shakh your bootie

For goodness sake. I maintain, the naked ape he plenty smart. Show us a problem, we'll solve it. Check out the beat whilst... oh, never mind.

seven seas

Have we been 'shown' AIDS? Cancer? Malaria? Dictatorships? Hunger? Inequality? Sweatshops? Death by easily preventible diseases? Racial hatred? Corporate Control of natural resources? F**kface Jeremey A***uck Clarkson and his drivelfest?

These are all undeniably among the greatest problems that have been around for thousands of years. Except for that shitcrusted mullet Clarkson. Last time I checked, they were all still there.

Jeeper

Eventually there will be a generation that is completely fu,cked either way.
Does it really matter which one it is.

Maybe when we realise the earth is at the point of no return we'll stop breeding and die off naturally......doubtful.

seven seas

A bit pessimistic for Thursday, aren't you?

OR, we could do something about this and avert our own extinction.

Jeeper

I'm like that every day - but I prefer to call it realism.

Jeeper

I have absolutely no doubt that the human race will be extinct one day.

seven seas

Women don't find that attractive.

shakh your bootie

women can be lied to.... or at least, mizzled and charmed....

ctfc

This is a tragedy. Yes, we will all die eventually, but to become extinct through wilful stupidity is tragic.

The science, if you could be arsed to read it, is incontrovertible. But you won't because you think you know better.

The scientists are lousy at PR, so you're in the company of very many people.

If you can be arsed, read and understand a little on 'black body radiation' and 'greenhouse gases'. These are two undisputed bits of science which explain why anthropogenic carbon emissions are contributing to increased 'atmospheric warming' (not the very confusing term 'global warming' which the media love).

The big worry is that we will cross a tipping point leading to a massive release of methane currently trapped in permafrost. Since methane has a much more powerful greenhouse effect (and other gases like sulphur dioxide which weight for weight has 26,000 times as strong an effect), the positive feedback in the system accelerates warming uncontrollably and we're in big trouble very fast.

No-one knows what the effects of this level of atmospheric warming will be as there is no evidence of this level of change happening before. This is where the scientists get their knickers in a twist and then confuse everyone else. But in nearly every model they can come up with (models are built on assumptions - by definition all models are 'wrong' but some are useful) it looks very bad for the human race in our myriad civilisations at present.

The warning signs are there - a very large number of apparently well educated people are putting a lot of effort into this problem. You can choose to take that seriously or not, of course that's your right. But it does suggest an overwhelming arrogance, that on the basis of what you read in the Daily Mail you can completely discount it. Do you really believe this is a massive conspiracy? (Perhaps it was all fabricated by Mossad?)

'Nuff said.

MacScot

That statement is not true.

If you start with the premise that man-induced emissions of CO2 are a significant cause of climate change (rather than a symptom of climate change), then the scientific method requires the testing of that hypothesis (premise) to see if it is false.

Many so-called 'climate scientists' probably assumed that CO2 is the problem and then, instead of testing that hypothesis, they have tweaked their ill-conceived models to back-up their preconceptions.

ctfc

I'll have to disagree. I'll clarify my statement: two elements of the science (including black body radiation which is a key part of explaining the greenhouse effect) are incontrovertible:

i) atmospheric carbon dioxide is a key component of the greenhouse effect (along with some other gases). Without this effect, Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it.

ii) atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased significantly due to human activity. They do fluctuate over time but the significant change over the last two hundred years has been undeniably exacerbated by human activity.

typical

The premise has been about more than a hundred years (see: Arrhenius, Callendar, Ehrlich).

MacScot

Perhaps so, but a premise is just a premise until hypotheses associated with that premise are tested.

MacScot

Not disputing your point (i), which is a given and , as such, is a description of the greenhouse effect. It is point (ii) the implication of an accelerated greenhouse effect attributed to CO2 inputs from human activities (< 0.28% compared to natural sources).

At present, computer simulations are inadequate for the purposes of explaining current climate or projecting future climate. Our ability to even attempt to quantify possible human influence on global climate is fraught with difficulties, owing to the anticipated signal being swamped by the noise of natural variability. In addition, there are uncertainties in key factors such as the magnitude and patterns of long-term natural variability.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence betwen possible human forcing (from whatever sources) and observed changes in earth's surface temperatures.

ctfc

My argument is that humans have contributed to CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 contributes to atmospheric warming (as you accept), ergo, humans are contributing to atmospheric warming.

If you don't accept this then where has all the CO2 gone which we've emitted for the last 200 years, it can't just vanish. We know from measurements that there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than before and it is increasing over time.

Try this - it's very short: How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?

The alternative, which you support, is scenario D which is plainly ridiculous.