The news seems to be full of reports that flood plains have flooded and that areas that have been flooded regularly for the past 500 years are flooded again. It's all due to global warming!
- posted
8 years ago
Breaking news
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Depends how frequently it happens.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Global warming? Only since man has been on the planet, according to some supposedly very smart people. Thank f*ck I'm not that smart.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
The problem of course is that we seem to have short memories. As you suggest if you are going to build on flood plains without any mitigation strategy, then you get flooded. End of story. The world is warming overall, but this has happened in cycles over many many years prior to now. Yes we are making it worse, but then so did volcanos and burning forests and all sorts of other things even before we were a species.
It will be challenging, and we can make it slow down, but in the end we have to try to live on the planet as it is with all its interlinked systems evolved over millions of years, and building on places which have already flooded does seem to be a very bad and stupid thing to do.
Brian
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Its like Nuclear power and what to do with the dangerous waste. Even though its small in comparison to the other ways to generate power, it seems that keeping it and the living world apart for millennia is something nobody has thought much about even today. However if you go deep enough into the earths Mantle what do you find as well as heat? Radiation of course. Brian
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
In article , Brian Gaff writes
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Why would you want to keep it apart for millennia? If its highly radioactive it decays away quickly. If it doesn't decay away quickly its not very radioactive.
Its simple physics.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
well of course they will
they're trying to model something that has never happens before, therefore they have no data with which to create their model
It's a mug's game trying
tim
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Yes, and the only solution is for everyone to pay more taxes. Funny how whatever the problem is, the answer is always higher taxes. :-/
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
So that instead of paying someone to do it yourself,. you pay someone and a politician to do it for you.
All government is a self-legalising protection racket...
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
The problem is that when it happened before nobody was around to actually record and watch the situation. I do not suggest we are solely responsible now, but if we can make a difference are you folk saying we should not bother? Brian
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
TNP has given a decent enough analysis here of why we shouldn't, in terms of considering what happens to us or China if warming does or does not occur.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
The point is we cant make a difference.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
What the Greens profiteers and political left say ================================================= Global warming is a certainty. Its caused by humans Its effects will be uniformly bad. Ergo we should bankrupt ourselves to halt emissions and have a world government.
What the real facts say ======================= Global warming seems to have stopped Its almost certainly not caused by humans Its effects would be mostly positive. Ergo those who want it 'fixed' want a world government.
Ask yourself why, and who that benefits..
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Worst floods for 100 years! It must be climate change!
I suppose they mean it's changed back to what it was 100 years ago...
Andy
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
In article , tim..... writes
But a very lucrative mug's game
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
It may well be climate change as the climate has been changing ever since the earth was first formed. The unproven hypothesis is that the change is being aggravated by human activity notably discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:29:07 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrot e:
=========================
You forgot to add every scientific institute on the planet to that.
Presumably these are the 'real facts' in some alternate universe where WUWT isn't an anti-science nutjob web site.
Based on one of your recent posts, you place great trust in satellite recor ds. Yeah, they are *really* reliable aren't they. Which set do you go for BTW? RSS or UAH? I seem to recall the nutjobs switched when one started sho wing less warming that the other.
Almost *certainly* eh? You must have some very strong evidence for that. I 'll be looking forward to reading your paper. Nobel Prize material that.
This seems to be one of the favourite claims of Matt Ridley and Nigel Lawso n and cronies. Big fan of them are you? Ridley bases his opinion on Richar d Tol's work, which is hardly watertight but even he admits that it is only positive up to 1.5 deg C, something that Ridley and that shower seem to gl oss over.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Uh huh. An excellent neutral post, using first-class neutral terms such as "nut-job", "anti-science", "shower", "cronies". Y'know, carefully chosen so as to convince one of the poster's impartiality.
- Vote on answer
- posted
8 years ago
Just telling it like it is.
I don't know what you mean by 'impartial' in this context. If I were addressing a creationist or a flat-earther would you expect an 'impartial' tone?