Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Out of Focus area > The lounge

The lounge Relax, take a break from photo and camera talk - have a chat about something else for a change. Just keep it clean and polite!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 13th July 2019
TimP TimP is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Deepest Darkest Dorset
Posts: 1,847
Thanks: 54
Thanked 67 Times in 66 Posts
Likes: 331
Liked 699 Times in 473 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdk42 View Post
I'll assume from your lack of response Dave they you're struggling to find any.
There was no response to the question about flat earth and the moon landing either!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 13th July 2019
wornish's Avatar
wornish wornish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 5,749
Thanks: 324
Thanked 522 Times in 403 Posts
Likes: 2,672
Liked 1,515 Times in 749 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Of course, all the western world politicians do their best to ensure only data supporting their claim is readily available.

However:

Isn't the question what causes the change as opposed to how much up or down it's moved as most agree and accept it changes naturally.

When measuring change. The chosen baseline seems to vary and is selected to make a political point. How about looking at the last 10000 years.

The case for man made:

Who can question the validity look at the sources and don't question of course if you want to keep your cushy job!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-my...climate-change

The case against:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...l-warming.html


https://www.thegwpf.com/global-tempe...eep-falling-2/

But also read this.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466

The whole western political class wants us to believe global warming is man-made.
They constantly "adjust" the raw data measurements to meet the overall goal see The Telegraph link.


It's not science its politics and vested interests.
__________________
Dave

My Flickr
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 14th July 2019
pdk42's Avatar
pdk42 pdk42 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 370
Thanked 1,257 Times in 942 Posts
Likes: 150
Liked 5,995 Times in 1,953 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

The problem with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is that it's complex. Trying to prove AGW by a single event is impossible and there will always be specific examples which might contradict the wider picture.

It's exactly like the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer. Back in the 50s and 60s there was growing scientific support for a causal link but lots of contrarians published endless "evidence" that the hypothesis was a hoax. Stories of Uncle Frank who lived to 95 and smoked 20 a day since he was 14 were of course true, but the wider truth (now totally supported by everyone) is that smoking is indeed a strong factor in causing a variety of cancers. The contrarians were genuine people who didn't want to believe it because they liked smoking, or in some instances were people who had vested interests in the status quo. There was no shortage of articles in newspapers trying to deny the link.

It's the same story with AGW. The climate science community is made up of thousands of people who have spent decades studying the details and who have the theoretical background to understand it. Very nearly 100% of these people have come to the same conclusion - that burning fossil fuels is leading to a RAPID warming of our atmosphere. The inductive process by which the community have reached that conclusion shows that several lines of investigation lead to the same result. Most of these people are poorly paid academics, genuine in their work, and who have the experience and knowledge to inform wider society. Writing them off as "know nothing experts" is crass stupidity (not saying you are Dave, but that seems to be a modern trend).

Deniers on the other hand have no cohesive theory. All they do is point to a mish mash of alternative causes (sun activity, clouds, el nino, ocean cycles, earth's orbit, ...), or even deny there is warming at all. They are all like the Uncle Frank stories. The perpetrators are sometimes genuine people who don't want to believe (since we like our lifestyle - right?), or in some cases they are doing so to protect their jobs or investment in fossil fuel production. Almost without exception, the papers and articles they produce are either erroneous in approach or analysis, use cherry picking data, or show only partial results in order to derive an answer that suits their agenda.

As to whether there is warming or not, I think that is hard to argue against. It's a fact that the 5 warmest years on record have been the last 5 and the warmest 20 within the last 22. Sure there have been natural variations over earth's history, but it's worth pointing out two things:

- The speed of the changes we're seeing now are extremely rapid - much faster than any historical warming we've seen

- The causal link to C02 is strong, is scientifically exactly what might be expected, and is also in line with historical earlier periods of warming we can see via ice cores etc.

Denier articles continue to pop up, but I see no trend for serious climate scientists to call for any "Emperor's New Clothes" moment, nor for the yearly observations of any of us to think that the climate is doig anything but get warmer.
__________________
Paul
E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
flickr
Portfolio Site
Instagram
Reply With Quote
The Following Users Liked This Post:
Otto (14th July 2019), peak4 (14th July 2019), Zuiko (14th July 2019)
  #34  
Old 14th July 2019
pdk42's Avatar
pdk42 pdk42 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 370
Thanked 1,257 Times in 942 Posts
Likes: 150
Liked 5,995 Times in 1,953 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by wornish View Post

The whole western political class wants us to believe global warming is man-made.
They constantly "adjust" the raw data measurements to meet the overall goal see The Telegraph link.


It's not science its politics and vested interests.
Dave - that's just conspiracy theory at its most blatant. Why would the entire political class want us to believe in man made global warming? 'There's no one "adjusting" the data to keep us fooled. Next you'll be telling us that the government is adding things to our water to keep us calm .
__________________
Paul
E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
flickr
Portfolio Site
Instagram
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 14th July 2019
Zuiko's Avatar
Zuiko Zuiko is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunmow, Essex
Posts: 22,042
Thanks: 1,981
Thanked 3,144 Times in 2,453 Posts
Likes: 3,378
Liked 4,451 Times in 2,113 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdk42 View Post
The problem with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is that it's complex. Trying to prove AGW by a single event is impossible and there will always be specific examples which might contradict the wider picture.

It's exactly like the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer. Back in the 50s and 60s there was growing scientific support for a causal link but lots of contrarians published endless "evidence" that the hypothesis was a hoax. Stories of Uncle Frank who lived to 95 and smoked 20 a day since he was 14 were of course true, but the wider truth (now totally supported by everyone) is that smoking is indeed a strong factor in causing a variety of cancers. The contrarians were genuine people who didn't want to believe it because they liked smoking, or in some instances were people who had vested interests in the status quo. There was no shortage of articles in newspapers trying to deny the link.

It's the same story with AGW. The climate science community is made up of thousands of people who have spent decades studying the details and who have the theoretical background to understand it. Very nearly 100% of these people have come to the same conclusion - that burning fossil fuels is leading to a RAPID warming of our atmosphere. The inductive process by which the community have reached that conclusion shows that several lines of investigation lead to the same result. Most of these people are poorly paid academics, genuine in their work, and who have the experience and knowledge to inform wider society. Writing them off as "know nothing experts" is crass stupidity (not saying you are Dave, but that seems to be a modern trend).

Deniers on the other hand have no cohesive theory. All they do is point to a mish mash of alternative causes (sun activity, clouds, el nino, ocean cycles, earth's orbit, ...), or even deny there is warming at all. They are all like the Uncle Frank stories. The perpetrators are sometimes genuine people who don't want to believe (since we like our lifestyle - right?), or in some cases they are doing so to protect their jobs or investment in fossil fuel production. Almost without exception, the papers and articles they produce are either erroneous in approach or analysis, use cherry picking data, or show only partial results in order to derive an answer that suits their agenda.

As to whether there is warming or not, I think that is hard to argue against. It's a fact that the 5 warmest years on record have been the last 5 and the warmest 20 within the last 22. Sure there have been natural variations over earth's history, but it's worth pointing out two things:

- The speed of the changes we're seeing now are extremely rapid - much faster than any historical warming we've seen

- The causal link to C02 is strong, is scientifically exactly what might be expected, and is also in line with historical earlier periods of warming we can see via ice cores etc.

Denier articles continue to pop up, but I see no trend for serious climate scientists to call for any "Emperor's New Clothes" moment, nor for the yearly observations of any of us to think that the climate is doig anything but get warmer.
Well said, Paul - you have far more energy than I have!
__________________
John

"A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there ó even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 14th July 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 9,514
Thanks: 384
Thanked 546 Times in 461 Posts
Likes: 3,298
Liked 2,269 Times in 1,499 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Problem is it isn't just CO2 emissions and global warming. The oceans have become more acidic affecting their ability to absorb CO2 whilst also endangering corals and other organisms that recycle CO2. Acid in the atmosphere also affects tree growth and health, which is essential for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Even the number of sinkholes, encouraged by acidic rainfall, is increasing rapidly.

As I see it we have a clear choice. Either we continue as we are and pretend that nothing is happening or we do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet. My vote is for the second option.

On the plus side Britain is one of the greatest innovators of new technologies so anything we develop is likely to have a wider market - providing management and politicians don't balls it up!
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
Zuiko (14th July 2019)
  #37  
Old 14th July 2019
TimP TimP is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Deepest Darkest Dorset
Posts: 1,847
Thanks: 54
Thanked 67 Times in 66 Posts
Likes: 331
Liked 699 Times in 473 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel View Post
Problem is it isn't just CO2 emissions and global warming. The oceans have become more acidic affecting their ability to absorb CO2 whilst also endangering corals and other organisms that recycle CO2. Acid in the atmosphere also affects tree growth and health, which is essential for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Even the number of sinkholes, encouraged by acidic rainfall, is increasing rapidly.

As I see it we have a clear choice. Either we continue as we are and pretend that nothing is happening or we do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet. My vote is for the second option.

On the plus side Britain is one of the greatest innovators of new technologies so anything we develop is likely to have a wider market - providing management and politicians don't balls it up!
Is there any reason not to take the second option? Any at all?

As far as innovation is concerned, while we do excel at the actual innovation we also excel at effing up everything thereafter.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 14th July 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 9,514
Thanks: 384
Thanked 546 Times in 461 Posts
Likes: 3,298
Liked 2,269 Times in 1,499 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimP View Post
Is there any reason not to take the second option? Any at all?
No; none at all. Anything that cleans up the environment, improves efficiency and reduces harmful emissions is a win-win. Only those with a death wish or a vested interest would vote against it.

That said we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the eco-friendly bathwater. There are some processes, such as the use of solvented paints in industry, which are not ideal, but produce better and longer lasting products and ultimately reduce emissions when compared with water borne coatings. Burning large quantities of LPG to heat steel plate so that water borne primers can be used is not good environmental policy in my view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimP View Post
As far as innovation is concerned, while we do excel at the actual innovation we also excel at effing up everything thereafter.
We have some of the best scientists and engineers but the worst management. If a product or concept cannot return a profit in six weeks they run away scared, which is why most of our successful industries are now foreign owned.
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
TimP (14th July 2019)
  #39  
Old 14th July 2019
wornish's Avatar
wornish wornish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 5,749
Thanks: 324
Thanked 522 Times in 403 Posts
Likes: 2,672
Liked 1,515 Times in 749 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Our scientists and Engineers are world class not better, not worse. It's also not down to bad managers, UK managers are no different to anywhere else.

However, most UK bankers and venture capitalists are very risk-averse, they seem to lack any concept of technology and are stuck with their heads in the sand of the mid-1900s. They would rather invest in a shopping center than some new technology, ARM being a recent example of the UK losing ownership of a key global technology.

What is happening in front of our eyes is that non-UK investors are buying what they see as valuable companies as we just stand by and watch the value go elsewhere.
__________________
Dave

My Flickr
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 14th July 2019
pdk42's Avatar
pdk42 pdk42 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 370
Thanked 1,257 Times in 942 Posts
Likes: 150
Liked 5,995 Times in 1,953 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by wornish View Post
Our scientists and Engineers are world class not better, not worse. It's also not down to bad managers, UK managers are no different to anywhere else.

However, most UK bankers and venture capitalists are very risk-averse, they seem to lack any concept of technology and are stuck with their heads in the sand of the mid-1900s. They would rather invest in a shopping center than some new technology, ARM being a recent example of the UK losing ownership of a key global technology.

What is happening in front of our eyes is that non-UK investors are buying what they see as valuable companies as we just stand by and watch the value go elsewhere.
Now on most of that Dave, I agree with you
__________________
Paul
E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
flickr
Portfolio Site
Instagram
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 14th July 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 9,514
Thanks: 384
Thanked 546 Times in 461 Posts
Likes: 3,298
Liked 2,269 Times in 1,499 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by wornish View Post
It's also not down to bad managers, UK managers are no different to anywhere else.
Hmm. I would disagree with that point Dave.

You are spot on about banks and venture capitalists, but our managers have an equally short term view. Far too many people only keep their jobs on this month's results, with no attention paid to longer term effects. That was one of the reasons for the banking crisis (because those concerned were rewarded for short term performance with no thought to the longer term). We also have an appalling record when it comes to industrial relations, although I accept that cuts both ways.
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Otto's Avatar
Otto Otto is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 91
Thanked 270 Times in 238 Posts
Likes: 1,022
Liked 858 Times in 549 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Iceland erects a memorial to its first glacier extinction:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis
__________________
Regards
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Jim Ford Jim Ford is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Watford, Herts..
Posts: 8,249
Thanks: 449
Thanked 583 Times in 505 Posts
Likes: 2,609
Liked 1,614 Times in 1,033 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

It's just occurred to me:

Melting of the polar ice caps, which lie near the axis of rotation of the Earth, would shift large masses of water towards the equatorial regions. Conservation of angular momentum would mean that this would cause the Earth's rotational speed to slow down. By how much I don't know!

Any thoughts?

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
Graham_of_Rainham's Avatar
Graham_of_Rainham Graham_of_Rainham is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rainham
Posts: 8,099
Thanks: 642
Thanked 939 Times in 727 Posts
Likes: 2,260
Liked 1,580 Times in 910 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ford View Post
It's just occurred to me:

Melting of the polar ice caps, which lie near the axis of rotation of the Earth, would shift large masses of water towards the equatorial regions. Conservation of angular momentum would mean that this would cause the Earth's rotational speed to slow down. By how much I don't know!

Any thoughts?

Jim
Longer days. Thatís all we need...
__________________
Graham

We often repeat the mistakes we most enjoy...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
Jim Ford (3 Weeks Ago)
  #45  
Old 3 Weeks Ago
pdk42's Avatar
pdk42 pdk42 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 370
Thanked 1,257 Times in 942 Posts
Likes: 150
Liked 5,995 Times in 1,953 Posts
Re: Climate Change - Latest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ford View Post
It's just occurred to me:

Melting of the polar ice caps, which lie near the axis of rotation of the Earth, would shift large masses of water towards the equatorial regions. Conservation of angular momentum would mean that this would cause the Earth's rotational speed to slow down. By how much I don't know!

Any thoughts?

Jim
I suspect that the overall distribution of water won't change in any significant way. The water at the poles might be frozen, but it's still water and has a similar density.
__________________
Paul
E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
flickr
Portfolio Site
Instagram
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will Brits Take Action To Fight Climate Change wornish The lounge 53 12th May 2019 07:03 PM
Climate Change - can you belive this? Zuiko The lounge 26 11th May 2019 06:02 PM
Latest toy Imageryone Accessory talk 2 28th October 2015 07:52 AM
Latest effort timboo Looking for improvement 0 12th October 2015 08:08 PM
Nik Collection Latest tomphotofx Software 1 16th November 2014 11:47 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:13 AM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger