Only God controls the weather

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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.


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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
cremeegg said:
No one really knows what the significance of increased carbon in the atmosphere is.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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


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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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..
 
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 ,

As said before, you are an unconverted heathen !
Maybe I should say (may the faith be with you)
So have a nice day.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone would want to have a word with God this morning, the rain is unacceptable!
 
johnwilliams said:
here is a new study from nasa.........
Click to expand...

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....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register