Climate Change Poll

[Moise]

What's the required time frame?

Only, in the time it's taken to actually invent climate change we've gone from Morris Minors to Higgs Boson.

Interpolate that over any likely significant climate change event and it's difficult to see how we wouldn't have the tools required to deal with it.

Now would be good.

Remedial technologies are likely to involve planetary engineering at a fairly significant level. Prevention would be much simpler.

[Ocean1]

Now would be good.

Remedial technologies are likely to involve planetary engineering at a fairly significant level. Prevention would be much simpler.

I suppose. If you assume that there is significant damage being done, and that we're the only cause.

On the other hand, a facility with planetary engineering is required if significant damage is done at any time, no matter what the cause.

And now would be an excellent time to develop it, simple or otherwise.

And as long as the Luddites can be kept out of any such decision making this is unlikely to be the only planet we might want to engineer.

[yokel]

That is to do with cause, nothing to do with whether or not anyone denies that the climate is changing. That discussion is more related to the other climate thread.

Like I said, we all agree that the climate is changing.

[eldog]

According to the Hadcrut4 database (the one the IPCC uses), the rate of change for the 30 years from 1913 to 1942 is almost identical to the period from 1986 to 2015. So where is that accelerated rate of change?

Looks like I need to do some Google research

would rather see the first data set remove the WWI AND WWII data years

I suppose the depression era would have seen a downturn in industrial output.
does seem strange that the database would show a similar rate.

I see it doesnt include the 2 major sources of frozen H20 the Artic and Antarctic.
It also describes averaging the North and South Hemispheres data as they are at a different 'accuracy'.
I would have thought it better to deal with them separately and see if they have similar trands.
The data set also seems to only have data to 2010 unless I am reading the wrong site. The use the same data at each end of the set to extrapolate the trend to get a better fitting shape for the general trend.

I would like to see temp and Artic/Antartic land mass changes

[SPman]

The climate changed before man started adding CO2 and is changing again, in this instance due to man adding more CO2 than the planet can scrub.

[Jantar]

Looks like I need to do some Google research

would rather see the first data set remove the WWI AND WWII data years

I suppose the depression era would have seen a downturn in industrial output.
does seem strange that the database would show a similar rate.

I see it doesnt include the 2 major sources of frozen H20 the Artic and Antarctic.
It also describes averaging the North and South Hemispheres data as they are at a different 'accuracy'.
I would have thought it better to deal with them separately and see if they have similar trands.
The data set also seems to only have data to 2010 unless I am reading the wrong site. The use the same data at each end of the set to extrapolate the trend to get a better fitting shape for the general trend.

I would like to see temp and Artic/Antartic land mass changes

I see data right up to October this year http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4...hly_ns_avg.txt
Or you can graph it at http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...m:1855/to:2015

[eldog]

I see data right up to October this year http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4...hly_ns_avg.txt
Or you can graph it at http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...m:1855/to:2015

I read the blurb at the Hadley Centre web site, I didnt look much elsewhere.
pretty hard to on this device.....

The data and graphs on the metoffice.govt.uk (first couple of links on the Hadley site)
show a general trend of temp increases when compared to a 1960-1991

Obviously I have come in the middle of this thread and you have a lot more info.
So what if we go back further is there a way of determing global temp over the last thou/million years? does that coincide with glaciers formation/dissolve etc? and the Magnetic pole changes?

Humans have only being industrialised for a couple of thousand years.

OK, went back and REREAD thread

Yes I think the climate will always change
Yes I think the climate change is affected by humans, just the planet also changes to 'compensate'

[eldog]

The poll should have been worded could man ever halt climate change without screwing the world economy in the process eg satisfying the greenies wishes of leaving all oil and coal in the ground. I think not.

I wonder what life would be like with no oil, gas and coal and no burning of trees.....

[Moi]

I just want to find out how many Climate change Deniers there are on this site.

Having declared your reason for the poll, I believe you will not get the information you are wanting.

Why? If a forum member were to be a climate change denier and is a regular user / reader of this forum, then that forum member would be well aware that standing outside what is considered the norm or perceived to be the correct answer and declaring that position can lead to public ridicule and, possibly, private attacks. So, I would suggest that a forum member who is climate change denier is not likely to respond truthfully to this poll or is going to ignore it.

[jonbuoy]

I would vote for "not sure if we have changed the climate but we sure have fucked up the environment with pollution- land sea and air"

[iYRe]

I just want to find out how many Climate change Deniers there are on this site.

Poorly chosen phrase.

What you mean is "just want to find out how many people do not believe C02 emissions cause climate change"

Because, its a fact that C02 does NOT have an effect on global temperature, and the climate does change.

Instead of blowing hot air about this farcical criminal c02 scam, we should be investing our time and money into more important things... saving endangered species, reforestation, and better roads with less cars so we can spend our days riding peacefully through our new forests looking at all the amazing critters.

If you still think C02 has an effect, have a read through some of this guy's posts, where he shows the evidence of climate fraud: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ (there is so much of it that he posts new stuff like 10 times a day)

[iYRe]

Greenie Heaven

Cold, wet, dirty, and a helluva lot shorter than it is now... one suspects.

[iYRe]

But bliss for the Greenies or they won't be staying Greenies for long.

Very probably :P

[Jantar]

....

What you mean is "just want to find out how many people do not believe C02 emissions cause climate change"

Because, its a fact that C02 does NOT have an effect on global temperature, and the climate does change.

..........
If you still think C02 has an effect, have a read through some of this guy's posts, where he shows the evidence of climate fraud: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ (there is so much of it that he posts new stuff like 10 times a day)

Maybe you need to read some of Steven Goddard's (not his real name BTW) work more closely. He does agree that CO2 affects the climate, and by the same amount I have already stated: 1.2K per doubling. That is amount discovered by John Tindal in 1856, and can replicated in any lab today. It is an amount very much smaller than that claimed by IPCC.

The change in climate caused by CO2 is swamped by natural variation, and is almost undetectable. It requires very sophisticated algorithms to even try and separate CO2 forcing from natural changes.

[Akzle]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D1uaw3WIOlc