Wind farms in Scotland

close
more_vert
GLADMAN G
GLADMAN Nov 24, 2011 21:48:59
Replying to PMM

As it happens I am - on balance - of the layman's opinion that average temperatures have risen over the course of the past couple of decades... although - in fairness - I have seen data that dispute this. For me, however, by far the salient issue is whether this adverse global warming, climate change (etc) is impacted by the actions of human kind to a degree significant enough to suggest that immediate, far reaching world-wide actions (with the necessary return to centralised control and restriction of personal liberty so hard won from the grip of authoritarians with so much blood) will make any practical difference - or indeed ANY difference. Are the data available to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is not simply the actions of a living planet, the continuation of a natural cycle that may well have prompted the first modern humans to leave Africa in the first place? Processes that we have no control over. Why are the 'pro' scientists so convinced this is not a momentary interlude prior to a descent to the next glacial maximum? I assume there is a clear reason - surely, there must be - so please share it in terms the layman such as myself can grasp and therefore come on board.

Are you saying the data collected by the scientists representing the 'yes' view are so overwhelming? If so, why ARE there are so many contrary opinions by other, apparently competent (?), scientists? Surely you aren't suggesting the 'pros' are all righteous people and those who disagree are all incompetent, deluded, corrupt, or members of some death cult (I hesitate to say religion, although parallels with extreme views can be drawn) who simply cannot - or refuse - to see the truth... or are all in the pay of evil governments who want us all to die for some unexplained reason or other. Does this really seem credible? Really, does it?

I must emphasize I am not saying the data is not there - how could I since, as you explain, accusations of falsehood have been withdrawn / discredited? - what I am saying is cries of 'infamy' are not going to convince the man or woman in the street - the person with the vote, the person who eventually brought down the Soviet state, who brought down Nixon for assuming the US President was above the law, the person who can change governments through democracy, arguably the only form of society that has worked to any degree... that there is a serious, fundamental issue of survival here that we can personally help to put right, or at least mitigate the damage as best we can. That is the challenge.

Great leaders throughout history have had the ability to sell the masses their visions of a better future. The question is does the climate change movement have anyone capable of rising above dogma and petty squabbling - ranting, even - and present an compelling case we ALL can appreciate, understand and act upon? If so, I'm in. Can't afford not to be. But I won't simply have 'faith'. Tried that and it simply won't do now we've learned to read, write and think.

I will continue to read - and understand as much as I can - all rational viewpoints relating to this debate. I can do without the rants since this is too serious an issue for that.

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Nov 24, 2011 22:42:55
Replying to GLADMAN

This is a sensible and level-headed approach to the debate, even though I think my own, admittedly uninformed, view is probably somewhat different from yours. I interpret your view as being that you remain to be convinced of the fact that climate change is a direct result of human activity (or contributed to by human activity), but could be convinced that this is so if compelling evidence were to be produced. Conversely, I remain to be convinced that human activity is not responsible for the changes (or at least not a significant contributory factor). It may be that the answer lies in the middle ground anyway (i.e. climate change is a natural process but human activity is accelerating or altering that process).

As Moss said elsewhere in the thread, most of us are not sufficiently well-informed to know much more than we can observe ourselves and gather from the news and papers. We have to believe someone, or at least form a view based on as much unbiased information as is available.

The difficulty that a layperson has, is that there are many vested interests at play, both commercial and political, which inevitably cloud any objective view of the issue. The other problem with the need for proof is that convincing and unarguable evidence either way could be decades away, by which time it may be even more "too late" than it is now.

In some ways, and ironically coming from an aetheist, I perhaps take my position from a similar position to Pascal's view of God - it's safer to believe that humans can influence climate change and try to play a small part in improving that effect, than to believe they can't, and inadvertently make things worse.

I certainly welcome the debate though.

P PMM
PMM Nov 24, 2011 23:02:15
Replying to GLADMAN

First of all, my apologies to the forum if this is straying too far from its' remit. This argument has reared it's spiky head repeatedly on the U-know forum, clearly without moving anyone forwards, since the same protagonists are asserting the same assertions now, regardless of the strength and veracity of any rebuttals.

A sceptic should have an open mind, surely, yet many "sceptics" are as entrenched in their beliefs as any tree-hugging eco zealot.

My own, laymans' take on things is thus:

The Earth's climate changes naturally.

These changes can result in radical changes to the overall biosphere.

The amount of temperature change required to bring about radical change is generally only a few degrees in either direction.

For example, the average global temperature during the last ice age was between 3 and 6 degrees centrigrade less than today.

When these changes occur over thousands of years, flora and fauna have time to adapt and evolve.

The datasets appear to show that global average temperatures are changing by an equal magnitude, but over a period of just a couple of centuries.

Generally such rapid and profound changes are associated with major global events such as major vulcanism and extra-planetary impacts.

Such impacts tend to be one-offs, and negative feedback mechanisms tend to return things to an equilibrium.

A negative feedback mechanism acts to limit change.

An example of one is a thermostat.

As a room cools, the thermostat clicks, and heat is fed in. As the room warms, the thermostat turns the heat off.

In nature, a simple example of a negative feedback loop is this:

The Earth is largely covered by water. If it warms, the water will evaporate more quickly. This will lead to more clouds. More clouds increase the amount of sunlight being reflected back into space. The earth cools. Water evaporates more slowly. This leads to less clouds...

There is also positive feedback.

The classic example of this is when you put a microphone next to a loudspeaker.

The microphone picks up any air vibration and it is amplified by the loudspeaker, giving the microphone more vibration to send to the loudspeaker.

In nature too, positive feedback mechanisms occur.

A comparative example to the other feedback example above is as follows:

A warmer climate will cause the extent of sea ice to diminish. Ice is more reflective than water. More water and less ice will cause the earth to absorb more solar energy. This will cause an increase in temperature, which will lead to further ice loss.


I'm trying to generalise here obviously, but as far as I understand things, climatologists believe there is a tipping point, where positive feedback effects overwhelm the natural tendencies towards stability, and large changes occur until a new equilibrium is reached.

Whether there is scientific consensus on this issue? Well that's political that is. The British Antarctic Survey support the IPCC's position.

They say:

BAS wrote:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
And

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations.
And since the IPCC's reposrt in 2007, their position has become even more unequivocal.

Since this last Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change caused by human activity has strengthened significantly. Recent research, not available at the time AR4 was published, has shown that it is likely that human activity has contributed to climate change in Antarctica, as well as over the other continents.
I find it hard to believe they are making such statements because they want to flog some wind turbines.