• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Global Warming

Damian,..It is the 'overwhelming evidence' of scientists moving the goalposts when current data no longer marries with their predictions, ..ie 'global warming' has now become 'climate change', that makes me sceptical.
Regardless of whatever weather pattern mother nature now throws our way, we are told that this is evidence of impending doom.
It reminds me of the childrens fable ' Chicken Licken' when an acorn falls out of a tree and hits an hysterical hen on the head, convincing her that the sky is falling.
It is the 'overwhelming evidence' of those who have perpetuated the doomsday scenario in order to rip us off that makes me cynical.
 
Last edited:
So who is to judge when cynicism becomes extreme then Damian?

It's a good question Alex.
Perhaps it is easy to become a cynic, and to be taken to cyncisms extremes when what is driving it is rather personal, and a little less easy when you remove yourself from the problem.
 
Damian,..It is the 'overwhelming evidence' of scientists moving the goalposts when current data no longer marries with their predictions, ..ie 'global warming' has now become 'climate change', that makes me sceptical.
Regardless of whatever weather pattern mother nature now throws our way, we are told that this is evidence of impending doom.
It reminds me of the childrens fable ' Chicken Licken' when an acorn falls out of a tree and hits an hysterical hen on the head, convincing her that the sky is falling.
It is the 'overwhelming evidence' of those who have perpetuated the doomsday scenario in order to rip us off that makes me cynical.

Global warming? Climate change? Shouldn't we presume that the change came about through having realised global warming, predictions of everywhere receiving warming conditions were nonetheless a little premature, and so 'climate change' were thought of more descriptive?
 
Is'nt that all about keeping an open mind Damian,?..Something that does not seem to be cultivated by zealots in both camps.
 
Global warming? Climate change? Shouldn't we presume that the change came about through having realised global warming, predictions of everywhere receiving warming conditions were nonetheless a little premature, and so 'climate change' were thought of more descriptive?

I would'nt call that 'descriptive',..more hedging your bets!
 
But it is not overwhelming and it should be debated about how much of it is factual. It is used as mentioned in this thread as a stick to beat people with and extract money from. 100 years of data for a planet that is 5 billion years old is the proverbial drop in the ocean. Yes we "may" be having an effect but as it stands no one can say for certain in what way. This planet has probably been through a lot more than anything our short term tenure can throw at it.

Either way and believe it or not guess whos paying?

100 years of data? Do you believe for one minute that the scientists offering climate change as a real danger to us do so on the basis of 100 years of knowledge?
Briefly I used to monitor invertebrate life in the river Avon to help identify issues before they had the capacity to become major events. With the large diversity of species present there were certain species defined as key indicators of pollution, as they'd succumb to very small levels of pollutant before anything else. Now, who is to say that because the Avon might have suffered serious levels of decline in years past, we should not have bothered to look at those key indicators as reasons to investigate further?
 
I would'nt call that 'descriptive',..more hedging your bets!

Not really. More the complexities of the earth's coping mechanisms showing themselves.
 
It's a good question Alex.
Perhaps it is easy to become a cynic, and to be taken to cyncisms extremes when what is driving it is rather personal, and a little less easy when you remove yourself from the problem.

Well I wouldn't call global warming, man made or otherwise, personal. I like to keep an open mind, not everyone does. It doesn't make one a cynic to keep an open mind either.
 
100 years of data? Do you believe for one minute that the scientists offering climate change as a real danger to us do so on the basis of 100 years of knowledge?

Well Damian, since records began what other comparison is there? What we have now are conflicting suggestions and theories without any proper frame of accurate reference to compare to. So we are acting on "educated" guesses and "rough" data. Might be enough for you but it is not for me.

As for your research in the Avon you describe exactly what is being said in this thread. You made suggestions as to what you thought the key indicators were, your words, you said it, but just like the scientists I hazard a guess you were not able to present it as conclusive incontravertable evidence.

However if you did.... then jolly good show :)
 
Well I wouldn't call global warming, man made or otherwise, personal. I like to keep an open mind, not everyone does. It doesn't make one a cynic to keep an open mind either.

Sorry Alex, my point was to say, when making a judgement on the merits of a scientific case, how much we stand to loose from some taking advantage, if that is the case, has little to do with that science.
 
Perhaps if it turns out to be true that Global warming is down to man
Then we are all heading like Lemmings over the cliff :(
Lets assume that hypothetically that if turns out to be true that man and his ways are the cause of Global warming . I wonder how people will feel when they are told they have to change there ways and would they be able to accept such changes to there life style ?
Personally I think not . As I said its all hypothetical .
I am sure we all remember the floods of 2007
Where I live , Back in July 2007 with the floods we had we lost our water supply . Mythe water treatment plant at Tewksbury on the banks of the Severn got flooded and we lost the water and ended up having to collect bottled water from super market car parks .
In Gloucester we nearly lost the the electric supply do to a substation nearly being flooded which was also near the River Severn .
Weather or not the floods were due to global warming and if global warming is a realty and its down to man . Then I think we can all look forward to wetter times .
 
Where I live , Back in July 2007 with the floods we had we lost our water supply . Mythe water treatment plant at Tewksbury on the banks of the Severn got flooded and we lost the water and ended up having to collect bottled water from super market car parks .
In Gloucester we nearly lost the the electric supply do to a substation nearly being flooded which was also near the River Severn .
Weather or not the floods were due to global warming and if global warming is a realty and its down to man . Then I think we can all look forward to wetter times .

I remember seeing the flooded substation on the telly Joe,.grim times for you folks.
What worries me is that if we are supposed to be experiencing above average rainfull, how come we never seem to have enough water in the south east?
I suspect that if we are fortunate enough to have 2 or 3 consectutive weeks of decent sunshine this summer there will be rumblings of water restrictions again,..to crowded and not enough reserviors I guess.
 
I remember seeing the flooded substation on the telly Joe,.grim times for you folks.
What worries me is that if we are supposed to be experiencing above average rainfull, how come we never seem to have enough water in the south east?
I suspect that if we are fortunate enough to have 2 or 3 consectutive weeks of decent sunshine this summer there will be rumblings of water restrictions again,..to crowded and not enough reserviors I guess.

Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration. We had over a year below average rainfall before some areas received a hosepipe ban.
Yes, why not build some more reservoirs if weather is going to be this unpredictable, but again this has little to do with the science.

As for your research in the Avon you describe exactly what is being said in this thread. You made suggestions as to what you thought the key indicators were, your words, you said it, but just like the scientists I hazard a guess you were not able to present it as conclusive incontravertable evidence.

Of course, there were very occasional drops in gammarus numbers, that the EA could only put down to minor spikes in pollutants, as they soon recovered. What was important John were the trends;
Looking at the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, scientists have been able to take a look at the composition of ice taken from 3.5kms down giving them samples of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere going back 500,000yrs. Analysing just 160,000yrs shows the highest CO2 levels pre-modern times to be at around 130,000yrs ago and at just below 300ppm whereby it dropped steadily to see in the start of the last ice age. The level recorded today? 380ppm! The level of CO2 recorded to see the beginning of the end of the last ice age was just below 200ppm 20,000yrs ago, rising to just above 250ppm at the end, around 10,000yrs later.
Given that CO2 is considered one of the main measureable greenhouse gases and that such a small rise through such large periods in history has had massive consequences for the planet, such a large rise in recent years with predictions with business as usual in 2100 being double what it is today, is cause for great concern.
I think, given the complexity of mother earth, computer models predicting what might happen where may never be right BUT, the planet is warming globally, we are a very large part of that and we should do something about it!

Regards

Damian
 
Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration. We had over a year below average rainfall before some areas received a hosepipe ban.
Yes, why not build some more reservoirs if weather is going to be this unpredictable, but again this has little to do with the science.



I agree Damian,..nevertheless, much of what we are told in times of flood or drought is an 'exaggeration', wherebye climate change is used as an excuse to mask the mismanagement of our resources and water catchments.
We do not need more water storage because of 'unpredictable; weather,..it is required in order to serve the burgeoning population, and save our rivers in the south from having their lifeblood abstracted.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the pessimists now prefer to use climate change, which is more ambiguous than global warming, but that aside ...
There is incontestable proof that mankind evolved faster when the earth was warmer, which, incidentally, was caused by natural global and stellar cycles. Maybe we should all be embracing global warming as a positive direction rather than treat it with gloom and despondency.
 
"In the face of the overwhelming evidence presented to us, not only by scientists, but by most of our own experiences of recent intense weather patterns, I am struggling to understand why this is still being debated."

It is still being debated Damian simply because the "overwhelming" evidence that you say is being presented to us actually comes from two different camps. One which states one thing backed up by scientific evidence with another claiming the opposite which is again, backed up by scientific data.

Last summer I experienced global warming for myself, literally, when I was up in the Otztal Alps on the Austrian Italian border looking at the glaciers which are called "Ferner" which means "old snow". In the last 150 years there has been an increase of 1 oC and this has led to the rapid melting of some glaciers with some shrinking to half their size. According to the Otztal Nature Park who say;

"During warm summer seasons glaciers lose about 5-7 m at the tongue! The lateral moraines of the Rotmoos glacier near Obergurgl give an indication of the prior advances of the glacier.

The “Ferner†(glaciers) have noticeably retreated since their peak extension around 1850 and their advances in 1920 and 1980; however, the retreating ice does not leave behind a wasteland devoid of life. Instead, the newly uncovered land is populated in a typical succession. The glaciers are hence a large-scale experiment of nature."

Interesting to note there are dates in there when the glaciers "increased"?

The park then goes on to say;

"The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a global association of climatologists, and international environmental organizations are expecting climate change to speed up and cause the rise of global mean temperatures between 1,5 and 5°C. As a result the Alps would become ice-free and permafrost (permanently frozen soil, amounting to about 5% of the Alps) would melt.

The commission for glaciology of the Bavarian Academy of Science has stated in recent studies, that on a warm summer’s day, the amount of water melting at the Vernagt glacier (Ötz valley/Vent) would provide enough drinking water for the entire city of Munich for one day. In 2003, a new record for glacial melting was observed. The yearly amount of melting water from the “ice-monster†would be enough to supply Munich with water for a whole year."

There are 67 glaciers in the Otztal Nature Park and I walked across six of them. They all had markers showing how far the ice had retreated and without being there one could not imagine the huge scale of it all. These glaciers are simply massive and the areas where they have retreated is also massive! It is interesting to note that the glacial theory was only developed in the early 1800's so prior to that nothing was really known about them.

Some places on Earth are so cold that water is a solid—ice or snow. Scientists call these frozen places of our planet the "cryosphere." The word "cryosphere" comes from the Greek word for cold, "kryos." The cold regions of our planet influence our entire world’s climate.

The national Snow and Ice Data Centre says;

"September 2012 was a record-setting month for both of Earth’s poles, but for different reasons: sea ice in the Arctic fell to a record low minimum extent after a summer of melting, while Antarctic sea ice froze to a record high extent during the South Pole winter. Is record Antarctic sea ice canceling out the losses in Arctic ice? And does the record in the south mean that Antarctica is not warming?"

To read this go here;

Arctic melt versus Antarctic freeze: Is Antarctica warming or not? | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

To read about Greenlands Ice Sheet Today go here;

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

Thomas Mote, a professor at the University of Georgia is one of many scientists studying Greenland’s ice, and especially concerning 2012 when 40% of Greenlands ice sheet appeared to be melting said this on the NSIDC website;

“There is some evidence recently that suggests that the Greenland Ice Sheet can recover more easily perhaps than we might have thought,†Mote said. “I think we’re still trying to get a sense of just how inter-related these different cryospheric measures are across the Arctic.â€

To read this go here;

What caused last summer

Then again, more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine claiming that global warming has nothing to do with man made influences.

Equally by the same token I can balance the global warming scales by placing scientific evidence "FOR" the global warming argument on one side then place the scientific arguments "AGAINST" global warming on the other. That leaves us, the majority of the Earths population weighing this scale in between both arguments.

So it is clear there is indeed plenty of reason for debate.

Regards,

Lee.

`
 
Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration. We had over a year below average rainfall before some areas received a hosepipe ban.
Yes, why not build some more reservoirs if weather is going to be this unpredictable, but again this has little to do with the science.



I agree Damian,..nevertheless, much of what we are told in times of flood or drought is an 'exaggeration', wherebye climate change is used as an excuse to mask the mismanagement of our resources and water catchments.
We do not need more water storage because of 'unpredictable; weather,..it is required in order to serve the burgeoning population, and save our rivers in the south from having their lifeblood abstracted.

I think there is this need to confuse those who might take advantage of the climate change situation, if at all there are any, and those who are offering climate change based on sound scientific evidence to make the argument against climate change.
Like I have said elsewhere, forget about the effects of those who might look to personally take advantage of you and anyone else because if you continue to let that drive your cynicism you will ignore all the evidence presented to you. This is about the evidence presented to us by renowned scientists, not Thames Water or George Osborne or the cabinet's policies.

Looking at soil samples taken from the ocean floors and ice core samples scientists have concluded that a change of the global average temperature of between 5-6'c was the difference between coldest part and the end of the last ice age. Current estimates at current rates of pollution say that the global average temperature increase will be around 3'c per century. Think about how long it took to see the end of that ice age, the middle of it being around 50,000yrs ago, to the end of it, around 10,000yrs ago with that 5-6'c change and you might understand how rapid the change is likely to be and what difference it is going to make.


Damian
 
Damian,..forgive me for being blinkered...again!..but I was thinking about a recent programe on the box celebrating the 'discovery' of Richard the Third's remains and the scientific dna testing that ''proved'' that it was he.
When the dna data did not corresspond with the required time scale of his death, it was soon rectified by stating that an error of +or- the required number of years could be factored in because he probally had a high fish diet which would skewer the science.
I just thought it was another case of making the science fit the requirements of those who desperately wanted a positive result.
You can't keep a good cynic down!!
 
Damian,..forgive me for being blinkered...again!..but I was thinking about a recent programe on the box celebrating the 'discovery' of Richard the Third's remains and the scientific dna testing that ''proved'' that it was he.
When the dna data did not corresspond with the required time scale of his death, it was soon rectified by stating that an error of +or- the required number of years could be factored in because he probally had a high fish diet which would skewer the science.
I just thought it was another case of making the science fit the requirements of those who desperately wanted a positive result.
You can't keep a good cynic down!!

Silly scientists! I could have made some good use of those bones in the garden for the roses!
 
Ah distorted science brings to mind satellite images of melting ice amid the various methods of assisting how we can look at whats melting where. There has been reports of huge land masses of melting ice before when the exact opposite was happening. One set of satellite imagery claimed that a huge section in the far North of Canada had melted but a woman looking out her window in the part of the remote area claimed to be melting said all she could see was snow and ice as far as the eye could see!?

Apparently it was microwaves that were distorting what the camera's were seeing high up in the satellites. One would have thought the boffins would have known that? Nope. It took a woman washing her pots!!

I'm not sceptical or cynical and try to keep an open mind. Its hard though when two sets of highly qualified scientists say different things about the same subject!!

Regards,

Lee.
 
Back
Top