What if man made climate change

[cojak]

Is saving mankind from the natural rhythm of a 100,00 year old ice age?

Just watching Men of Rock and James Crole's work..

[EternalOptimist]

Is saving mankind from the natural rhythm of a 100,00 year old ice age?

Just watching Men of Rock and James Crole's work..

its an interesting point. if man can warm the climate by mistake, then cool it again by making a big effort, it follows that as technology improves (which it always does) he will be able to do both, on demand, really quickly.
pretty soon we will be sending hot hail to attack ming the merciless.

of course, its all a load of bolks

[pjclarke]

Or .... what if we are about to bring about the end of a period of unusual climatic stability, during which civilisation developed?

Alas, there is rather more support in the scientific literature for this second viewpoint, e.g.

... our climate has the potential for large rapid fluctuations. Indeed, the Earth, and the creatures struggling to exist on the planet, have been repeatedly whipsawed between climate states. No doubt this rough ride has driven progression of life via changing stresses, extinctions and species evolution. But civilization developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12 000 years in duration. That period is about to end.

[BlasterBates]

...but on the whole the more dramatic predictions are usually wrong.

I notice he says it's about to end. Just round the corner. No change in global temps for about 12 or 15 years, but very soon it will end, please can I have a huge grant to look it my vague prediction.

Of course 30 years ago the scientific literature was saying there would be an ice age. So you could have posted exactly the same thing 30 years ago, about a completely different outcome, overwhelming evidence of an ice age. Of course one might argue that climate science has developed since then, but in 30 years hence they may be saying very similar things about climate science now.

In Germany 20 years ago the scientists predicted the death of the forests in about 20 years, still waiting on that one.

Currently global temperatures below the average of the last 30 years, and dropping, and the hot 2010 was actually cooler than 1998, doesn't seem like global warming to me.

We're still waiting for the Holocene period to end.

[doodab]

Of course 30 years ago the scientific literature was saying there would be an ice age. So you could have posted exactly the same thing 30 years ago, about a completely different outcome, overwhelming evidence of an ice age. Of course one might argue that climate science has developed since then, but in 30 years hence they may be saying very similar things about climate science now.
.

But they probably won't, because it won't advance if the plebiscite get their way and it's banned.

Surely even the naysayers must realise that you aren't ever going to have better models or better predictions without research.

[BlasterBates]

Who's suggesting climate science should be banned?

If you would follow the debate, it is the opposite. Some climate scientists are deliberately stifling research.

They won't release the raw data on which their research is based so other scientists can look at it, and they connive to stop scientists publishing with research that contradicts their own. This research is now beginning to get published, but only since "Climategate". The research is of a perfectly good quality.

Any climate scientist who suggests natural causes for global warming gets his career destroyed.

[EternalOptimist]

But they probably won't, because it won't advance if the plebiscite get their way and it's banned.

Surely even the naysayers must realise that you aren't ever going to have better models or better predictions without research.

what on earth are you on about ???? boy have you got this back to front.

The whole point about being sceptical in science is to not let the issue lie. its to examine it, scrutinise it , test it and ask questions. improve models, improves experiments and improve techniques.
Einstein was a sceptic for crying out loud

[DimPrawn]

Climate change sceptics double in 4 years as Britain goes cold on global warming | Mail Online

The number of climate change sceptics has almost doubled in four years, official research showed yesterday.
A quarter of Britons are unconvinced that the world is warming following successive freezing winters and a series of scandals over the credibility of climate science.

The figures suggest that a growing proportion of the public do not share the belief of all three major political parties and Whitehall – that climate change is a major and urgent challenge requiring radical and expensive policies.




You can fool some of the people as they say.

[RichardCranium]

The figures suggest that a growing proportion of the public do not share the belief of all three major political parties and Whitehall – that climate change is a major and urgent challenge requiring radical and expensive policies.

If all the politicians say it is true, it must be a lie.

It's got bugger all to do with the science and more to do with the credibility of politicians.

If the politicians would just STFU for 5 years and let the scientists and mathematicians work out the truth, then the public would accept whatever evidence it is they come up with.

But at the moment us plebs are being fed lies by one side or the other (or more likely, both) and we now know it.

[MarillionFan]

Plan B

Invent a climate control machine