In your face evidence of climate change
Discussion
mattikake said:
Man HAS contributed. You just chosen not to notice or can't notice (yet).
Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.
It's pretty basic reasoning really.
Co2 is metabolised by plants and other organisms though, so your "reasoning" doesn't hold. Unless your craftily switching your argument to none-co2 polutants ?Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.
It's pretty basic reasoning really.
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
Given the amount of s
t we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.
Seeing as many can't seem to see literal reasoning and are decontructing this point it looks like I have to pose philosphically: :rolleys:t we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.Question, just were do you think all that pollution goes? Why do you think it has absolutely ZERO effect?
Or another angle:
If you have a glass of white liquid, and progressively add black liquid until it turns black, at what point is the white liquid no longer pure white? Is it only when you notice? Only when you compare it to another glass of white liquid? Only when you decide? Only when you care?
Man HAS contributed. You just chosen not to notice or can't notice (yet).
Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.
It's pretty basic reasoning really.
And asking rhetorical questions about an unproven Infant branch of science is one thing. Basing the world's economic and social policy on it is quite another.
Might I ask you a question; you mention "climate change". I ask; change from what?
Deltaf01 said:
mattikake said:
man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium,
How do you know its "sensitive"?How sensitive is it to a volcano the size of Krakatoa blastig half the atmopshere into space?
We're still here, the plants and animals are still here?
It aint THAT sensitive pally, youre exagerrating to try and prove a pointless point.
Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans. Comparatively something you couldn't notice yourself, so don'y make the (common) mitstake of using your own perceptions as a baseline. This affects billions of life forms. The same can be said for the great barrier reef. The Earth's eco-system is extreme sensitive to tiny changes in temperature.
mattikake said:
Deltaf01 said:
mattikake said:
man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium,
How do you know its "sensitive"?How sensitive is it to a volcano the size of Krakatoa blastig half the atmopshere into space?
We're still here, the plants and animals are still here?
It aint THAT sensitive pally, youre exagerrating to try and prove a pointless point.
Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans. Comparatively something you couldn't notice yourself, so don'y make the (common) mitstake of using your own perceptions as a baseline. This affects billions of life forms. The same can be said for the great barrier reef. The Earth's eco-system is extreme sensitive to tiny changes in temperature.
mattikake said:
The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law
Mattikake, you are showing your ignorance now.Man is not using-up the energy, merely converting it into other forms.
That's what "conservation of energy" means.
BTW, please tell me what is 'natural' as I'm fascinated by your theories on the history of our planet.
Is deforestation by herds of elephants 'natural'.
Destruction of vast areas of vegetation by millions-strong locust swarms ?
Forest fires ?
Volcanoes pumping ash and sulphur into the atmosphere ?
Meteorite strikes causing 99% extinction of life ?
Please answer.
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.
Seeing as many can't seem to see literal reasoning and are decontructing this point it looks like I have to pose philosphically: :rolleys:t we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.Question, just were do you think all that pollution goes? Why do you think it has absolutely ZERO effect?
Or another angle:
If you have a glass of white liquid, and progressively add black liquid until it turns black, at what point is the white liquid no longer pure white? Is it only when you notice? Only when you compare it to another glass of white liquid? Only when you decide? Only when you care?
Man HAS contributed. You just chosen not to notice or can't notice (yet).
Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.
It's pretty basic reasoning really.
And what if, as a natural property, the white liquid is able to convert over time the black liquid into white liquid !?
And what if......
There are lots of good reasons to avoid wasting fossil "fuel" assets on simply heating the house and getting around. For a start - most of the damn oil is in st places where the locals hate us. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to deal with them?
But the climate is going to change no matter what we do about it. It is this diversion from this simple truth that is utterly criminal IMO. THE CLIMATE IS GOING TO CHANGE. Now let's DEAL with it. There's no point hand wringing, putting up taxes and saying "We don't need to do anything because we can CHANGE the CLIMATE ourselves back to what it was by destroying our economies in various interesting ways". The breathtaking arrogance of believing that the Earth's processes can be altered by reusing plastic bags is beyond my understanding.
The CLIMATE IS CHANGING.
We must adapt.
All that money being pissed away on various loony CO2 reduction exercises could be spent on preparing Britain for the climate it WILL have in fifty years. We're going to need storm drains like Malaysia and coastal defences like Holland. We should probably avoid giving planning permission to developers who want to build on flood plains.
There's LOTS we could be doing. Why haven't we started already!?
t places where the locals hate us. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to deal with them?But the climate is going to change no matter what we do about it. It is this diversion from this simple truth that is utterly criminal IMO. THE CLIMATE IS GOING TO CHANGE. Now let's DEAL with it. There's no point hand wringing, putting up taxes and saying "We don't need to do anything because we can CHANGE the CLIMATE ourselves back to what it was by destroying our economies in various interesting ways". The breathtaking arrogance of believing that the Earth's processes can be altered by reusing plastic bags is beyond my understanding.
The CLIMATE IS CHANGING.
We must adapt.
All that money being pissed away on various loony CO2 reduction exercises could be spent on preparing Britain for the climate it WILL have in fifty years. We're going to need storm drains like Malaysia and coastal defences like Holland. We should probably avoid giving planning permission to developers who want to build on flood plains.
There's LOTS we could be doing. Why haven't we started already!?
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.
Seeing as many can't seem to see literal reasoning and are decontructing this point it looks like I have to pose philosphically: :rolleys:t we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.Question, just were do you think all that pollution goes? Why do you think it has absolutely ZERO effect?
Or another angle:
If you have a glass of white liquid, and progressively add black liquid until it turns black, at what point is the white liquid no longer pure white? Is it only when you notice? Only when you compare it to another glass of white liquid? Only when you decide? Only when you care?
Man HAS contributed. You just chosen not to notice or can't notice (yet).
Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.
It's pretty basic reasoning really.
Either you don't believe what you are saying above, or you are so selfish that you don't care.
mattikake said:
Deltaf01 said:
mattikake said:
man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium,
How do you know its "sensitive"?How sensitive is it to a volcano the size of Krakatoa blastig half the atmopshere into space?
We're still here, the plants and animals are still here?
It aint THAT sensitive pally, youre exagerrating to try and prove a pointless point.
Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans. Comparatively something you couldn't notice yourself, so don'y make the (common) mitstake of using your own perceptions as a baseline. This affects billions of life forms. The same can be said for the great barrier reef. The Earth's eco-system is extreme sensitive to tiny changes in temperature.
scorp said:
Co2 is metabolised by plants and other organisms though, so your "reasoning" doesn't hold. Unless your craftily switching your argument to none-co2 polutants ?
If the environment were soaking up CO2 at the same rate we were producing it, you might have a point, however it isn't (as demonstrated by the fact the atmospheric increase is about half the level of human emissions), so you don't. You are responding to a poor argument with an even worse one.mattikake: if you really want to support the AGW side of the argument, keep quiet!
ludo said:
If the environment were soaking up CO2 at the same rate we were producing it, you might have a point, however it isn't (as demonstrated by the fact the atmospheric increase is about half the level of human emissions), so you don't. You are responding to a poor argument with an even worse one.
I would have thought co2 dependant species would bloom ? (lets ignore deforestation for the sake of argument.. 
)mechsympathy said:
mattikake said:
If, as they claim, sea levels around the UK have risen on average 10cm how can the level have risen on 25cm around Liverpool? Mattikake, you haven't answered this so I'll ask it again...
mechsympathy said:
mattikake said:
Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.
Contributes in what way? How can you be sure that man's contribution is accelerating the natural rate of change? How can you be sure that it's not slowing it?Ok Mattikake, taking a view of two of your points, these specifically:
1. We are causing climate change that will be bad for OUR environment; and
2. The world is heavily over-populated with humans.
Taking a coldly scientific view, won't point 1 sort out point 2 eventually? Yes, lots of people will die, but isn't that what you're suggesting anyway if we've over-populated the world?
So, seeing as you don't seem to want to lead by example in your (somewhat religious) beliefs, presumably you're taking action to ensure you're amongst the survivors? Or do you believe we can somehow undo point 2 without lots of deaths?
I'm doing my bit, no kids, try not to waste resources, cycle to work etc, but not through some belief that I can "save the planet" but because I haven't met the right woman yet and I don't like wasting money.
P.S. I don't believe the planet needs saving, it'll be just fine whatever we do, even if we wipe out 99% of life on earth, give it a few aeons and the planet will be full of life again, just not humanity.
1. We are causing climate change that will be bad for OUR environment; and
2. The world is heavily over-populated with humans.
Taking a coldly scientific view, won't point 1 sort out point 2 eventually? Yes, lots of people will die, but isn't that what you're suggesting anyway if we've over-populated the world?
So, seeing as you don't seem to want to lead by example in your (somewhat religious) beliefs, presumably you're taking action to ensure you're amongst the survivors? Or do you believe we can somehow undo point 2 without lots of deaths?
I'm doing my bit, no kids, try not to waste resources, cycle to work etc, but not through some belief that I can "save the planet" but because I haven't met the right woman yet and I don't like wasting money.
P.S. I don't believe the planet needs saving, it'll be just fine whatever we do, even if we wipe out 99% of life on earth, give it a few aeons and the planet will be full of life again, just not humanity.
biglepton said:
mechsympathy said:
mattikake said:
If, as they claim, sea levels around the UK have risen on average 10cm how can the level have risen on 25cm around Liverpool? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff