[Pete_Pittock]

A couple of weeks ago I heard a factoid that sea level wasn't rising as much as expected from the known ice-melt. They seemed to forget that it is not a closed system as the earth is acting like a sponge and replenishing ground water and aquifers,too.

[Jon Wiggett]

Weather patterns certainly seem to be changing and some of this will be due to natural climate issues whilst some id definitely due to man mad problems. As with most scare stories the true amount of change will lie somewhat below the scenarios pushed by some believers of climate change but above those peddled by ultra sceptics.

I would point out that if another ice age is on the cards then we would see sea levels drop creating new land.

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

It is possible to have a quite rational debate about the causes of climate change.  Denying climate change is simply perverse.

[Matt Kardash]

It is possible to have a quite rational debate about the causes of climate change.  Denying climate change is simply perverse.

It is possible to have a debate on how much human activity has impacted climate change, but it is perverse to believe that we are not impacting climate change. The data is staggeringly clear.

[Mark Pearce]

It is possible to have a quite rational debate about the causes of climate change.  Denying climate change is simply perverse.

It is possible to have a debate on how much human activity has impacted climate change, but it is perverse to believe that we are not impacting climate change. The data is staggeringly clear.

I agree with that 100% but am aware that others don't.

[Tom Allen]

Proudly, this might be the only forum I follow where I see that a great majority here accept science, logic, and evidence.  Personally, I found Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new take on the Cosmos series extremely effective at explaining the evidence supporting climate change, and how we can prove, factually, that man's actions are having a huge impact on our climate.

[Niall C]

It is possible to have a quite rational debate about the causes of climate change.  Denying climate change is simply perverse.

It is possible to have a debate on how much human activity has impacted climate change, but it is perverse to believe that we are not impacting climate change. The data is staggeringly clear.

For me the question is how we are contributing to climate change or rather how much are we contributing to climate change ? Correct me if I'm wrong (please form an orderly queue  ) but climate change was more severe in the centuries prior to the industrial revolution and population growth than afterwards, was it not ? That suggests to me that the natural forces at work are far greater than the hand of man, which is not to say we are not contributing.


And if Pete's factoid is correct and they miscalculated the change in sea levels because they didn't understand the system then how confident can you be on the "facts" presented to show what our contribution to climate change is ?


Niall

[Tom Birkert]

The predictions are all based on computer models, which failed to predict the current hiatus in warming. I don't believe there is enough computing power to accurately take in and model all the factors which effect the climate.

It's the height of arrogance to say we're going to control the temperature of the planet. It's always changed, will always change and we have no way of controlling this/

What we should - and must - do, it use resources carefully, recycle wherever possible and make sure we don't waste money on silly things such as wind farms (which kill birds and are not viable without large subsidies).

[Sean_A]

Tom


Irrespective of what you believe is happening with climate change and what the causes are, don't you think one of the roles of government is to act in ways which may help with a positive outcome when there is a serious situation at hand?  I recall your sentiments about windfarms being the same concerning recycling. People didn't think it would work without government intervention.  That may be true, but so what?  Wasn't it correct for the government to require recycling even if it meant the industry had t be subsidized?  There are few instances where we can point toward government success, but I don't think that is reason enough to stop intervening.  If we waited for private enterprise to get on board we probably wouldn't be recycling now.  I am not a huge fan of government, but sometimes its intervention is the only way to mitigate problems. 


Ciao

[BHoover]

Proudly, this might be the only forum I follow where I see that a great majority here accept science, logic, and evidence.  Personally, I found Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new take on the Cosmos series extremely effective at explaining the evidence supporting climate change, and how we can prove, factually, that man's actions are having a huge impact on our climate.

Completely agree, Tom.

[Tom Allen]

It's the height of arrogance to say we're going to control the temperature of the planet. It's always changed, will always change and we have no way of controlling this/

I beg to differ.  Actually, we do have a way of controlling the temperature of the planet (to a degree).  Reduce the things we are doing that increases temperature.  Of course, there have always been changes, and there always be changes.  But when man started artificially adding additional elements to the air (CO2, for example) that undeniably accelerate the rate of warming (the greenhouse effect), and to the extent that the oceans can no longer absorb what we are putting in the air, we are impacting the overall temperature, and bringing about climate change faster than ever before.

That is controlling temperature (although unintentionally).  Perhaps it is more accurate to say that man is negatively impacting long term temperature.

[BCowan]

The predictions are all based on computer models, which failed to predict the current hiatus in warming. I don't believe there is enough computing power to accurately take in and model all the factors which effect the climate.

It's the height of arrogance to say we're going to control the temperature of the planet. It's always changed, will always change and we have no way of controlling this/

What we should - and must - do, it use resources carefully, recycle wherever possible and make sure we don't waste money on silly things such as wind farms (which kill birds and are not viable without large subsidies).

Well said Tom.  It's like 40 years of Keynesianism taught at every university and their models failing and we have to except it.  I just wish the people who believe this, would stop flying all over the globe to play the newest, latest, and best Golf course.  Sell your car, ride a bike, and practice what you preach.   

Sean,

   Local Gov't handle recycling..  ''Local Gov't is a necessary evil''

[Cliff Hamm]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley

[Niall C]

Tom A,


Your last post refers to the mechanics of the CO2 argument. I won't argue that but again I question to what extent our input is influencing climate change relative to other factors and also to what extent that influence is negative given that the climate fluctuates anyway ? Is it also not the height of arrogance for man to think that he can control temperature as you suggest, particularly as there appears to be so much more for us to understand ?


Niall

[Niall C]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley

Cliff


That's very true but when the new science replaces the old science, those facts cease to be facts (Niall Carlton, 2nd March 2016)


Niall

[Tom Allen]

Tom A,


Your last post refers to the mechanics of the CO2 argument. I won't argue that but again I question to what extent our input is influencing climate change relative to other factors and also to what extent that influence is negative given that the climate fluctuates anyway ? Is it also not the height of arrogance for man to think that he can control temperature as you suggest, particularly as there appears to be so much more for us to understand ?


Niall

Niall, that's a great question, and exactly what you should be doing as part of the scientific process: challenging what is generally accepted, proposing alternate theories, looking for the evidence, and when the evidence does not support a theory, reject it as unfounded.

Here, I was convinced that man is impacting long-term climate by considering the facts regarding the amount of CO2 currently going into the atmosphere.  We apparently have a way to distinguish between man-made CO2 and naturally-created CO2 (having something to do with molecular weight, I believe).  If I can find a source, I will link to it.  If it is wrong, I'll be happy to admit it; that's part of this process.

But the most recent data estimate that although natural sources (such as volcanoes, etc.) emit roughly 65-300 million tons of CO2 per year, man is putting into the air 30 billion tons of CO2 per year, far outweighing any natural sources.  That was one of the facts that convinced me.  Then, as the earth gets warmer, permafrost melts, releasing trapped methane, which is even worse than CO2 for trapping heat.  It is a vicious cycle.

[Tom Allen]

Tom A,
Is it also not the height of arrogance for man to think that he can control temperature as you suggest, particularly as there appears to be so much more for us to understand ?

Niall

Niall, I do not believe it is the height of arrogance to suggest that man can control temperature as I suggest (by not artificially accelerating the rate of heating).  It is basic science.  We know that man adds more CO2 to the air than all natural sources combined.  We also know that more CO2 heats up the earth, via the greenhouse effect.  That's simply science. How is science arrogant?

Yes, the earth goes through cycles, we can agree on that. And there are other factors that contribute, on that we can agree as well.  But you have to realize we are artificially modifying that cycle (by accelerating it).  There is simply no scientific debate about that.  And we can prove man's impact, by examining the underlying factors that contribute to the warming of the earth.  There is still a lot to learn, but basic science still holds.

Here is an example.  It is arrogant for me to suggest that if I add fuel to a burning fire, it will burn faster?  I certainly can't control fire (watch the random activity of a flame), but I can control its RATE of burn, to a degree that can be measured.

[Kalen Braley]

The science is there as Tom Allen detailed in his last post.

He is correct in the CO2 we measure has a distinct signature because its man made and not naturally occurring.  We know exactly what the impact is, by %.

[Niall C]

Tom


I take control to mean that man can operate the levers such that we can determine the specific temperature rather than just trying to influence it one way or the other. If we can control temperature in such a manner then I take it back. Can we control global temperature ?


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Just in general I would like to chime in on comments I hear that go something like, "The world heated up and cooled down on its own in the past, before mankind was even around".

And they would be exactly right, this is true....

But these changes came about by natural processes and occurred over very very long stretches of time (with the exception of events like volcanoes and asteroid impacts).  An Ice age takes tens of thousands of years to both form and recede naturally on its own.  And that's what shocking about the current measurements we are seeing, what normally happens over thousands of years is happening in a matter of a few short decades....orders of magnitudes quicker.

This is why the need to act on a global level is so critical, it literally cannot wait before the runaway effect that's kicked in on other planets like Venus happens here.

[Tom Allen]

No, we cannot determine a specific temperature.  I know of no scientist that has ever claimed that.

But can we impact global temperature: yes.  Can we increase it by adding to the greenhouse effect: yes.  Are we increasing global temperature by adding more CO2 than the earth can absorb to maintain equilibrium: yes.  Can we lessen the man-made increase, by reducing the CO2 that we are responsible for: yes.  Do we have a thermostat to set a specific temperature?  No.

To me, those facts some degree of "control."  I think it is fair to say that we can clearly control our impact.

In your view, if we can't set a specific temperature, we cannot control it.  I don't define "control" that way.  I define it more as the ability to have an impact on it.

We impact temperature, and we can control how we impact temperature. Maybe that is our middle ground? 

[Tom Birkert]

It's the height of arrogance to say we're going to control the temperature of the planet. It's always changed, will always change and we have no way of controlling this/

I beg to differ.  Actually, we do have a way of controlling the temperature of the planet (to a degree).  Reduce the things we are doing that increases temperature.  Of course, there have always been changes, and there always be changes.  But when man started artificially adding additional elements to the air (CO2, for example) that undeniably accelerate the rate of warming (the greenhouse effect), and to the extent that the oceans can no longer absorb what we are putting in the air, we are impacting the overall temperature, and bringing about climate change faster than ever before.

That is controlling temperature (although unintentionally).  Perhaps it is more accurate to say that man is negatively impacting long term temperature.

Adding additional (CO2) elements to the air.

I remember being taught at school how CO2 was part of the respiration process. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2, which plants take to help them grow better... Every time a person exhales CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and the population has been rising and shows no sign of stopping...

The demonisation of CO2 is scandalous. It's a trace gas, vital for life on earth. We're talking about something that is 400 parts per million in the atmosphere.

A good rule of thumb is to follow the money, and there are billions of pounds and dollars on the line in terms of subsidies and grants to blame man for what is happening.

I don't believe we have nearly enough information to start saying what is causing the rising temperatures, and whether this is in any way abnormal. Satellite data goes back 30 years and the planet is billions of years old.

[Tom Allen]

To me, it has nothing to do with money, just science and facts.  No spin at all.  To me, I don't care what money, business, or special interest motivated someone to determine that the earth was round, and not flat.  That person determined it scientifically, and it is now a fact (contrary to prior thought).  I don't care what money, religion, business, or special interest motivated someone to determine that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa.   That person proved it scientifically, and it is now a fact.

The same goes with the greenhouse effect.  It is a fact, based on scientific principles (until someone provides me evidence proving otherwise).  I'm certainly open to evidence and science to the contrary.

There is a direct statistical correlation between the rate of increase of CO2 in our atmosphere and rising global temperatures.  As was also pointed out, there is a point of no return, at which time the earth is completely overwhelmed, and can no longer absorb the excess CO2.  The earth would then simply turn to a plant like Venus, where it is too hot to sustain life (as we know it).  Frankly, I do not want to push us there faster, or be the cause of it.  And CO2 and similar greenhouse gases do that.

As far as having data back only 30 years, the science for what I am talking about does not rely on a limited sampling of 30 year old satellite data. The CO2 ppm is measured historically, from air trapped in ice core samples from about 500,000 years ago.  To me, that is a lot of data points.  No 4.5 billions years, of course, but you can get a idea of recent cycles and trends. That data does suggest variations and cycles, consistent with what we would expect to see.  That is, of course, until you get to today, when it goes outside anything we have ever discovered before.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

Yes, CO2 is necessary.  So is oxygen.  But too much of either one can be bad.  Don't stay in room made up only of CO2 for too long.  Or one made up only of oxygen either, unless you like fire.  In other words, both are good and completely necessary, but only in the right proportions.

[Kevin Markham]

In terms of impact on courses, here's an article about everybody's favourite climate change sceptic... Donald Trump... and his insistence on having a wall built to protect his precious asset. And no, I don't mean the Mexican wall - this one's at Doonbeg, which was hammered in 2014 and has been receiving quite a battering these recent months. Irish Examiner Article


Same risk applies to several other courses on these shores

[Jason Thurman]

I don't know why anyone believes in things like science when there are dozens of people on the Internet offering perfectly rational explanations of how climate change is a hoax perpetuated by wind industry special interest groups that the poor fossil fuels industry is clearly powerless to fight.



But the original post asks us to assume those fancy scientists are right, even in the face of such compelling arguments from guys who once read an article on the Internet that clearly was disproving the whole idea of climate change before it infected their browser with malware and the page stopped responding two paragraphs from the end. So with that in mind, is there really anything a course like Ljunghusen or Mulranny can do to stay afloat?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()