Perhaps it will fuel Leeds' 'al fresco culture', though I'm not convinced that a few more pavement cafes in Leeds quite outweighs the many negative predicted effects of climate change.
Climate Change: Could This Affect Leeds' Future?
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
It is very partisan, I agree, but do you REALLY think its bias extends to controlling the weather statistics it prints?
hno:
Also what's with all the Climate Change talk on these boards all of a sudden?? :dunno:
I don’t think people deny it is happening, it is to what extent human activity effects it. I’m not however stating that the anthropogenic impact is insignificant, just that the forces of nature such as shown in Milankovitch Theory (obliquity, eccentricity and precession) will happen whether we do anything or not. Climate change is effected my man, but the natural forces are so huge.
Climate change is one of these really debatable and interesting areas. I’ve got a degree in Environmental Management so consider myself to have more than the basic knowledge of this area, and I feel that as a single issue, it really is not that much of an issue - not as much as people make out anyway.
People who mention it are often just trying to get votes or trying to sell their products. Organisations like Greenpeace and FotE do nothing more than disrupt those in power from making real changes (e.g Stockholm conference). They don’t have that much of an education in the issues surrounding the subject they represent (I can remember in a talk once with a member of FotE, when my lecture class shot him down in flames). There is a huge difference between the ideas of Environmentalists and Environmental Scientists, yet they are often put in the same boat. I just hate how many people have this holier that thou attitude to things environmental, mainly just because it’s seen as the thing to do and not because they really want to make a difference. I’m a Tory voter, but I think Cameron’s is only after the ‘green’ vote, and I’m not sure he cares that much (although I’m sure Tories are willing to spend more on new infrastructure that the labour lot). Same with nuclear power – I think we will need it for some time until we can produce enough from renewable sources – I think it is something like by 2025 if we didn’t at least replace our existing nuclear power stations we would have a 25% deficit in power, based on existing and proposed renewable power generation.
Too much emphasis is placed on a ‘carbon free’ society, yet it is only a small problem. Most people don't care about the environmental implications of a carbon neutral world - just saving money!! As I’ve said anthropogenic climate change, although not insignificant, it is dwarfed by the natural climate change events that can also occur such as obliquity. It is a natural cycle and however much we can try, it will change. We can’t stop that. We should be looking at clean industries but to reduce water pollution and have cleaner air. We need to develop fuel cell cars, not really because the environment, but because we will run out of oil. Methane and water vapour is vastly more significant to anthropogenic climate change than carbon dioxide is. In fact, it is correct that should be heading into a cold spot - which is interesting itself as what if we stop all particulates from entering the atmosphere? Carbon, methane and water vapour emissions are reducing the impact of natural climate change. Is it a case of regulating the emissions to a sustainable state to prevent us from falling temperatures? Basically enforced, regulated anthropogenic climate change. It’s very interesting area.
What about protecting the endangered, deforestation, desertification (due to overgrazing and deforestation especially in sub-Saharan Africa), better management and conservation of land and the redistribution of food – let us (temperate regions) produce it for those in more extreme climates (instead of them using monoculture and slash and burn techniques – EU CAP means we vastly overproduce and this just gets wasted) It is these issues that need to be looked at more (and would reduce carbon emissions).
Although the Malthusian theory doesn’t take our level of technology into account, the underlying principle of the theory is correct, even more so when you consider that we are (rightfully I may add) trying to eradicate all disease and increase life expectancy and improve infant mortality rates. Do we consider land reclamation and forget the environmental issues related to that?? As I've said, if anything we should be looking at these issues, and the climate issue will also be resolved as much as it can.
My view was that instead of making it a 'carbon/global warming agenda', we should look at the wider issues in the globe, of which most of the solutions will have positive impacts on the climate.
I don’t think people deny it is happening, it is to what extent human activity effects it. I’m not however stating that the anthropogenic impact is insignificant, just that the forces of nature such as shown in Milankovitch Theory (obliquity, eccentricity and precession) will happen whether we do anything or not. Climate change is effected my man, but the natural forces are so huge.
Climate change is one of these really debatable and interesting areas. I’ve got a degree in Environmental Management so consider myself to have more than the basic knowledge of this area, and I feel that as a single issue, it really is not that much of an issue - not as much as people make out anyway.
People who mention it are often just trying to get votes or trying to sell their products. Organisations like Greenpeace and FotE do nothing more than disrupt those in power from making real changes (e.g Stockholm conference). They don’t have that much of an education in the issues surrounding the subject they represent (I can remember in a talk once with a member of FotE, when my lecture class shot him down in flames). There is a huge difference between the ideas of Environmentalists and Environmental Scientists, yet they are often put in the same boat. I just hate how many people have this holier that thou attitude to things environmental, mainly just because it’s seen as the thing to do and not because they really want to make a difference. I’m a Tory voter, but I think Cameron’s is only after the ‘green’ vote, and I’m not sure he cares that much (although I’m sure Tories are willing to spend more on new infrastructure that the labour lot). Same with nuclear power – I think we will need it for some time until we can produce enough from renewable sources – I think it is something like by 2025 if we didn’t at least replace our existing nuclear power stations we would have a 25% deficit in power, based on existing and proposed renewable power generation.
Too much emphasis is placed on a ‘carbon free’ society, yet it is only a small problem. Most people don't care about the environmental implications of a carbon neutral world - just saving money!! As I’ve said anthropogenic climate change, although not insignificant, it is dwarfed by the natural climate change events that can also occur such as obliquity. It is a natural cycle and however much we can try, it will change. We can’t stop that. We should be looking at clean industries but to reduce water pollution and have cleaner air. We need to develop fuel cell cars, not really because the environment, but because we will run out of oil. Methane and water vapour is vastly more significant to anthropogenic climate change than carbon dioxide is. In fact, it is correct that should be heading into a cold spot - which is interesting itself as what if we stop all particulates from entering the atmosphere? Carbon, methane and water vapour emissions are reducing the impact of natural climate change. Is it a case of regulating the emissions to a sustainable state to prevent us from falling temperatures? Basically enforced, regulated anthropogenic climate change. It’s very interesting area.
What about protecting the endangered, deforestation, desertification (due to overgrazing and deforestation especially in sub-Saharan Africa), better management and conservation of land and the redistribution of food – let us (temperate regions) produce it for those in more extreme climates (instead of them using monoculture and slash and burn techniques – EU CAP means we vastly overproduce and this just gets wasted) It is these issues that need to be looked at more (and would reduce carbon emissions).
Although the Malthusian theory doesn’t take our level of technology into account, the underlying principle of the theory is correct, even more so when you consider that we are (rightfully I may add) trying to eradicate all disease and increase life expectancy and improve infant mortality rates. Do we consider land reclamation and forget the environmental issues related to that?? As I've said, if anything we should be looking at these issues, and the climate issue will also be resolved as much as it can.
My view was that instead of making it a 'carbon/global warming agenda', we should look at the wider issues in the globe, of which most of the solutions will have positive impacts on the climate.
Yes, as a rule of thumb it should be generally wetter on the wrong side of the Pennines, but by similar rules it should be colder on our side of the Pennines, due to both the North Atlantic drift and Continentality - the lower specific heat capacity of land (compared to water) means it will experience more variation. Urban heat island effects due to greater urban sprawl, my have an impact as well.
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
