Some facts on climate change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
“This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)” (See below)
Whilst it may not be sensible to rely on Wiki as a single source i do feel it generaly gives a good set of sources and general overviews of subjects.
Here’s the article on climate change scientific opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Here’s the overall article on climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Here’s the Geological Society of London statement on climate change
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange
The last sentance is of interest: “In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.”
A interesting booklet from the US National Academies.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf
This is interesting:
“Clues from the “fingerprint” of carbon dioxide. In a process that takes place over millions of years, carbon from the decay of plants and animals is stored deep in the Earth’s crust in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas (see Figure 4). Because this “fossil” carbon is so old, it contains very little of the radioisotope carbon-14—a form of the carbon that decays naturally over long time periods. When scientists measure carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere, they find that it is much lower than the levels in living ecosystems, indicating that there is an abundance of “old” carbon. While a small fraction of this old carbon can be attributed to volcanic eruptions, the overwhelming majority
comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Average CO2 emissions from volcanoes are about 200 million tons per year, while humans are emitting an estimated 36 billion tons of CO2 each year, 80-85% of which are from fossil fuels.”
By: Moggy C - 27th September 2013 at 10:06
I find it mildly amusing to watch this thread. There is a definite element of “If we say humans aren’t effecting the climate often enough then maybe it will become true.”
As somebody without children it’s an intellectual issues for me rather than a problem.
But if I had kids, if there was only a 5% chance that our generation is leaving the awful legacy it seems to be headed for, then I would actually be erring on the safe side.
Moggy
By: AlanR - 27th September 2013 at 09:44
A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant
cause” of global warming since the 1950s.
The report by the UN’s climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate
change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
How much do these people get paid to come up with these conclusions ?
So many lies have been told in the past, who do you believe ?
By: steven_wh - 29th May 2013 at 16:44
Tim Yeo recants, a bit.
Humans may not be responsible for global warming, according to Tim Yeo, the MP who oversees government policy on climate change.
Tim Yeo was one of the first MP’s to see the possibilities of consultancy fees and directorships for promoting the cause of global warming, and the chance of an EU post for when he retires from his constituency at the next election. But he his now backtracking, as are many other politicians, as the CC meme finally gets exposed as a huge failure and an even bigger waste of money.
As one of his constituents in Suffolk South I believe that he is now aware of the huge unease here, about his activities in blatantly exploiting the subject of climate change. Whether it is the obvious conflict of being chairman of a government committee on climate change and at the same time chairman of the renewables industry organisation, or his many extra parliament consultancy jobs, it has not gone unnoticed. We have also noticed that the only party publicly wishing to end the waste of hundreds of billions on climate change, and which is gaining votes locally, is UKIP.
The local rise of UKIP may not be due entirely to Tim Yeo, but he epitomises one of the reasons why many Conservatives have turned away from them. Tim, like many other Conservative parliamentarians, has simply forgotten what it means to be Conservative.
Tim’s yo-yoing has been noticed across the Web.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/its-official-we-are-all-climate-sceptics-now/#more-87270
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/tim-yeos-switches-from-deniers-last-gasp-to-warming-might-be-natural/
Steven
By: steven_wh - 28th May 2013 at 16:43
Here is a quiz for you on climate change. It also contains a reference to the major troughers Yeo and Deben.
We need to rethink. For instance, if you suppose that the annual UN climate talks will save us, forget it. I met a delegate at the last talks in Doha in December who told me he had just watched a two-hour debate that culminated in placing square brackets around a semi-colon.
Even the EU is beginning to lose faith in spending billions on climate change.
The EU’s great green U-turn on policy that is sending energy bills soaring across the continent
Steven
By: charliehunt - 27th May 2013 at 20:34
Nice one Edgar!!;)
By: Edgar Brooks - 27th May 2013 at 20:17
Just had this sent to me :-
Climate change update:-
According to yesterday’s report to the Commerce Department from the consulate at Bergen, Norway: The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too warm. Reports from fishermen, hunters and explorers point to a radical change in climate and unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Hardly any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees, 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones while many well-known glaciers have disappeared.
Very few seals and whitefish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast schools of smelts and herring which have never before ventured so far north are being encountered at the old seal fishing grounds.
It is predicted that within a few years the ice melt will cause the sea to rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from Nov. 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press in the Washington Post, 90 years ago!
By: charliehunt - 23rd May 2013 at 18:08
That is and has been for a decade indisputable.
By: steven_wh - 23rd May 2013 at 17:53
This is why Europe and the UK need to pull back from the mad climate change policies.
Steven
By: obligatory - 13th May 2013 at 11:21
A video on the topic
http://vimeo.com/57193807
By: charliehunt - 8th May 2013 at 14:12
[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;2021971 that one windmill collapses on a regular basis in the Thames Estuary.
Jim.
Lincoln .7[/QUOTE]
That a total exaggeration – none has collapsed, so don’t believe everything you hear! Much as I might like it to be true!! Rotor blade failure is common and there have been several instances of those at sea and on land, where the danger is greater, of course.
By: Lincoln 7 - 8th May 2013 at 13:59
Yes, I wonder, Linc, although I suppose with modern nav kit it would be unlikely. We have a couple of big farms out in the Thames Estuary, so plenty of opportunity there as it is a busy stretch of water, especially for bulk tankers and container ships.
Nav aids are O.K. but if the ship is negotiating the Farms, and loses power and steerage, it could easily drift into a windmill, prior to a Tug going to it’s rescue. I have been told, that one windmill collapses on a regular basis in the Thames Estuary.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 8th May 2013 at 13:48
Yes, I wonder, Linc, although I suppose with modern nav kit it would be unlikely. We have a couple of big farms out in the Thames Estuary, so plenty of opportunity there as it is a busy stretch of water, especially for bulk tankers and container ships.
By: Lincoln 7 - 8th May 2013 at 13:44
[QUOTE=charliehunt;2021960]Anyone who pays an electricity bill, that’s who! All this claptrap about beneficial energy costs and saving energy and frightening the old into switching off, makes me very angry.
I agree they are unsightly except those out at sea,
I have quite a bit to do with Trinity House, London. I know for a fact that they went to great lengths to try and stop the huge windfarm in the WASH, as they stated, and I agree with them, that they would be a hazard to shipping, however, their reasoning was lost on those who were to gain the most, and they were built. Lighthouses have been hit by ships, so I wonder how long it will be before a collision, between a windmill and a ship happens.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 8th May 2013 at 13:31
Anyone who pays an electricity bill, that’s who! All this claptrap about beneficial energy costs and saving energy and frightening the old into switching off, makes me very angry.
I agree they are unsightly except those out at sea, where they cost even more per MWh to operate. But if they actually did what we were all lead to believe they would I could live with them but instead they are a growing sea of white elephants. And just bear in mind, Linc, that in order to fulfil the DECC objectives under commitments made a further 5,000 are scheduled to be built, but because the actual returns are so low the figure would need to be closer to 20,000.
By: Lincoln 7 - 8th May 2013 at 13:19
Exactly, and whoes money is it that’s being wasted?.Apart from that, I do get around quite a bit, and areas of outstanding views of the landscape are now blighted by them.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 8th May 2013 at 11:35
Now I’m with – you hadn’t explained your brother’s connection. How interesting!! You are too damned right, or too put it more prosaically – they are an effing waste of money!:mad:
By: Lincoln 7 - 8th May 2013 at 11:30
Chas, it’s the total amount it costs my Bro, to take out the engineers every day to repair the broken down windmills, the cost of employing my Bro, and the engineers, plus replacement parts for the windmills must surley outweigh the cost of the electricity the windmills generate,When they ARE working) I just think they are “Loss Leaders”.and are no use or ornament,How many times do you drive past a wind farm, and none are turning?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 8th May 2013 at 11:04
Sorry, Linc – I don’t follow your point….are we talking turbines, or…..?
By: Lincoln 7 - 8th May 2013 at 11:03
Subsidised don’t come into it as far as my Bro is concerned, he gets paid £450.00. PER DAY. but he has to pay for his subsidised fuel, maintaining the Rib, all the onboard electronics, mooring fees,etc, but I wouldn’t mind being a penny behind him.
As for Scotland, those boat owners, can charge what they want for the use of their boats,
Jim
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 8th May 2013 at 10:49
I think you’ll find it happens elsewhere in Europe and perhaps further afield as well, such is the basic ineffectiveness of wind turbine generation. No one would invest in it unless it was heavily subsidised.
Sign In
March 26, 2013 at 2:46 pm