Global warming

[Tony Williams]

Not strictly on-topic, but it might be of interest. I've put a summary of the current issues around global warming (especially for SF writers) on my website, here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Global%20warming.htm

[Trinoc]

Please let us not have a climate change denial thread!

[Tomolac]

Tony is talking about man made global warming (all though titled as simply global warming, tit for tat to most I know), not climate change.

[Tony Williams]

Tony is talking about man made global warming (all though titled as simply global warming, tit for tat to most I know), not climate change.

Well, climate change is a consequence of global warming (which is simply concerned with the increase in the average surface temperature of the planet). This warming has the effect of disrupting existing climate patterns in ways which are difficult to predict precisely but will vary from region to region.

[Tomolac]

climate change is a consequence of global warming

isn't that kind of like saying wet is a consequence of water.

This warming has the effect of disrupting existing climate patterns in ways which are difficult to predict precisely but will vary from region to region.

unless the pattern was already warming, then that's like saying a planes wings disrupts the planes flying pattern.

[Tony Williams]

The distinction seems clear enough to me.

"Climate change" encompasses the fact that both temperature and rainfall patterns are expected to change (indeed, are already changing). So some areas will become much drier and others wetter. And within the overall average increase in temperature, some areas (e.g. the Arctic) are warming up much more quickly than others. In fact, if the concerns about the stopping of the North Atlantic Drift prove justified, NW Europe might actually become cooler for a while.

"Global warming" just provides the heat engine which is driving these climatic changes.

[Tomolac]

and here's me foolishly thinking global warming is an effect.

[Trinoc]

All these things are both causes and effects - it's a feedback loop. The only real dispute (which I'm not going to get into debating) is whether the feedback was kicked into an ascending phase by us or by natural processes - though I can't see how the answer to that question affects whether or not we should be doing something about it.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

All these things are both causes and effects - it's a feedback loop. The only real dispute (which I'm not going to get into debating) is whether the feedback was kicked into an ascending phase by us or by natural processes - though I can't see how the answer to that question affects whether or not we should be doing something about it.

Because its all a big con by the government to raise taxes, therefore we should not do anything. Or so I keep hearing elsewhere.

[Tony Williams]

and here's me foolishly thinking global warming is an effect.

It's a chain of effects: industrialisation and the growing population combine to produce more CO2 -> increased levels of atmospheric CO2 increase the global average temperature -> the increase in temperature drives climate change.

Because its all a big con by the government to raise taxes, therefore we should not do anything. Or so I keep hearing elsewhere.

Skeptics examine the evidence rather than listening to gossip and rumour. The evidence that human activities are a significant contributor to the changing global temperatures is strong enough to convince over 97% of climate reserchers polled in a recent survey.

[Trinoc]

Skeptics examine the evidence rather than listening to gossip and rumour. The evidence that human activities are a significant contributor to the changing global temperatures is strong enough to convince over 97% of climate reserchers polled in a recent survey.

I think Farside was in need of an irony smiley. Someone on the SGU forum suggested

[Tomolac]

Skeptics examine the evidence rather than listening to gossip and rumour. The evidence that human activities are a significant contributor to the changing global temperatures is strong enough to convince over 97% of climate reserchers polled in a recent survey.

and of course to question this popularity contest method means you must be the kind to believe

its all a big con by the government to raise taxes, therefore we should not do anything. Or so I keep hearing elsewhere.

so lets not bother with the actual evidence because its just sooo conspiracy theorist, the media says all the scientist agree so lets just go with that.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I think Farside was in need of an irony smiley. Someone on the SGU forum suggested

Yes, of course I don't really believe that, but it is a common argument.

[Tony Williams]

and of course to question this popularity contest method means you must be the kind to believe

So let's see; you regard the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field as being a "popularity contest" and therefore invalid? Presumably you have no truck with these notions that Earth might not be flat: after all, something like 100% of planetary scientists think it isn't flat, so that must be invalid - right?

so lets not bother with the actual evidence because its just sooo conspiracy theorist, the media says all the scientist agree so lets just go with that.

Actual evidence? You mean the sort that over 97% of climate scientists think is nonsense? I suggest you follow some of the links I posted in my web article. In particular, THIS one.

There is skepticism, and then there is wilful and obstinate rejection of overwhelming evidence.

[Tomolac]

So let's see; you regard the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field as being a "popularity contest" and therefore invalid? Presumably you have no truck with these notions that Earth might not be flat: after all, something like 100% of planetary scientists think it isn't flat, so that must be invalid - right?

yes yes of course I'm being narrow minded to expect evidence for things, like that for the earth being round, I should just accept the opinion that the opinions are undivided and except it no matter what the evidence says. after all science is a democratic process, right?

Actual evidence? You mean the sort that over 97% of climate scientists think is nonsense? I suggest you follow some of the links I posted in my web article. In particular, THIS one.

I've looked at your links with the exception of the ipcc one, and I don't consider counter points to be evidence. nor is there any mention of what these 97% of scientists accept.

There is skepticism, and then there is wilful and obstinate rejection of overwhelming evidence.

of course if I don't agree with you I'm narrow minded and in denial...