[PK2]

Quote

Duncan Railton - 22/2/2010 15:28

And a last word - we should ALWAYS be prepared for climate change. Stable climate is the exception, not the norm. We may "get away" with global warming because of a natural event or two, or other feedback mechanisms. I don't think the argument over whether or not Global Warming is real/is man made is a useful one, as it misses the point. Resources vs. population.

[^] and may of the solutions are the same/similar...

If we return to the topic, I guess the main thrust was that one can't have floods and droughts, how about the example of Georgia etc last year which IIRC correctly was experiencing drought conditions early in the year yet by September had floods.

[Duncan Railton]

Is that unusual? Also I think there is an element of comparing apples with pears in disasters these days. "Worst flood ever" may be true but only because people now build on the flood plain.

[Bazmundo]

Quote

ldavidcooke - 22/2/2010 15:13

Hey Chris,

I would that Fusion were viable; however, even with billions thrown at it unless you can create a gravity well equivalent to twice the size of Jupiter's in a area of say less then 20 square miles, I do not know it can reasonably be achieved. (As for the implications of using CERN to create a gravity well near black hole event and then pumping hydrogen into it is not only foolish; but, ridiculous as the energy would be unlikely to reach us. Even if we used the exhaust jet as a torch the control of a black hole is something that takes the solar system to the brink of annihilation. And all for the purpose of avoiding reality and managing ourselves...

As far as the LHC that was based on a proven technology and the main experimental requirements was going from the theory to the practical application. As to Fusion, it is not possible to achieve on a small scale controllable experiment. You could either attempt it in a black hole or in a hydrogen bomb; however either is a one time event, and that is the crux of the problem. We have not the ability to take the reaction to the edge of critical and maintain it one that edge. As I have suggested many times before this idea is just plain silly and or foolhardy.

So what else does the team have to offer, what is the fallback solution if fusion is as I suggest? I bet you do not have one and that is the problem.

There is a basic psychology of putting all of one's hopes on something that is not possible. Not only is it considered delusional, it is trying to keep the fear of reality at bay. (Example, for a person that cannot abide intimacy, what better marriage partner then a prisoner with a life sentence... ) All I can offer is it is better to face our fears and move forward then to allow our fears to prevent us from taking the necessary actions, which places those things we have gained and value in danger of being lost.

Cheers!
Dave Cooke

Far be it from me to correct anyone on this forum, my comparitive estimation of my own worth is quite low. However, David, there's lots of research into fusion reaction systems that you'll probably enjoy reading - start with the latest levitating dipole experiment

As for overpopulation, I'd be surprised to find a Meteorology forum that housed sociologists; there are articles I've read referencing behavioural changes in primate populations enclosed by resource constraints (but I can't be bothered finding and linking them). Population and climate go hand-in-hand in respect of being near impossible to predict (but worth the effort).

So, back to topic if we can. I'd like to hear other members views on the media/scientific claims surrounding GW/CC theory - rather than the usual diatribes. Personally I find the reporting of GW/CC to be too absolutist in language when in fact there are significant margins of variablility, are we so afraid of the future that we can't stomach words like 'maybe' or 'possibly'?

[PK2]

Quote

Duncan Railton - 22/2/2010 15:45

Is that unusual? Also I think there is an element of comparing apples with pears in disasters these days. "Worst flood ever" may be true but only because people now build on the flood plain.

I'd not said either was the worse ever but I do think the term is over used. Neither would I have thought it that unusual but perhaps in the same year might be. But if one area can have both in a single year than having both on a climatological time-scale would seem far from impossible, yet that appeared to be the key thrust of the O/P.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Baz!,

I guess this may be a good a place as any to start: http://www.sciencene..._Charles_Seife_

After 50 years of development here is where we really are at:

http://www.scienceda...00129122442.htm
or
http://www.scienceda...00129121823.htm

Headlines from the recent past:

http://www.popularme...ch/1282236.html
http://www.scienceda...80413001313.htm
http://www.scienceda...01031065626.htm
http://www.scienceda...30609012234.htm

Cheers!
Dave Cooke

[Peter H]

Quote

Chris Lloyd - 22/2/2010 22:24

Quote

Peter H - 22/2/2010 14:42

I can't add much to to a thread that starts off confusing weather with climate (how long will it take for the difference to sink in?) and then sinks further to going on about arrogance and deceit.

 

Well don't then Peter, that would be the obvious answer to that. If anyone is guilty of being less than honest with the truth about global warming, it is deceit. Dress the act up any way you like, that is what it is. I have heard enough about the CRU and chinese recording data to last me a life time. I can accept the science that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore if you increase its levels, it will have an effect. That is in its loosest terms though. But to what effect it has generally within climate change I am very reluctant to accept. That is my opinion. And if I see people appearing to be economical with the truth, especially when the result of that could mean green taxes for me, then I will not hold back on the issue.

I've seen enough people I think are economical with the truth as well, but it's surely better we don't sling allegation even if we're sure they're right? Perhaps I've held back for too long and should sling it as well???

Debate the evidence, the data and the science I say. If people start debating the scientists and their conduct, or bringing politics into it they're by definition not debating that...

[Jolly Janner]

Haven't read all of the thread. As far as I've been concerened with the Met Office, summers rainfall is likely to stay unchanced. The temperatures are likely to increase (still over a 50 year period, so you cannot compare predictions based on several years). The type of summer rainfall is likely to be heavier and quicker burts, but overall likely to be the same total amount.

[PK2]

Quote

Chris Lloyd - 22/2/2010 22:39

An increase of Co2 by 100 times, that may cause the planet to warm by god olny knows how much will not kill you directly, but may increase the temperature indirectly.

Just to be clear there is only you suggesting that it may increase 100 times. But since you feel it isn't dangerous to humans directly but only via impact on temperature perhaps you could persuade the people who wrote this "Limit of 5,000 ppm CO2 exposure" and "set 30,000 ppm of CO2 as a Short-Term Exposure Limit that they're talking rubbish.

Quote

Chris Lloyd - 22/2/2010 23:06

I question the science in general Peter. That's not directed at any individual at all. I wish I could say the same when I am being called what I get called when I show that view.

What do people call you? Sceptical ie questioning? Doesn't sound to me an inaccurate description for one who is questioning.

[Peter H]

Quote

Chris Lloyd - 22/2/2010 23:06 I question the science in general Peter. That's not directed at any individual at all. I wish I could say the same when I am being called what I get called when I show that view. And if you are suggesting that to debate anything properly we can't use politics then I don't think that would leave much to talk about. Please tell me you are not suggesting that. I have no political bias Peter, I just see things for how they are in my eye. I never had an opinion on anything to do with the climate until greenhouse gases and global warming were brought to my attention. I wish I could say the scientists all have that objective view. I am afraid the politics can't allow that. And if I am not to discuss politics for the sake of proper debate, then I really also can't add anything to this, so perhaps I should leave the room?

I'm not saying that. I think that, while this is the chat forum, I don't think this should be a political slug fest because I've seen such places and they're not at all pretty.

[Uskys]

Quote

Uskys - 22/2/2010 15:04

Can all please remember to be respectful to other members when replying. Also, please try to keep on topic. Thanks

Thread frozen.

[Duncan Railton]

Yes - I think we've wandered off the original thread title! :)