Hello to all you massively intelligent people, how are we?

So, climate change, hot topic right now (don't excuse the pun). I guess you could say that I am a sceptic, not in the sense that I deny that the climate is changing, of course it is. More that I do not believe that we are as responsible as we are led to believe.

I am no scientist, but I do enjoy reading up on these kind of things, so.... I'd like to be enlightened, as I'm not sure my understanding of the subject is as it should be and, from what i can gather in my fleeting moments here, there are some people with very large brains here. (No, not you GodsChild)

So, we are being told that the polar ice caps are melting and that this is our fault. As far as I am aware, the Earth has had 5 ice ages, an ice age being defined by any period where we have Ice and/or snow on its surface. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, or thereabouts. of that 4.6 billion years, for 98.something% of its life no snow or ice existed on its surface.

10,000 years ago Britain was covered in ice, it isn't any longer. Since that period the ice caps have been getting steadily smaller, yet, if we are to believe what is reported in the media, we can stop this, if only we stop pumping Co2 into the atmosphere.... this doesn't make any sense to me, at all. The ice caps are going to melt, as they have done before and, hopefully, will do again.

I am no scientist, as you've probably gathered, but am genuinely interested in being educated, it's one of the reasons I came here. So, if any experts are out there, I'd love your input.

Cheers
Hoopy Baby

The decline in alkalinity of sea water is going to turn out to be a bigger disaster anyhow, I don't see the point in getting my panties in a knot over global warming.

(May 27, 2014 at 11:26 am)Hoopington Wrote: More that I do not believe that we are as responsible as we are led to believe.

The evidence says the Earth's Climate is changing. It says the climate is probably changing at a pace faster than at any point previous in the Earth's history. The evidence also says human activity is the main reason for the current upward trend in temperatures.

Yes the Earth's climate has changed before. Yes the Earth's climate will probably change again with or without human interference. That does not mean humans can not affect the Earth's climate. Nor does it mean the current changes are not anthropic in origin.

If you want to educate yourself about the evidence for anthropic climate change and the likely consequences, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report would be a good place to start.

Another good site:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...tart-here/

(May 27, 2014 at 2:09 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 11:26 am)Hoopington Wrote: More that I do not believe that we are as responsible as we are led to believe.

The evidence says the Earth's Climate is changing. It says the climate is probably changing at a pace faster than at any point previous in the Earth's history. The evidence also says human activity is the main reason for the current upward trend in temperatures.

Yes the Earth's climate has changed before. Yes the Earth's climate will probably change again with or without human interference. That does not mean humans can not affect the Earth's climate. Nor does it mean the current changes are not anthropic in origin.

If you want to educate yourself about the evidence for anthropic climate change and the likely consequences, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report would be a good place to start.

Anthropic......you think the climate is changing because of us, or do you think we are accelerating change that was already occurring?

Would there be any difference between the outcome or responsibility in either case?

It seems to me that the average man on the street is much better at determining long term climate changes, and their causation, than a large body of scientists who have spent decades studying it. All this by sticking their finger out of the window and invoking childhood memories of sunny summers - remarkable!

(May 28, 2014 at 4:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Would there be any difference between the outcome or responsibility in either case?

Ah, and now we stumble across the point that annoys me most about all this.

What are we doing about it? Making money, taxing individuals and businesses under the premise that something can be done, that we can save the polar ice caps and stop vast swathes of land being immersed under water.

Yet we can't, we know that if and when they melt, that x inches will be added to sea levels and as a result, massive areas of populated land will be buried under water. This will happen, probably in my lifetime. Yet I haven't seen a single plan for any contingencies when it does.

Nope, but I am taxed a "green" tax on pretty much everything I buy. Is this money being put into a pot to help compensate those who might lose their homes or business? Are woefully inadequate flood defences being re-enforced?

---

(May 28, 2014 at 4:42 am)FreeTony Wrote: It seems to me that the average man on the street is much better at determining long term climate changes, and their causation, than a large body of scientists who have spent decades studying it. All this by sticking their finger out of the window and invoking childhood memories of sunny summers - remarkable!

I'm not entirely sure of your point.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:26 am)Hoopington Wrote: Anthropic......you think the climate is changing because of us, or do you think we are accelerating change that was already occurring?

You really should read what was linked for you. Natural mechanisms can't explain the rate of change. Stating that we are only accelerating change, although technically correct when only considering the average temperature increase, is also a little disingenuous. Nobody was burning fossil fuels before us so already ocurring loses some of its luster. The other problem is that if we curtail GHG emissions, the environment will take some time to correct itself. The source of heat doesn't immediately dissipate as if turning off a stove burner.

The rate is no trivial matter. Those that say we are just accelerating what would have happened anyway are essentially saying that teenage suicide is the same as dying at 80 from natural causes.

The premise that we can do something works when it applies. What's the alternative, nothing? If you felt that tax dollars were going where they ought to rather than greasing wheels...would you feel that these programs were worthwhile investments?