Government and Nuclear Power...

tr3mor

BaJi wrote:

Then campaign for bird scaring equitment near the turbine.

I'm sorry, I appear to be in a state of disbelief. What's the point of saving the environment if we're going to force endangered species into extinction?

All I'm saying is that there are much better places that wind farms could be sited. Not on protected peat bogland with a huge population of Golden Eagles. Is that so hard to grasp?

Volcano

and our planet has known much more severe changes than it currently is suffering.

No it hasn't. This is the classic mistake that the non-scientific community seem to continually make. Mean global temperatures have been higher in the past, but it is the rate of change that is relevant.

Rate of temperature, CO2, CH4, NO2 etc levels have increased since 1750 (due to industrialisation) to higher levels today than at any other time in the last half-a-miliion years.

gromituk

tr3mor wrote:

I'm sorry, I appear to be in a state of disbelief. What's the point of saving the environment if we're going to force endangered species into extinction?

Perhaps because if we don't save the enviroment, an awful lot more endangered species will be forced into extinction? Omelette and eggs, I guess.

tr3mor

gromituk wrote:

Perhaps because if we don't save the enviroment, an awful lot more endangered species will be forced into extinction? Omelette and eggs, I guess.

But there are ways to save the environment without effecting endangered species.

talksalot81

Volcano wrote:

No it hasn't. This is the classic mistake that the non-scientific community seem to continually make. Mean global temperatures have been higher in the past, but it is the rate of change that is relevant.

Rate of temperature, CO2, CH4, NO2 etc levels have increased since 1750 (due to industrialisation) to higher levels today than at any other time in the last half-a-miliion years.

I am not non-scientific community

As far as I can tell from the data, there is insufficient resolution to be confident of the rates of change. So I do not speak of the rate. What one can be certain of is that the change between the last ice age and (for example) the year 1000AD is alot greater than the change between 1750 and today. I appreciate this analysis flies in the face of my usual arguements simply because you are not comparing apples with apples, but we simply dont have enough apples to do that.

talksalot81

tr3mor wrote:

But there are ways to save the environment without effecting endangered species.

You are right, unfortunately it requires sacrifice by Man... something which is rarely taken when we can shift the sacrifice to something that doesnt matter as much (not my own belief, but nonetheless it seems to be fair of reality).

Volcano

What one can be certain of is that the change between the last ice age and (for example) the year 1000AD is alot greater than the change between 1750 and today.

You think that a 4 degree Celsius change over 9,000 years is greater than 0.5 degrees over 150 years?

talksalot81

I said I am not talking about rates. Thus your question simplifies to "is 4 greater than 0.5?" The answer is of course yes. You might not agree about the rates, but I did state it in the post you quoted. In my view, the errors associated with the data are simply too large to be talking about temperature gradients over a time as short as hundreds of years.

ps. 250 years

Volcano

All legislation, arguments, claims, research etc with regards to climate change is based on the rate of change. Comparing the global mean temperature from a fixed point A (now) with a fixed point B (in the past), tells us nothing.

"My car does 80 mph" is of no concern, "My car does 0-80mph in a second" tells us something special about that car.

Moggles_2

Originally posted by talksalot81
You have zero evidence about the effect of climate change.

Try telling Canada's Inuit who see its effects in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. Scientists observe the effects in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. The Earth has never warmed so fast as in the past 150 years.

Climatologists reporting for the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will accelerate the change further. For instance, Arctic ice is melting so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

Even if rising carbon dioxide levels did not cause further global warming, it would still be an ecological disaster. As atmospheric carbon dioxide continued to dissolve in seawater, the oceans would become too acidic for shells to form, obliterating much of the plankton on which the marine ecosystem depends.

Phytoplankton play a key role in the world's carbon cycle, as they are involved in about half the Earth's photosynthesis; together with zooplankton, they form the basis of the whole ocean food web. IMO, our very survival depends upon contending with climate change.