• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Penk Wolf said:
I think it is.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right,the worry is that the warm ocean streams will stop (or go elsewhere) when the water up here warms up more and more...then it will probably get quite a bit colder.
 
Penk Wolf said:
I think it is.
Click to expand...

The concern is that there are certain parts of the world that, if they heat up too much, will make the process irreversible. For example, siberian methane deposits under the permafrost, which would amplify the effect of AGW. Theres also enough ice in antarctica to raise global sea levels by about 60 metres, and 65 million tonnes of it is melting every year....
 
Visage said:
The concern is that there are certain parts of the world that, if they heat up too much, will make the process irreversible. For example, siberian methane deposits under the permafrost, which would amplify the effect of AGW. Theres also enough ice in antarctica to raise global sea levels by about 60 metres, and 65 million tonnes of it is melting every year....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I appreciate that, but the only two things that I moan about is cold weather and HMRC, so if anything can be done to eradicate those two then I'm afraid I'll be selfish about it.

Is there not an argument that the artic is freezing over as quick as the Antarctica?

Also, is it not just a progression that has been happening since before the ice age?

I'll be honest, I've not read into it or shown any interest in it, so my second question might be very stupid.
 
Penk Wolf said:
Yeah, I appreciate that, but the only two things that I moan about is cold weather and HMRC, so if anything can be done to eradicate those two then I'm afraid I'll be selfish about it.

Is there not an argument that the artic is freezing over as quick as the Antarctica?

Also, is it not just a progression that has been happening since before the ice age?

I'll be honest, I've not read into it or shown any interest in it, so my second question might be very stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, the arctic is rather moot - its effectively a big floating iceberg, so as the ice melts/refreezes on a seasonal basis it doesnt really affect sea levels (its like an ice cube melting in a glass). The antarctic, howevere, is a couple of thousand metres oif ice sat on top of rock. If it melts into the sea we're screwed. It wont happen in our lifetimes, but over the next few hundred years?

Your second question isnt stupid - there have indeed been big climate shifts in the past, long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference here is that while these changes happended over hundreds of thousands of years, the changes we're seeing now will happen over the course of decades. It was considerably easier for prehistoric hunter-gatherers to simply migrate elsewhere over a few generations than it would be to move London to higher ground by 2100.
 
Visage said:
Well, the arctic is rather moot - its effectively a big floating iceberg, so as the ice melts/refreezes on a seasonal basis it doesnt really affect sea levels (its like an ice cube melting in a glass). The antarctic, howevere, is a couple of thousand metres oif ice sat on top of rock. If it melts into the sea we're screwed. It wont happen in our lifetimes, but over the next few hundred years?

Your second question isnt stupid - there have indeed been big climate shifts in the past, long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference here is that while these changes happended over hundreds of thousands of years, the changes we're seeing now will happen over the course of decades. It was considerably easier for prehistoric hunter-gatherers to simply migrate elsewhere over a few generations than it would be to move London to higher ground by 2100.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

So, London sinking would be an added bonus. :)
 
Visage said:
Well, the arctic is rather moot - its effectively a big floating iceberg, so as the ice melts/refreezes on a seasonal basis it doesnt really affect sea levels (its like an ice cube melting in a glass). The antarctic, howevere, is a couple of thousand metres oif ice sat on top of rock. If it melts into the sea we're screwed. It wont happen in our lifetimes, but over the next few hundred years?

Your second question isnt stupid - there have indeed been big climate shifts in the past, long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The difference here is that while these changes happended over hundreds of thousands of years, the changes we're seeing now will happen over the course of decades. It was considerably easier for prehistoric hunter-gatherers to simply migrate elsewhere over a few generations than it would be to move London to higher ground by 2100.
Click to expand...

London being consumed by 2100 just isn't going to happen. Sea level rise isn't accelerating and might be considered to be no more than 3mm/year if it has any meaning at all given that the ocean basins and land are by no means constant. Business as usual for this interglacial, enjoy it while it lasts.
No evidence exists that todays dynamics exceed natural variation. Human influence itself is just a part of the biosphere influence since life first appeared on the planet. Vis it is dishonest to suggest that natural climate cycles and changes cannot be shorter term, we are dealing with a complex chaotic system. Millennial and multi-decadal cycles are easily identified as well as effects such as ENSO (not so regular). Delta T will vary according to the phase relationship of these and we haven't considered solar effects yet (don't try to dismiss them).
 
Last edited:
Sorry for what might seem a 'stupid' question, but why are things worse now than say the Victorian / Industrial revolution era when everything was coal driven ?
 
Because we use so much more fossil fuels than then. DOnt forget that back then we didnt have billions of cars, electricity generation was minimal etc.

320px-Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg.png
 

Attachments

  • 320px-Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg.png
    320px-Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg.png
    15.2 KB · Views: 15
So its basically been rising exponentially since the war ?
 
Yup. And the effect on atmospheric CO2 is striking:

co2_data_mlo.png
 
Visage said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588

Getting warmer...
Click to expand...

Usual BBC bias on the subject with quotes from the usual useful idiots. NOAA/NASA coveniently forget to mention the measurement margins and error bands. A couple of hundreths of a Kelvin do not strike me a significant over the last 18 years when the error margins are of the order of +/- 0.1 K.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/giss-hottest-year-claims-not-supported-by-the-data/

The claims are also based on the adjusted surface data. While there are very good reasons to make adjustments because of instrumentation changes or site changes it remains a matter of opinion as to those changes. The well calibrated RSS and UAH satellite records show no warming whatsoever for the last 18 years.
BTW your carbon dioxide graph only illustrates the small quantity of life essential carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you have an issue with so called greenhouse gases try the far more significant water vapour. The whole nonsense depends on an unproven positive feedback to this.
 
Visage said:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/george-osborne-ministers-fast-track-fracking

So the government are now engaged in environmental terrorism. Nice.
Click to expand...

if we're gonna muck around with the ground we ought to be developing this. i've not seen the costs of it but no doubt they'd decrease over time.

can deliver green, baseload energy and just needs the right sort of rock. of course it would also be considered fracking.

https://gigaom.com/2013/01/24/a-quiet-breakthrough-in-geothermal-power-tech/
 
Renewable, non polluting, predictable. Nice!
 
there is a company (at least 1) looking at it over here. its being used in the states but my understanding is it's struggling to compete for attention against the oil & gas lobby. i mean if it works and can compete on cost then it would be better than fracking for gas. but i suspect the cost base is a few years off. geothermal would be 'subsidised' under the CfD regime as an emerging tech, at least initially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top