Beer and global warming.

[Gunge]

Believe all what? You've lost me.

That climate isn't in constant flux, and that 97% of scientists (scientists in general or self-appointed climate scientists?) believe in global warming? 'Belief' shouldn't come into it - that's more akin to religion. It has always been, and still is nothing more than a theory which is looking less and less plausible as the gap between its inception and 'now' grows ever wider. A few news clips of 'unusual' weather in faraway lands doesn't cut it, nor saying that we are 0.xxx degrees warmer than a time when accurate, widespread measuring devices didn't even exist.

 

[Thumper]

That climate isn't in constant flux, and that 97% of scientists (scientists in general or self-appointed climate scientists?) believe in global warming? 'Belief' shouldn't come into it - that's more akin to religion. It has always been, and still is nothing more than a theory which is looking less and less plausible as the gap between its inception and 'now' grows ever wider. A few news clips of 'unusual' weather in faraway lands doesn't cut it, nor saying that we are 0.xxx degrees warmer than a time when accurate, widespread measuring devices didn't even exist.

The Earth's climate isn't in "constant flux". "Constant flux" implies rapid, constant change, which isn't the case. Earth's climate as a whole gradually changes on a roughly cyclical basis over geological time periods, if that's what you're trying to get at.

Survey's have consistently shown that a high percentage of "scientists", i.e. people with scientific qualifications working in some capacity which could be described as "a scientist", (a ludicrously broad category, I agree) believe in man-made climate change. The most-quoted example found 97% support the theory. While it may be a broad category, "scientists" are by definition highly educated and familiar with the scientific method. If a high proportion of people with the relevant qualifications believe that a particular theory is true, then it is generally accepted that the supporting evidence is good enough to justify belief. That's basically science in a nutshell.

Which leads me neatly onto my next point: jumping up and down yelling "it's just a theory" isn't a criticism, because in a scientific context, "theory" does not equate to "guesstimate". It means "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation". In other words, to all intents and purposes, a fact.

The average global temperature of the earth has been increasing steadily since records began. This is a simple, observable, measurable fact.

 

[Duxuk]

Sea ice melting makes the oceans rise, HTH also warmer water is less dense than cold water so this will have an effect.

Another chance to try an experiment. Put some ice cubes in a glass and fill it to the brim with tap water. Leave it on a level surface and watch the ice melt. Does the water spill over the sides.


No.

Ice occupies more volume than the same weight of water, which is why it floats.
Don't you just love a smug answer?

 

[simon12]

Just like to say I don't have a clue about it and since politics got involved in it I don't think anyone does, maybe the experts but most of them seem to find the results there paid to find and anything that is real gets mixed in with the propaganda and noone knows whats what. I also remember the school textbooks in the 80s saying by now the only remaining fossil fuel would be British coal.

 

[Duxuk]

I see Thumper likes the Wikipeadia definition of truth. ie. the truth is what most people believe. This is a poor version of truth. Global warming is a good example. Most "scientists" either believe or feel obliged to express a belief but recent analysis of the sun's activity shows that we will enjoy a mini ice age. The statistical certainty is said to be 97%. Is this not true because a similar proportion of scientists (97%) are unaware of the research or would deny it's validity?
Truth is CO2 levels are far lower than they were in ancient history yet the world didn't catch fire. Now that's undeniably true.

 

[Gunge]

The Earth's climate isn't in "constant flux". "Constant flux" implies rapid, constant change, which isn't the case. Earth's climate as a whole gradually changes on a roughly cyclical basis over geological time periods, if that's what you're trying to get at.

Survey's have consistently shown that a high percentage of "scientists", i.e. people with scientific qualifications working in some capacity which could be described as "a scientist", (a ludicrously broad category, I agree) believe in man-made climate change. The most-quoted example found 97% support the theory. While it may be a broad category, "scientists" are by definition highly educated and familiar with the scientific method. If a high proportion of people with the relevant qualifications believe that a particular theory is true, then it is generally accepted that the supporting evidence is good enough to justify belief. That's basically science in a nutshell.

Which leads me neatly onto my next point: jumping up and down yelling "it's just a theory" isn't a criticism, because in a scientific context, "theory" does not equate to "guesstimate". It means "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation". In other words, to all intents and purposes, a fact.

The average global temperature of the earth has been increasing steadily since records began. This is a simple, observable, measurable fact.

And....? All cobblers but even if it weren't?

 

[Duxuk]

What most about the GW debate is the way that global warmingists can make counter intuitive arguments to support the hypothesis.
Here are a few examples.
Highest recorded level and extent of the Antarctic ice sheet................Warmer air holds more moisture hence more precipitation.
Cold winters or summers in any part of the world...................an expected anomaly.
No significant increase in temp. after the millennium..................El Ninho, La Nina and a load of other terms which could equally be Spanish restaurants.

 

[Gunge]

Just like to say I don't have a clue about it and since politics got involved in it I don't think anyone does, maybe the experts but most of them seem to find the results there paid to find and anything that is real gets mixed in with the propaganda and noone knows whats what. I also remember the school textbooks in the 80s saying by now the only remaining fossil fuel would be British coal.

This is it. I've said elsewhere that controlling CO2 emissions is about many things, but controlling the climate of a planet isn't one of them; just happens to be a convenient scare tactic to get everyone on board. The 'scientists' come in handy for converting the gullible and it keeps them in a job.

 

[Thumper]

Another chance to try an experiment. Put some ice cubes in a glass and fill it to the brim with tap water. Leave it on a level surface and watch the ice melt. Does the water spill over the sides.


No.

Ice occupies more volume than the same weight of water, which is why it floats.
Don't you just love a smug answer?

You're forgetting that the vast majority of ice in this planet does not float on water, even at the poles. Ice on land melts too, and that water then flows to the sea. That's what's changing sea levels, as well as the temperature and salinity of sea water.

 

[Thumper]

I see Thumper likes the Wikipeadia definition of truth. ie. the truth is what most people believe. This is a poor version of truth. Global warming is a good example. Most "scientists" either believe or feel obliged to express a belief but recent analysis of the sun's activity shows that we will enjoy a mini ice age. The statistical certainty is said to be 97%. Is this not true because a similar proportion of scientists (97%) are unaware of the research or would deny it's validity?
Truth is CO2 levels are far lower than they were in ancient history yet the world didn't catch fire. Now that's undeniably true.

Not at all. Appeal to the majority is fallacious logic, but not all opinions are equal. If a majority of people with the qualifications and skills have assessed the evidence and found the theory to be true, their assessment carries far more weight than those without the same qualifications and experience.

If a doctor prescribes me a course of medicine, and some random in the pub tells me it's all nonsense, I shouldn't trust big pharma, and I can treat it with herbs instead, I'm going to listen to the doctor. The same logic applies here.

I'd love to see a citation for your CO2 claims. When you say "ancient history", when do you mean exactly?

 

[IainM]

Just like to say I don't have a clue about it and since politics got involved in it I don't think anyone does, maybe the experts but most of them seem to find the results there paid to find and anything that is real gets mixed in with the propaganda and noone knows whats what.

I think this comment is a bit insulting to scientists, and shows ignorance about how science is funded and undertaken. Scientists don't choose a conclusion then find evidence to support it. That might be how politics or marketing is done, but in science this is a dereliction of duty and looked down upon very seriously. Indeed, great efforts are put into avoid bias and designing research that is robust and hypotheses that are falsifiable. Of course, some scientists do sell out and produce dishonest industry-funded research in the service of a profit-driven agenda. Such conflicts of interest are almost always noted and this 'research' is routinely ignored. I've seen first hand how scientists quickly become pariahs once they start accepting dubious money.

To ensure the integrity of science, independent funding which permits academic freedom is required. This can come from various sources, but in the UK this is mostly provided by the Research Councils UK (RCUK). I've sat on RCUK grant panels in which research funding is divvied up, and it is as fair and honest as it can possibly be. Certain topics might be funded more than others, but the idea that some research is funded because it might result in a certain outcome is categorically wrong. Nobody is paid to find specific results. Gunge and Duxuk might like to think about some sort of conspiracy, but as someone from the inside this is just laughable. The system is designed to promote rigorous, honest science that is protected from political and commercial interference, and it works well.

You are right though, there is propaganda, and it is disseminated quite effectively by industries that benefit from concealing the truth. In this case, the fossil fuel industry. The lies and confusion are injected into the media by unscrupulous journalists. It is unfortunate that scientists don't engage with the public directly as much as they could do, and that the public get most their knowledge from newspapers and blogs that have been compromised. Some people fall for it, as the propaganda is quite sophisticated, even to the point that they refuse to even read anything that disagrees with their position, like Gunge. Have no illusion though, if you read reputable scientific journals in which the actual evidence and analysis is published, a clear scientific consensus emerges. There is no controversy within scientific circles. Global warming is real and humans are the cause.

 

[Dutto]

I live in a house about two metres BELOW Spring High Tide Level and within 500 metres of the North Sea.

I hope that they are are wrong when it comes to rising sea levels ...

... but I'm a "believer" all the same!

 

[Gunge]

I live in a house about two metres BELOW Spring High Tide Level and within 500 metres of the North Sea.

I hope that they are are wrong when it comes to rising sea levels ...

... but I'm a "believer" all the same!

Don't worry; you're safe.

 

[Dutto]

Don't worry; you're safe.

Only 'cos I'll probably be dead by the time the North Sea comes to visit. :lol:

 

[Gunge]

Only 'cos I'll probably be dead by the time the North Sea comes to visit. :lol:

Shouldn't governments around the world be compensating folk who live near coasts in anticipation of what's to come? Nope, cos it ain't happening or going to happen except in some locations where the cause is nuthin to do with 'global warming'. Remember when those Tuvalu (or summat like that) types tried it on? Governments promote this cack then deny it when it suits lol. Get a clue.

 

[JapanBrew]

The thing I'll add in which the OP grazed on is the insulation factor. What will happen, and he mentioned it, the earth will warm but it won't continue till all land mass is a dessert. The water vaporizes and once it hits a tipping point, the earth will completely be covered in a white, heavy insulated cushion. Thus slowing down the surface temperature. But the bad thing here is, the amount we're heating the planet, and the amount of water vaporization that could happen, we might cause a total freeze of the planet. What is that called? It almost happened one time in our planets history.

 

[Gunge]

Anyways, now that fossil fuel usage is in sharp decline, isn't it a case of 'job done' instead of continuing to bore and infuriate us in equal measure with this nonsense? Next - what to do about a population growing faster than the planet can cope with. Er... hold on.

 

[Thumper]

Shouldn't governments around the world be compensating folk who live near coasts in anticipation of what's to come? Nope, cos it ain't happening or going to happen except in some locations where the cause is nuthin to do with 'global warming'. Remember when those Tuvalu (or summat like that) types tried it on? Governments promote this cack then deny it when it suits lol. Get a clue.

Seriously? We have a government in place that is such a bunch of greedy, tightfisted b*****ds that they cheered when they managed to vote down a pay rise for firefighters (side note: funny how we can't afford to pay firefighters, nurses, or policemen, but we can afford £1.8 billion to keep them in power, isn't it?). They won't compensate people losing their houses now due to inadequate sea and flood defences. You think they're going to compensate your average citizen because their house might one day be washed into the sea?

 

[Gunge]

Seriously? We have a government in place that is such a bunch of greedy, tightfisted b*****ds that they cheered when they managed to vote down a pay rise for firefighters (side note: funny how we can't afford to pay firefighters, nurses, or policemen, but we can afford £1.8 billion to keep them in power, isn't it?). They won't compensate people losing their houses now due to inadequate sea and flood defences. You think they're going to compensate your average citizen because their house might one day be washed into the sea?

Well yes I see where you're coming from! But is purchasing sea-front property even discouraged? Is that most canny bunch the insurers on it, providing policies with disclaimers specifically about not being liable if a house is engulfed by rising sea levels as a direct result of 'climate change'? If not, you can guarantee that they know something that the believers don't.

 

[IainM]

Well yes I see where you're coming from! But is purchasing sea-front property even discouraged? Is that most canny bunch the insurers on it, providing policies with disclaimers specifically about not being liable if a house is engulfed by rising sea levels as a direct result of 'climate change'? If not, you can guarantee that they know something that the believers don't.

Yes, insurers are making substantial changes to how they do asset management, underwriting and risk calculations, precisely because of the risks of global warming. They know exactly what the situation is, to the point at which they are having significant impact on policy making, urban planning and building standards.

This is actually a big issue in the states. Rising sea levels increase the chances of flooding and so flood insurance, particularly on the west coast, is getting more and more expensive. The government counteract with its National Flood Insurance Program, which subsidises insurance for houses in high flood risk areas. In turn, this is encouraging building in places where it really isn't advised, including the building of houses that will be uninsurable in the future due to climate change.