Concerning, at present, probably the most important topic of your life

[JD™]

As I understand it, yes.So expect, in the UK, in all likelihood, colder winters and wetter summers.

SHIT. NOW YOU'VE GOT MY ATTENTION!!! I'm playing, you had my attention anyway. Although not much, because we know our opinions on this differ massively already.

[Rusevelt]

Would be nice if had some warmer and longer spells of Spring/Summer, to make up for the crappy wind chill we are experiencing now.

[1a2bcio8]

SHIT. NOW YOU'VE GOT MY ATTENTION!!! I'm playing, you had my attention anyway. Although not much, because we know our opinions on this differ massively already.

I appreciate your honesty even if I radically disagree with your attitude

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.^[6]

So 0.51°C increase since 1983. Taking the most optimistic case, 0.6 - 0.2 = 0.4°C increase since say 1883. Sooo... something doesn't compute. That would indicate that the temperature rose, then fell then rose again in that period? Not making any kind of argument just saying that even within one statement it doesn't add up.

[MikeCottTrials]

This is all very worrying and important stuff...

In my opinion there is only one answer, and that is technology. We either have to stop using it, or make dramatic leaps forward in the generation of power. I for one don't understand why there doesn't seem to be any countries pouring massive amounts of money into nuclear fusion.

Just imagining being the country to pioneer it makes my wallet feel heavy.

We've got nothing and we're drowning in a sea of countries with superior economies.

If we had a network of clean energy producing fusion power stations we could power national transport such as trains for next to nothing. Imagine being able to travel the country for letsss say a fiver. Down with the car, up with the gigantic public transport systems

[Revolver]

I for one don't understand why there doesn't seem to be any countries pouring massive amounts of money into nuclear fusion.

It's because Mr. Shell is worried that if suddenly electricity is cheap as piss to produce, he won't be able to feed his kids with his practically infinite stash of money.

Replace 'kids' with ego or whatever Mr. Shell actually cares about.

[1a2bcio8]

So 0.51°C increase since 1983. Taking the most optimistic case, 0.6 - 0.2 = 0.4°C increase since say 1883. Sooo... something doesn't compute. That would indicate that the temperature rose, then fell then rose again in that period? Not making any kind of argument just saying that even within one statement it doesn't add up.

I'm assuming that it means the increase of 0.6 relates to the period prior to 1983, from the industrial era, and the increase of 5.1 in the last 30 years is an addition to that? In other words, the process is accelerating in relation to carbon emitting developments since then which makes sense given we're burning significantly more oil and have even less forests than before.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[MikeCottTrials]

It's because Mr. Shell is worried that if suddenly electricity is cheap as piss to produce, he won't be able to feed his kids with his practically infinite stash of money.

Replace 'kids' with ego or whatever Mr. Shell actually cares about.

Then I put this to you, why isn't Mr. Shell thinking 'eyy if I get into this nuclear fusion business, I could keep dem profits coming...FOREVER'?

[trials hoe]

I'm assuming that it means the increase of 0.6 relates to the period prior to 1983, from the industrial era, and the increase of 5.1 in the last 30 years is an addition to that? In other words, the process is accelerating in relation to carbon emitting developments since then which makes sense given we're burning significantly more oil and have even less forests than before.

Now you need to draw attention to how global warming 'climate change' due to the use of non-renewable/polluting energy is causing the sea levels to rise (by 1.7mm p/y avg. apparently*). Then try to explain how sea levels rose significantly when the English channel was created and England was cut-off from mainland Europe, all without the use of fossil fuels.......

The whole green this carbon that is all bollocks, do we all really buy into this bullshit?. While there is a 'shred' of truth in the whole climate change thing, in the sense that consuming fuels and polluting the atmosphere is certainly not a good thing..........however its incredibly arrogant and egocentric to think we could have such a dire effect on the environment we live in over such a short period of time, big business and media putting an overly negative spin on things to scaremonger people into buying electric cars and so on..........

* i spent a whole 5 seconds googling that figure, so it may not be overly accurate.

[1a2bcio8]

The following is an interesting article that requires a bit more effort but expands the context - that of Corporate power attempting to dominate our perceptions of anything that interferes with short-term profit - which the 'debate' on global warming should be considered alongside. This relates more specifically to America but which shapes our perceptions of Global Warming as well:

"The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states.

Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking—a fine idea, no doubt, but it's easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits.

Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change.

One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world's major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues.

The other side consists of sceptics including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown—which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse.

Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of sceptics, highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC's regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/14684/can_civilization_survive_capitalism/

Edited March 12, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[MadManMike]

That Methane that's gonna leak and kill us all?

Japan has it covered guys, don't worry:

http://www.newser.com/story/164295/in-a-first-japan-turns-fire-ice-into-natural-gas.html

[1a2bcio8]

That's good news and I'd be grateful if technological advancements could deter climate change but I don't think we should sit too easy just yet...

[eskimo]

If we run out of oil and gas then i'm sure we'll be using another taxable energy source which is more eco friendly. Yes i said "if".

The number statistics are rubbish imo. They are based on such minuscule timescales.

At work i was thinking, would it be better if we helped those in current trouble rather than helping everyone of the future? I didn't think of an answer. But i also don't think there is an answer.

I can't remember from earlier what i came to say, so that's it.

[Mark W]

That last line genuinely made me laugh out loud, and I don't even really know why.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

If we run out of oil and gas then i'm sure we'll be using another taxable energy source which is more eco friendly. Yes i said "if".

I guess it all depends on whether it really is made from squished dinosaurs...

[eskimo]

I guess it all depends on whether it really is made from squished dinosaurs...

That wasn't my point. I mean if the small pockets can't be found or we die before we use all the small pockets up.

That last line genuinely made me laugh out loud, and I don't even really know why.

Doesn't make sense in my head either

[hI-OOPS-CAPS]

Anyone ever thought if ghosts are real and we're unearthing a huge oil graveyard of prehistoric creatures and burning them?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Anyone ever thought if ghosts are real and we're unearthing a huge oil graveyard of prehistoric creatures and burning them?

That I have certainly not ever wondered.

I do however wonder if oil is in fact a self renewing resource or at least far more abundant than what our science teachers tell us. Note: That's not a foil hat comment but a serious consideration.

[Luke Rainbird]

Anyone ever wondered why ghosts never really seem to get dusty, despite living in haunted houses?

Do ghosts change their clothes, or does the dust just drop straight through?

[ooo]

Japan has it covered guys, don't worry:

http://www.newser.com/story/164295/in-a-first-japan-turns-fire-ice-into-natural-gas.html

So they are now melting ice on purpose ? and producing more CO2 and more atmospheric water ? Surely thats a terrible idea?

I do however wonder if oil is in fact a self renewing resource or at least far more abundant than what our science teachers tell us. Note: That's not a foil hat comment but a serious consideration.

From what I've heard, oil exists because bacteria hadn't evolved that could utilise all of a tree/dinosaur so they left behind a organic matter that has undergone some changes due to temperature and pressure. Bacteria / microbes have now evolved to utilise all of 'dead things'.

Also, the size of the oil reserves must be huge, because at the very least the big countries need enough oil to run a military on for several years plus enough oil to develop and manufacture the replacement technologies. I'm sure theres loads of oil left, but that does mean even more CO2 to eventually be released in to our atmosphere.

[manuel]

People are naturally greedy and selfish.

If you can find a way to fix that all other problems will melt away.

You can batter people with any environmental issue you like but at the end of the day people want an easy comfy time and not give a shit about the cost, which is why most people don't do any research about the damage to the environment by jumping in the big 4*4 to go 2 minutes to the shops every time.

Generally change is only ever driven by cost, not people wanting to change their ways.

f**k I don't know why I was posting - I can't afford a plane ticket to anywhere.

[eskimo]

I do however wonder if oil is in fact a self renewing resource or at least far more abundant than what our science teachers tell us. Note: That's not a foil hat comment but a serious consideration.

Sounds pretty metallic to me

So they are now melting ice on purpose ? and producing more CO2 and more atmospheric water ? Surely thats a terrible idea?

Not sure if it counts, but until 2041 no-one is allowed to mine or drill the arctic. I suspect we have about 28 years left of oil in the current places we drill

From what I've heard, oil exists because bacteria hadn't evolved that could utilise all of a tree/dinosaur so they left behind a organic matter that has undergone some changes due to temperature and pressure. Bacteria / microbes have now evolved to utilise all of 'dead things'.

Pretty interesting. I suppose it makes sense, and maybe why dinosaurs were so successful.

[MadManMike]

There's not really anywhere suitable to post this and please, don't take offence Ben, but:

Ben Rowlands is Sheldon Cooper.

I read a couple of posts in a row and they were written so similar to some of the stuff Sheldon says I actually read them in my head using Sheldon's voice! haha

[casualjoe]

People are naturally greedy and selfish.

People have a whole host of personalities. I'd argue that our greed has been magnified through growing up in a post Friedman/Thatcher/Reagan economic era, which has reshaped society a lot since the 80s. They preached that "Greed is Good", of course that's gonna make people greedy. I hear old timers say you used to be able to leave your door open, no one would nick anything.. what went wrong? Seems people got greedy to me, and when there are cultures all over the world that aren't greedy, I wouldn't say it was natural.

Evolution isn't just survival of the fittest, in many cases, cooperation is needed to survive.

[manuel]

I think you are wrong. The boom and advancement in technology has changed the world and made it easier to be greedy (possibly successfully greedy). You can't blame that on a government, just coincidental. 80's had massive leaps forward in many many many areas.

Most cultures are greedy in some way, but many have less opportunity to be greedy, I guess. You can't change some things about human nature and greed's one of them.