IPCC Report on Climate Change

If you want an easier to understand document, here is a lecture pdf from the UK Met Office Hadley centre. It's a pretty large (4MB) pdf document, so takes quite a while to download (you might think it's frozen, but gets there eventually)

Not as up to date, but full of facts
pdf file here
 
[ QUOTE ]
Weeks? Upon which calculations is this statement of fact based? Total rubbish, as is often spouted in these kinds of debates.


[/ QUOTE ]

The comment came from the same David Attenborough programme others have referred to, the one where he stands in front of a power station's cooling towers to imply the steam is CO2. The one that gave alarming figures for how many new coal fired power stations China opens every year.

If the figures are incorrect Brendan then please give the correct ones as I only have access to media supplied information, most of which is getting more and more hysterical by the day.
 
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is probably solveable

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Wake up and smell the coffee.

The little piddling attempts that governments are even discussing, let alone achieving will do sod all to alter climate change, because that is what is happening, with or without man's intervention.

Go out on a clear night and look up at the the star-filled sky and realise how bloody insignificant we are.

Don't waste effort trying to change it. By all means make the best of what's left. Don't waste finite resources; but don't imagine that all will be OK when we all start driving electric cars.
 
This is why I don't get involved. People make ridiculous statements, then rely on you to prove otherwise. I very much doubt Attenborough said that at all, just your interpretation of what he said. They may be growing their coal powerstations etc, but not enough to replace the whole of the UK emissions if we totally stopped in the space of weeks.

The last official figures I had show that South Africa still has more coal powered production of electricity than China, despite it's grown. In fact Chinese coal used peaked in 1996, dipped dramatically, before growing again, as they took offline some of their most ineffecient power stations, and replaced them with newer more efficient ones.
 
So the CFC ban was useless was it? Prediction is now it Ozone layer recover to pre CFC levels by about 2050 (can't remember details) and that is better than last predicion of a few years ago, due directly to not putting CFC's into atmosphere in the levels were were doing
 
Not only this, but correct me if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), petroleum is the raw material of almost all plastic. Burning fuel oil is like throwing furniture into the fireplace. If this is true, future generations will be cursing us for this waste.

Not that I wouldn't like returning to metal, wood, leather, wool, cotton etc. but everything will become more expensive and this will lead to lower production scale and (worst scenario) return to the times where only rich people could afford 'things'. Plus, some synthetic materials cannot be substituted by natural ones.
 
[ QUOTE ]
due directly to not putting CFC's into atmosphere in the levels were were doing

[/ QUOTE ] Oh? More assumptions I fear.
The ozone hole seals and opens every year on a cyclical basis. And the scientists say they can't explain why or predict the effect.

That from one of the reports you pointed me to.
 
and which you obviously didn't understand completely. Yes, it's annually cyclical. However, it's now predicted to return to it's pre CFC levels.
 
The international nature of the perceived cure for the perceived problem requires action from government.

Within this country the British government have their greatest degree of freedom to take action and yet this is their proposed solution for housing which has been a failure thus far.

If we increased the country's timber acreage to the 35% European average we would be able to heat perhaps 10% of our homes in this way.

Transport and industrial energy requirements would then have to come from somewhere else entirely.
 
Oh perhaps you didn't understand what was being said.

There's no point in trying to persuade someone like me that you are right. Some people read reports in a supportive frame of mind and some in a cynical frame of mind.
Each garners the facts they wish to see.

I have a cynical nature, born of being a human being and having watched and dealt with humans all of my life. The fact that governments are becoming involved in this whole concern convinces me that I should be as cynical as possible.
 
what is the point in reading scientific reports, if you just take a few bits out of it, and ignore the message of the whole. Those people spent a lot of time putting it together to make coherent sense as a whole. The fact that the ozone hole in antartica is cyclical is now well known, yet you have only taken that fact (already known) and ignored the basis of the rest of the document.
 
Bollocks, as you well know. If you accept the conclusions of these reports in toto then you're a fool. They are politically skewed.

I'm not going to carry on with these discussions as they are merely gainsaying conversations between entrenched factions.
 
I'm guessing you don't have the scientific background to be able to read scientific reports and make sense of them. They don't make a great deal of sense to lay people without the background to understand how they are written.

The report you are referring to has no political allegiances, and is reporting purely on antartic survey data, by the British Antarctic Survey scientists.

This is no conversation to me, I'm trying to introduce facts from accredited people, into a debate largely fueled by people who have done no research into facts, and are going by gut instinct.
 
Yes - I totally agree with that too. Given how important oil products are to our modern life it seems criminal just to burn it.
 
That is one of the craziest ideas this government has had - and that's saying something. Yes saying energy is important - but this is taking things too far. We have to have zero carbon electricity - and once you've got that energy efficiency becomes much less of a global warming issue.
 
Brendan, I think that you just won't get through with normal rational arguments in some cases. Don't get worked up about it. If it all gets too much, just stand under the night sky and take a deep breath, look up at God's Daisy Chain, and realise how insignificant we all are, and that we can't influence the universe whatever we do - then perhaps you will at last fully appreciate the Beatrix Potter school of thought on climate change.

In the meantime, thanks for feeding us with links to some of the scientific reports.
 
I understand, and one of the reasons I normally stay out, as I've realised the futility of introducing facts.

Seeing so much rubbish talked tho, does get me to jump in once in a while and redress the one sided approach of many of these global warming threads.

Our context in the general universe is also one I ponder, and if I had any facts on that I'd gladly contribute, as it's been a keen interest for decades, tho one not likely to be solved in my lifetime unfortunately

No one ever takes these scientific links and tries to argue them, they simply refer to them later after having taken a point or two out of them. Why will no one go head on head with me, and argue the points?

Like Lakesailor, I'm out of this thread, as I won't be swayed from my factual point of view. Unlike his won't be swayed as bigoted standpoint.
 
[ QUOTE ]
their remit for these series of reports is not for non scientists. If they have to phrase the reports in baby language for the press, then they are not doing their actual job. It all makes sense for the people it's aimed at.

It's for others to put it all in to baby language, but then the details will be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. I am technical and understand most of it but the scientists must learn to communicate in plain language so they can tell ordinary people what is happening and what needs to be done. If you leave it to journalists looking for sound bites you will get all sorts of confusion and garbage reported.

Don't denigrate plain language by calling it 'baby language'. It is, after all, the 'babies' who pay the scientists, who do the polluting and whose cooperation is needed to solve the problem!
 
Sadly, Brendon is quite right and the majority of people posting on this thread are simply incapable of integrating a complex set of information.

I have stayed out of it too as I find it deeply frustrating and depressing. There is even some bozo here who appears to *believe* that man is incapable of altering the biosphere!

I was lambasted by someone a while ago for trying to explain that there can be disagreements over mechanisms which don't affect outcomes. If that basic concept is too difficult then, sadly there is no point in a sensible debate.

I am utterly sick of being told to 'communicate in plain language' so I 'can tell ordinary people what is happening and what needs to be done'. We are told that by everyone from funders down. I deal with issues such as GM crop safety, it is complex, there are issues. But when I am told that I am an evil Frankenstein by someone who *believes* that DNA is only found in GM plants, then I am inclined to give up.

So we have here a bunch of sheep who have no inkling of the issues but choose *believe* something which happens to justify their inactivity.
 
I understand your frustration and also have the same problems in technical discussions with non-technical folk - including many here. However, this issue is too big. A communications guru is needed for the scientist-man interface, someone who can speak science and lay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

geem
One for solar geeks
2 3
Replies
41
Views
964
lustyd
lustyd

Share this page

Top