			Some scientists argue a “global disaster” is already unfolding at the poles of the planet; the Arctic, for example, may be ice-free in the summer within just a few years.
		
Click to expand...


And the antarctic ice sheet is reported to be growing. So what, no one knows what this means.



Dan Murray said:



			Yet other experts are concerned about Earth passing one or more “tipping points” – abrupt, perhaps irreversible changes that tip our climate into a new state.
		
Click to expand...

_
"Yet other experts", come on thats really feeble.

I know that CO2 levels have increased since the 1950s cause a Californian called Dave Keeling went and measured them in Hawaii, and there is a continuous record of CO2 levels in the atmosphere since then, but what other evidence is there, serious question.

A respect for science relies on opinions or conclusions based on evidence, not on the reputation of the organisations holding particular views. Now I am as concerned for the future as anyone, and I recognise the usefulness of the precautionary principle, but the whole climate change panic seems to me to have far outstripped the evidence.


----------



## cremeegg (21 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> CO2 levels have increased since the 1950s... a Californian called Dave Keeling went and measured them in Hawaii,



As an aside atmospheric CO2 is measured using a "non-dispersive infrared sensor" an apparatus invented by Carlow born John Tyndall. In this global warming discussion let us not forget the parochial.


----------



## Dan Murray (22 May 2016)

My dear Cremeegg

Earlier, you said NASA did not address certain questions.

I provided you with a single extract from the FAQ section which happened to address the majority of these questions in a simple and accessible manner for general consumption - together with a link to much more general and technical resources. You may not be happy with the answers in the simplified extract provided but please acknowledge that your previous assertion of NASA being silent on these matters was simply false (........or do you deny this also??!!). This, honestly, would be very much appreciated.

Now you are questioning the quality of these answers (in one purposely simple extract)??!! I am not an environmental scientist - I very much suspect that you are not also - so there's no point in us trying out-_blind men of Indostan_ each other at this stage. That said, I'd be interested to learn where exactly you find fault with the NASA findings, in this context, in relation to the South Pole. Please specify.

In the link that I provided, there is incredibly strong evidence of the consensus view of the scientific community in support of global warming being a function of our greenhouse gas emissions. Please advise whether you accept this?

The point I was making earlier is that, for the non-scientist, it comes down to who you trust as being the best authority on such subjects: NASA or Healy Rae; NASA or Trump (......where NASA is proxy for the scientific community more broadly, and Healy Rae et al are proxy for......well, it's late and I've had a beer, so I'll not elaborate)

Your initial response was that it was not clear where NASA stood in relation to these matters (as in.....they are not saying thisthatandtother). Presumably, you now accept that this is simply false. So, we are left with the question I posed earlier: who should we give more credence to? If you choose to subscribe to the Healy Rae and Trump views, that is completely your prerogative. I will place my trust in alternative sources.


----------



## cremeegg (22 May 2016)

Dan Murray said:


> In the link that I provided, there is incredibly strong evidence of the consensus view of the scientific community in support of global warming being a function of our greenhouse gas emissions. Please advise whether you accept this?



Of course I recognise that there is strong evidence of the consensus view of the scientific community in support of global warming. I am merely asking what that consensus is based on.

What evidence has been gathered that supports this consensus, and what model explains this evidence in a way that supports the idea of global warming.

The evidence for increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear. Excellent measurements have been taken by the US NOAA (National Oceanic and Athmospheric Administration) since 1958.

Early models climate models assumed that man made CO2 emissions would lead to corresponding increases in atmospheric, when this was found not to be the case, the models were subsequently changed to include the carbon sink effect of the ocean.

So we don't understand very well how man made CO2 emissions effect atmospheric CO2 levels. 

As for any effect this may have on climate, well I think we know even less. 

As a straight forward question, not my only question just my first question, what evidence is there form global warming actually happening.


----------



## Dan Murray (22 May 2016)

Cremeegg

Before I go to the trouble of commenting further, can you address the two points I asked that you have ignored please?



Dan Murray said:


> .....please acknowledge that your previous assertion of NASA being silent on these matters was simply false



and



Dan Murray said:


> That said, I'd be interested to learn where exactly you find fault with the NASA findings, in this context, in relation to the South Pole. Please specify.


----------



## Purple (23 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> As a straight forward question, not my only question just my first question, what evidence is there form global warming actually happening.


Read this.
The evidence is there and it get stronger all the time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 May 2016)

_Purple_ interesting link.  But it focuses entirely on whether or no there is AGW. I would like to see the case for why this is bad.  The link starts off telling us how essential GHG have been for life on Earth then makes the scientific case that we are increasing this same good thing.

I grant that NASA are better than DHR or the Donald at interpreting scientific phenomena but I treat their speculative predictions with skepticism. Have you ever seen how demographic predictions have turned out? Hopelessly wrong.  Similarly macro economic predictions are a waste of space. Weather forecasting is similarly very primitive.

With the notable exception of Newton's prediction of the movement of the heavenly bodies scientists have in general been quite unable to predict the future.


----------



## Purple (23 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ interesting link.  But it focuses entirely on whether or no there is AGW. I would like to see the case for why this is bad.  The link starts off telling us how essential GHG have been for life on Earth then makes the scientific case that we are increasing this same good thing.


Are you looking for scientific evidence of global warming, manmade global warming or reasons why climate change (getting hotter) is a bad thing?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I grant that NASA are better than DHR or the Donald at interpreting scientific phenomena but I treat their speculative predictions with skepticism. Have you ever seen how demographic predictions have turned out? Hopelessly wrong.  Similarly macro economic predictions are a waste of space. Weather forecasting is similarly very primitive.


 Weather forecasting is not a marco predictive model. Climate change is. Their predictions on changes to the Greenland Ice Cap have been stop on so far. Chances to habitat, migratory patterns and animal population movements have also been accurate.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> With the notable exception of Newton's prediction of the movement of the heavenly bodies scientists have in general been quite unable to predict the future.



Newton was only expanding on the work of Johannes Kepler. 

Dmitri Mendeleev designed the Periodic Table with enough space for 100 or so elements even though only 60 were known at the time (1860's, I think).
Tesla predicted mobile phones in the 1900's.
Also look at; the prediction that atoms existed, the expanding universe, black holes, the big bang etc. These are things which were hypothesized but unproven at the time they were thought up. 

Than again it's not about predicting the future, it's about looking at what's happening now and assessing the results. Those results will be in the future.
These include warnings about over-fishing, over hunting, cutting down rain forests, obesity being the biggest health problem we in the West will face within the next decade or two and the existence and impact of man made global warming.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 May 2016)

_Purple_ I accept the scientific evidence of what is happening re GW.

Absolutely I am sceptical of the Armageddon predictions. Your link argues forcibly that GHG are what makes a lot of this planet hospitable to human existence, but not all.  Couldn't this "blanket" if strengthened make even more of the Earth's surface hospitable?

I was never completely convinced by the adage that you can have too much of a good thing.

On Kepler v Newton, the former observed some empirical historic facts. It was Newton who derived the math to predict eclipses etc into the future.

I note your rejection of the existence of a God. But you seem to have an equivalent faith in the concept of Nature. This seems to me to be arguing that Nature has found a perfect balance and that Man by his behaviour is offending Nature and woe betide him/her for doing so. Really are you much different from DHR?


----------



## cremeegg (23 May 2016)

Purple said:


> Read this.
> The evidence is there and it get stronger all the time.



Excellent link Purple.

From it I learned

1.  Scientists have seen over the last few decades a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. *More energy is remaining in the atmosphere*. 

2.* Green House Gases can trap heat in the atmosphere*. {I already knew that but "can" is not the same as "have been shown to significantly"}

3. *CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years. *{this is dubious, but what is not questionable is that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 315 parts per million to 400ppm since 1958}

4. *Most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. *

Points 1 and 4 are fascinating. I had no idea that either of these things had been demonstrated. It certainly confirms my belief that the average greenie hasn't a clue, why don't they know these things. But it certainly does show me that atmospheric CO2 levels may have a significant effect on temperature.

Now Purple go on and show me where the evidence is that the globe has actually been warming, with some indication of the significance of the timescale.


----------



## elacsaplau (23 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> I had no idea that either of these things had been demonstrated.



So you question the general wisdom of the scientific community without being aware of the most basic tenets of the argument. Oh dear Lord. I can see the appeal of DHR to you


----------



## Purple (24 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Now Purple go on and show me where the evidence is that the globe has actually been warming, with some indication of the significance of the timescale.


Bugger off and do your own research.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note your rejection of the existence of a God. But you seem to have an equivalent faith in the concept of Nature. This seems to me to be arguing that Nature has found a perfect balance and that Man by his behaviour is offending Nature and woe betide him/her for doing so. Really are you much different from DHR?


Nature got along fine before we were here and will get along just fine after we are gone.
We aren't "hurting" nature, rather we are making our own ability to live here harder.
We will not destroy human life but we will cause suffering and hardship to hundreds of millions of people as the habitable areas of the planet change location.


----------



## cremeegg (24 May 2016)

Purple said:


> Bugger off and do your own research.



Maybe I will ask DHR for a pointer, whoever that maybe.


----------



## PaddyW (24 May 2016)

What I've found fascinating since I decided to do a little research on the matter is that for the most part, the 'Greenhouse Effect' is actually quite a good thing for humans as it keeps heat inside the atmosphere, that would otherwise escape and make earth uninhabitable. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum too much of this effect can be a bad thing.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2016)

PaddyW said:


> What I've found fascinating since I decided to do a little research on the matter is that for the most part, the 'Greenhouse Effect' is actually quite a good thing for humans as it keeps heat inside the atmosphere, that would otherwise escape and make earth uninhabitable. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum too much of this effect can be a bad thing.


Yep, that's the whole point of the debate.

If I remember correctly the surface temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere would be around -18°C. That's about 30°C lower than it is today. I'm open to correction on that.


----------



## PaddyW (25 May 2016)

Yes, you're right with -18c


----------



## johnwilliams (27 May 2016)

came across this yestereday
i admit some of it above my head (heavy reading for me )  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
basically i think what it means earth is like a wobbling spinning top with light/heat (sun) shining on small spot
so as sunlight gets closer to north pole heats and release ice ,gets further away from south pole colder gains ice and vice versa ,same with our eliptical  orbit of sun ,closer to sun warms up further away cools down


----------



## Dan Murray (28 May 2016)

johnwilliams said:


> came across this yestereday
> i admit some of it above my head (heavy reading for me )  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
> basically i think what it means earth is like a wobbling spinning top with light/heat (sun) shining on small spot
> so as sunlight gets closer to north pole heats and release ice ,gets further away from south pole colder gains ice and vice versa ,same with our eliptical  orbit of sun ,closer to sun warms up further away cools down



Heavy stuff indeed.

My take-aways are that:

1. It's another example of a scientific hypothesis which has subsequently achieved majority acceptance with the scientific community; and

2. It further supports that argument of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## S.L.F (11 Jun 2016)

God.....you mean Putin


----------



## elacsaplau (27 Sep 2016)

There was me thinking Trump was a Climate Change Denier.

Watching the debate last night and reading this morning about comedic attempts to hide the relevant evidence, it seems like he is now a Denier of being a Climate Change Denier.

Maybe someone had a quiet word with him in recent months and explained the science a little?

Fearful as I am of climate change, it's arguably more scary that this idiot has a shot at becoming President. For clarity, what's scary is not that an idiot is going for office - lots of idiots do that. The scary bits are that so many people are prepared to vote for him and what he might to do if he ever did hold the reins.


----------

