hahaha

[Taffy]

It's snowing... in the South-east... in April...


Global Warming my rear end!

 

[Ronin Storm]

Global warming is a very old term, now. Climate change is what they're calling it now. And we're certainly seeing climate change.

 

[waterproofbob]

Global warming is a very old term, now. Climate change is what they're calling it now. And we're certainly seeing climate change.

I was at a friends house today and I mentioned how odd it was that it was snowing and he recalled a time in his first year of uni (he's 54 now) where it snowed in May. Sort of like the hot crazy weather where it hadn't been that hot since 1939, so it got a bit hotter than it was 69 years ago.

Also the whole it flooding more. Well yes that is what happens when you build more houses in the natural flood plains. Down in Hayling I have mates who live on the estuary, where every 10 years or so they have a very very high flooding tide. That was scheduled last year and it was pretty high but no considerably better than the 70s one they had which also had considerably heavy rainfall.

I'm not saying it's not a climate change but you really have to take all these things with a pinch of salt.

 

[Taffy]

Oh we are seeing climate change alright. I debate whether humans have a significant impact on it.

But still...snow in April? It doesn't get much better than this

 

[Sephiroth]

I was recently doing climate change in my Geography lessons at school, we watched several youtube links and videos about the different views on it. Some people think that we're heading for an iceage (or other such massive changes in climate) others think that this is just something that happens on Earth, pointing out the naturally occuring changes in climate through out history. I wasn't really paying much attention in these lessons (silly me) which is why im being fairly vague but you get the picture, nobody really knows whats going on for sure.
There was of course decent evidence for both ideas, Co2 levels and the frequency of massive climate changes etc...

 

[Wol]

Has anyone heard the thing where we're actually going into global cooling faster than any of the global warming effects....

would explain the snow!

MORE CO2 DAMNIT!!!

 

[DocBot]

I debate whether humans have a significant impact on it.

Oh, you do? And what are you basing that on? Because there's quite a bit of research saying it is;

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

If you would just post links to your sources, I'd be happy to check them out.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

I don't know whether the Earth is heating up or cooling down or going sideways or whatever, but it's clear that pumping billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, pesticides, herbicides, CFCs .... .... into our environment is bound to have some kind of affect on our climate.

 

[T-Bone]

Oh, you do? And what are you basing that on? Because there's quite a bit of research saying it is;

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

If you would just post links to your sources, I'd be happy to check them out.

There is also a lot of research agreeing with Taffy. I have to go out soon or I'd find some and post it but...

The basic premise is that we are at the end of an ice age and the climate is changing to reflect that. The same type of study suggests that the pole glaciers shouldn't even be there and there should be more of the tropical climate found around the equator. I mean obviously what we have been doing as a race will have some impact on the climate but it is probably negligible in the long run, mother nature pwns mankind and will continue to do so for generations until our morals become so loose that we do succeed in outdoing her.

Also, before you say anything I believe (I may be wrong) that this study was carried out by Europeans, not the yanks.

 

[Taffy]

Oh, you do? And what are you basing that on? Because there's quite a bit of research saying it is;

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

If you would just post links to your sources, I'd be happy to check them out.

I'm basing it on the null hypothesis that

humans have no significant impact on our changing climate

frankly, the evidence I've seen to prove the alternative hypothesis that

humans are having an adverse affect on our climate

just doesn't cut it; therefore, I refuse to believe what is mainly propaganda.

 

[DocBot]

There is also a lot of research agreeing with Taffy.

(emphasis added by me)

I just linked what seemed easiest, the intergovernmental panel - it's more or less a consensus, come to by a lot of researchers, but also governments. There isn't a clear worldwide consensus in the field as such, because it's so much more than one subject being researched. My point is, IPCC represents a lot of research, it's set up by the World Meteorological Organization [a specialized UN agency) and the United Nations Environment Programme, two organizations that are by themselves fairly large (WMO has a membership of 188 states and territories, for example). I know there are scientists that disagree, but when it comes to the amount of supporting material I'm fairly sure there's an overwhelming advantage to the "We're doing it" side. I'm not 100% sure about that however, so if you should find the time to dig up those studies...

When it comes to the "mother nature will prevail" position, of course you're right. The question is, will we? And how much damage will we cause before we change our ways? I can't help but get the feeling (read: I've seen a lot of evidence to support that theory, and not much to contradict it) that the ones that say "we're not doing it" are mostly representing the companies/governments/whatever that are, according to the "We're doing it" side, doing the most damage. So they stand something to lose by accepting blame, and conversely something to gain if they don't. Whereas the other side won't gain anything if they "win". And that's making my spider sense tingle.

As a side note, for those of you who didn't want to look at the IPCC page in any depth, it says that it's "very likely" (~90% certain, if you want to quantify it) that the climate changes we're seeing are caused mainly by human impact.

 

[Taffy]

~90% fails the Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient, I believe. In which case, we are forced to accept the null I pointed out earlier.

 

[DocBot]

I'm basing it on the null hypothesis that

"humans have no significant impact on our changing climate"

frankly, the evidence I've seen to prove the alternative hypothesis that

"humans are having an adverse affect on our climate"

just doesn't cut it; therefore, I refuse to believe what is mainly propaganda.

So, the evidence you've seen doesn't cut it? Do tell, what evidence have you bothered to look at? Because the overwhelming majority of the people who are actually qualified to make that call seem to be on the other side of the fence.

In fact, a lot of the research (I'm not going to say "most" because I haven't go any numbers, but it seems likely) on the side of the "no impact" hypothesis is paid for by the biggest polluters in the world. Is there a reason you choose to call the non-profit organizations and universities' research, but not the research sponsored by these bodies, propaganda? What are you basing that on?

And as an answer to the null hypothesis, I'm going to quote a source of my own:

The null hypothesis is a statistical test, and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not -- there are known mechanisms involved whose effects can be predicted and measured. These effects are the result of simple laws of physics, even if their interactions are quite complex.

But putting aside inappropriate application of the null hypothesis, we are indeed well outside the realm of natural global variability, as seen over the last 2,000 years and even over the last 12,000 years. We can go back several hundreds of thousands of years and we still see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles were an order of magnitude slower than the warming rate we are now experiencing.

In fact, outside of catastrophic geological events like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. I'd say the case for "it's all natural" is the one that needs explaining.

 

[Taffy]

I'm sorry, but I simply, point blank, absolutely refuse to believe that humans, who emit less CO2 (which itself is one of the least-damaging gases) than cows do, have an adverse affect on the planet. People talked about global warming in the 1970's; in the middle ages, Britains climate turned almost tropical; right across time, our planets climate has been ever-changing and volatile.

Even if I am wrong (which is very possible) and we are affecting our planet, I think that right now we are better off looking at how to adapt to whatever climate we are going to face in the future, rather than looking at how to reduce 'damage' in the long-term.

In short, I see us trying to influence the global climate as 'playing God', something we are too inadequate to do.

 

[Gopha]

I personally believe that were going to go into a new ice age very soon, but thats just my opinion and far be it from me to say whats going to happen because we just don't know I suppose, but yeh still, I recycle so its all grooovy lol . Also another answer for all this warimg up could be us coming out of another ice age, and all you cynics out there will be saying well it hasnt changed this much over the past 1000 years than it has in the past hundred but think of it as an ice cube, at the beggining you harly notice it melting but when say its half done it all jusst falls apart doesnt it? but yeh, Just a couple of view points

 

[Ronin Storm]

Even if I am wrong (which is very possible) and we are affecting our planet, I think that right now we are better off looking at how to adapt to whatever climate we are going to face in the future, rather than looking at how to reduce 'damage' in the long-term.

That's a very leading-nation point of view to take, where the damage we'll suffer in the short to medium term is about whether our homes will be flooded and ruin our expensive carpets and consumer electronics. That versus, say, the catastrophic effects that rising sea levels and unpredictable/hazardous weather conditions present to many south and south east Asian countries. When it goes wrong for us, a few dozen people die and a few hundred people feel a tight financial pinch. When it goes wrong for them, thousands of people die and nations feel the pinch.

Need to think wider than our backyard, here.

 

[Ronin Storm]

~90% fails the Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient, I believe. In which case, we are forced to accept the null I pointed out earlier.

You can't use Spearman's for environmental analysis. Spearman's analyses a monotonic function, but environmental changes are not inherently monotonic.

 

[Taffy]

So we spend billions of pounds combating 'global warming' to help countries thousands of miles away, then low and behold, climate change isn't down to humans and theres nothing much we can do about it. Meanwhile, we are left in a poor economic state, whilst countries such as China and India have continued to expand and take over more and more of the global market.

RESULT: We can sit in our cold, dark homes during the three hours of electricity we get everyday, wondering why unemployment is so high and our quality of life has bottomed out, but feeling very very humane that we were there when the third world possibly maybe needed us, but didn't in the end after all.

Thats' my justification for not believing climate change: we are in danger of a phantom menace destroying our way of life. Read into it what you will: maybe I'm a cold-hearted Capitalist, but we need some of them to stop the wasteful spending we would otherwise see.

Thats my closing statement: this debate is going to go around in circles as they always do. Plus, I have A Level revision to be getting on with

 

[DocBot]

this link is an interesting read.

Basically, the consequences of making a type II error (here; being unaware that the climate changes are caused by humans and continuing our current lifestyles) are big enough that it's not worth risking; whereas the consequences of a type I error (falsely believing that the climate changes are caused by humans and changing our lifestyles) are neglible.

Also, the confidence intervals needed to falsify a null hypothesis varies. There are a lot of fields where you can't reach a p=<0.02 (if that's what we're looking for). Meteorology, for example (fittingly enough). With your reasoning, I guess you never ever listen to the weather reports? I don't, personally, except for when I'm going sailing, because then the consequences of a type II error could be grave indeed. See where I'm getting?

 

[DocBot]

[...]humans, who emit less CO2 than cows do

..and why are there so many cows, you think? (also, what they're doing is emitting methane, which is the real issue - when it comes to cows). And transporting all that meat, and processing it, etc etc etc.