The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
(4 votes)
Results 51 to 75 of 3439

  1. Post
    #51
    Vulcan wrote:
    So how do we know the tree data from 1959 is right, and 1958 etc...
    Additional proxies, and recorded temperature measurements. You're not going to argue with a thermometer are you?

  2. Post
    #52
    tree ring data and ice cores etc are used to estimate past climates, we don't need to use them to estimate current climates because we can observe/measure them directly without the need for a proxy.

    I don't need a tree ring to tell me it rained yesterday.

  3. Post
    #53
    falco wrote:
    tree ring data and ice cores etc are used to estimate past climates, we don't need to use them to estimate current climates because we can observe/measure them directly without the need for a proxy.

    I don't need a tree ring to tell me it rained yesterday.
    sweet cause it won't

    this logical device might help

    if it has been raining, the grass might be wet.

  4. Post
    #54
    ^ but if a small amount of tree ring data indicates that it hasn't been raining, we should use that data over our own direct observations ... right? Doesn't make much sense to me.

    The tree ring data likely can't be used to differentiate between climate changes over the scale of days, but you get the picture. Swap 'yesterday' for 'last year' maybe.

  5. Post
    #55
    Look if you don't know what made the tree ring data look as it did, you don't know how many other times its been affected, especially in times before thermometers.

    I mean if someone said to you, hey the one time we can check our records they are wrong and we don't know why, but all the rest of the time they are ok, would you believe them ?

  6. Post
    #56
    Is it not obvious that those certain trees which were omitted, their growth was dominated by local sources and not global climate change. So whatever local source which caused their stunt in growth over-rode the global temperature increase scientists were looking for in the data.

    Using tree rings to estimate climate (past or present) is just a proxy. Alone it does not have much weight that's why it is combined with other tree ring data sets, with ice cores, with geology, geomorphology, fossils, etc. It's not like scientists thought HMM lets look at the temperature of the earth 3,000 years ago. Ok we will just use the tree rings from this one tree here and that'll be it.

    Even if all the tree ring data in the world is "wrong" you can still make a very strong case for global warming, right?

  7. Post
    #57
    I have to wonder what the point of making the case is when historically, the planet has been warmer, and life apparently thrived. Apart from wild theories about cataclysmic changes that aren't holding up.

  8. Post
    #58
    UnholySoldier wrote:
    I have to wonder what the point of making the case is when historically, the planet has been warmer, and life apparently thrived. Apart from wild theories about cataclysmic changes that aren't holding up.
    Well one thing is, everything that has evolved to live in the current environment is adversely effected due to the sudden changes (flora & fauna) - some animals/insects will thrive, others will die out.

    The change in atmospheric conditions mean some places experience more severe weather - Afghanistan for one is set to receive greater droughts in the Sistan basin during El Nino cycles. That is just one example of a predicted change, it has the potential cause greater storminess worldwide, amongst a wide number of other changes operating at various temporal and spatial scales.

  9. Post
    #59
    Part of the argument is that humanity is driving this climate increase alot faster than when it usually occurs naturally. Although I am sure life will survive and adapt over time, alot of humans will probably die in the process.

  10. Post
    #60
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ust_scientists

    "In an ideal world," Mr Trewin said, "we would like to have a good range of stations that haven’t moved, haven’t had changes in their local environment. But if we want to get any information with regard to the climate over the long term, we have to make the most of what data we have."

  11. Post
    #61
    falco wrote:
    Part of the argument is that humanity is driving this climate increase alot faster than when it usually occurs naturally. Although I am sure life will survive and adapt over time, alot of humans will probably die in the process.
    If it all occurs as predicted, the immediate impact will be famine-induced migrations and conflicts arising as a result.

  12. Post
    #62
    Agreed ... that is "nature" of "groups" and "resources" for any "species". A new equilibrium will eventually be reached. However, it will be "painful" while this transitition occurs.

  13. Post
    #63
    Sounds like the result will also be the solution.


    Makes me wonder though... plants which have been on earth much longer than us animals, have evolved with the earth, you'd think would be more suited to the environment it provides thanks to evolution. So why is it plants grow better (generally) in a hot house ?

  14. Post
    #64
    UnholySoldier wrote:
    Sounds like the result will also be the solution.


    Makes me wonder though... plants which have been on earth much longer than us animals, have evolved with the earth, you'd think would be more suited to the environment it provides thanks to evolution. So why is it plants grow better (generally) in a hot house ?
    The oceans were full of life by the time the land got occupied. Terrestrial vascular plants came around in the Silurian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siluria...restrial_biota 430 Million years ago.

    Plants tend to grow better in periods were there is higher CO2 concentrations, as it is part of the photosynthesis equation - photosynthesis is the plant converting sun energy into food it can use.

  15. Post
    #65
    Not sure if you could say plants generally prefer hot weather. A third of all the trees on earth fall into the Taiga biome (see picture below).

    Stolen from wikipedia:

    Aside from the tundra and permanent ice caps, it is the coldest biome on Earth. High latitudes mean that for much of the year the sun does not rise far above the horizon. Winters last at least 56 months, with average temperatures below freezing. Temperatures vary from −54C to 27C (-65F to 80F) throughout the whole year, with eight or more months of temperatures averaging below 10 C (50F).

  16. Post
    #66
    Interesting read : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ever-told.html

    So tuvalu has it's hand out for global warming 'disasters' about to overwhelm it. NZ has committed to help (TV3 news a few nights ago). Now it appears that the issues relate to the destruction of the coral reefs that protected the island from tides - not from AGW - but from mining the reefs for material to make roads, and dynamited for fishing purposes. Further more the draining of fresh water for agriculture has contributed to the problem.

    Yet the local AGW alarmists offer this tiny nation up as a perfect example of what AGW is doing to man?

  17. Post
    #67
    Vulcan wrote:
    Interesting read : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ever-told.html

    So tuvalu has it's hand out for global warming 'disasters' about to overwhelm it. NZ has committed to help (TV3 news a few nights ago). Now it appears that the issues relate to the destruction of the coral reefs that protected the island from tides - not from AGW - but from mining the reefs for material to make roads, and dynamited for fishing purposes. Further more the draining of fresh water for agriculture has contributed to the problem.

    Yet the local AGW alarmists offer this tiny nation up as a perfect example of what AGW is doing to man?
    Careful who you use for a source, Vulcan. That guy also thinks passive smoke is not dangerous, incorrectly believes that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder and not harmful to human health", and believes that intelligent design is supported by "respected scientists" and Darwinism is a matter of "blind faith". I'm all for being skeptical of grand theories, but this guy seems to be a right-wing nutter.

  18. Post
    #68
    azarat wrote:
    Careful who you use for a source, Vulcan. That guy also thinks passive smoke is not dangerous
    If you ever research the facts on "passive smoking" you will find that also is a massive hype up from the "Anti smoking" movement. I'm not a smoker, never have been, had peeps die from lung cancer as well, all of them first hand smokers.

    I'm happy to talk to someone who has lung cancer via passive smoking.
    Right after I give back the pot o' gold I found at the end of the rainbow.

  19. Post
    #69
    It's odd how people can rely on their own opinion that they've decided either arbitrarily, or based on anecdotal data; in the face of quite compelling evidence.

    The human capacity for self-delusion to save self esteem never ceases to impress.

  20. Post
    #70
    azarat wrote:
    Careful who you use for a source, Vulcan. That guy also thinks passive smoke is not dangerous, incorrectly believes that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder and not harmful to human health", and believes that intelligent design is supported by "respected scientists" and Darwinism is a matter of "blind faith". I'm all for being skeptical of grand theories, but this guy seems to be a right-wing nutter.
    Fair enough, however if you look up the stuff he is quoting (Dr Morner for example) it is legit claims, pretty much he is quoting what they really are saying.

  21. Post
    #71
    Yossarian wrote:
    The human capacity for self-delusion to save self esteem never ceases to impress.
    This.
    |_emon
    Guest

  22. Post
    #72
    Yossarian wrote:
    It's odd how people can rely on their own opinion that they've decided either arbitrarily, or based on anecdotal data; in the face of quite compelling evidence.

    The human capacity for self-delusion to save self esteem never ceases to impress.
    And alot of people seem happy to believe what they read from sources such as scoop.co.nz and other blog-type websites over more robust scientific sources (such as international peer reviewed scientific journals).

  23. Post
    #73
    people will believe want they want to believe.

  24. Post
    #74
    Yossarian wrote:
    The human capacity for self-delusion to save self esteem never ceases to impress.
    Who has their self-esteem tied into denying climate change?

  25. Post
    #75
    People who think their actions aren't damaging the planet?