Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

George Sunsnow

Mod Note

This is a contentious subject and this thread has already been closed once due to personal attacks on contributors and the hostile atmosphere it has created.

Remember

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish to challenge someone's views on the topic of climate change then please debate civilly, do not just attack poster.

Thanks




This was opened today down in powerscourt by Sir Richard Branson


http://cpe.cool/

Gaoth Laidir

George Sunsnow wrote: »

This was opened today down in powerscourt by Sir Richard Branson


http://cpe.cool/

I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense.

MJohnston

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense.

I think you're completely missing the point.

George Sunsnow

I’m pretty sure I’ve given my view on climate change here before,I think it’s a concept politically hijacked to either raise new taxes or to thwart industrial competition
That’s criminal in my opinion
That’s not saying pumping loads of pollution into the atmosphere is good,it most definitely couldn’t be but it’s to say I believe there’s no way we have enough data to know and none of us will be around long enough to know personally whether any changes witnessed end up being variable up or down over say a thousand years of accurate measuring

In that mindset it’s almost amusing to see freak events pulled up as examples of climate change as if there were no examples at all of said events in decades gone by
I wouldn’t go as far as the Healy Rae’s on this one mind you,I’m just sceptical of the overhyping by the hijackers

Museums and exhibitions etc are all good for the mind once you go there with an examining mind so I will pop up to powerscourt for a look certainly
No objection to paying in,I’d have to do that for most similar things
The most enjoyable recently was the Boston science museum and especially the theatre of electricity

https://www.mos.org/live-presentations/lightning

gabeeg

George Sunsnow wrote: »

I’m pretty sure I’ve given my view on climate change here before,I think it’s a concept politically hijacked to either raise new taxes or to thwart industrial competition
That’s criminal in my opinion
That’s not saying pumping loads of pollution into the atmosphere is good,it most definitely couldn’t be but it’s to say I believe there’s no way we have enough data to know and none of us will be around long enough to know personally whether any changes witnessed end up being variable up or down over say a thousand years of accurate measuring

In that mindset it’s almost amusing to see freak events pulled up as examples of climate change as if there were no examples at all of said events in decades gone by
I wouldn’t go as far as the Healy Rae’s on this one mind you,I’m just sceptical of the overhyping by the hijackers

Museums and exhibitions etc are all good for the mind once you go there with an examining mind so I will pop up to powerscourt for a look certainly
No objection to paying in,I’d have to do that for most similar things
The most enjoyable recently was the Boston science museum and especially the theatre of electricity

https://www.mos.org/live-presentations/lightning

If there's no such thing as man-made climate change, then how come you don't use a space between your commas and the subsequent letters?

The thing is science has thousands of years of accurate data on climate and temperature change. You just haven't bothered your hole reading about it.

Gaoth Laidir

MJohnston wrote: »

I think you're completely missing the point.

Which is what exactly? It looks more like a showcase for a long list of companies on the website, a bit like the Ploughing Championships has become. If these companies are sponsors then why isn't it free? Where does the money go?

Anyway, it's off topic.

JCX BXC

gabeeg wrote: »

The thing is science has thousands of years of accurate data on climate and temperature change.

No it doesn't.

I'm not stating my views on climate change, it's not something I particularly want to debate, however I don't think there's many records older than 200 years, and the accuracy of these records is highly debatable.

George Sunsnow

gabeeg wrote: »

If there's no such thing as man-made climate change, then how come you don't use a space between your commas and the subsequent letters?

The thing is science has thousands of years of accurate data on climate and temperature change. You just haven't bothered your hole reading about it.

Fascinating!
That’s quite an angry reaction to an opinion,just who was around 1000’s of years ago with accurate instruments?
I suppose you could tell me we’re drilling into icebergs and bogs and theorising,that’s not experience
Shur most People thought the world was flat then if they thought about anything much at all
Oh and who says I said I don’t believe in climate change caused by man?
There’s a difference between that and what I said (which is We’ve not had enough industrialised years on the late 20th century scale to possibly know how it all will fit into the thousands of years past and future overview)

George Sunsnow

Wouldn’t it be amazing to see the sat pics from the 19th,18th,14th etc centuries and the computer analysis done then for a proper analysis ,I wonder is it on the google ,some scientist in one of those centuries must have it on their iPad :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Incidentally I only dropped a weather centric link into a thread,I had no interest in an ensuing conversation on climate change either,I just thought some might be interested
Clearly as I added it without comment and obviously because most here will have heard my short view on this in the forum before
No more digression from me

ABC101

JCX BXC wrote: »

No it doesn't.

I'm not stating my views on climate change, it's not something I particularly want to debate, however I don't think there's many records older than 200 years, and the accuracy of these records is highly debatable.

Without taking any sides in the debate, but the point about records / accurate scientific instruments not been greater than 200 years etc is not taking into account other observations about climate.

For example....

1). They know from ancient stone carvings around the world that humans worshiped the ground ( because food came out of the ground etc) but then globally something happened to the climate, because the stone carvings changed to worshiping the sun. This is evidenced in stone carvings not just on one location but several locations around the world. Perhaps there was a volcanic eruption / meteorite hitting Earth event which obscured the sun and seriously affected crop growth.

2). They can go back to ancient writings / manuscripts of Monks, who wrote down various records of events in nature, like trees which came into leaf later than previous year etc, or delayed bird migration etc.

So while scientific instruments were not available some records were kept which allows today’s scientists to interpolate data etc

George Sunsnow

ABC101 wrote: »

So while scientific instruments were not available some records were kept which allows today’s scientists to interpolate data etc

Very flakey though,no verification possible,no ability to sniff out exaggeration or boasting etc
It’s interesting but kind of in my opinion reinforces the point of how clueless relatively we are dropwise in the very big ocean of the unknown
Don’t ever get me wrong though
Having that view and wanting to care for the environment and athmosphere are mutually inclusive as far as I’m concerned

ABC101

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Very flakey though,no verification possible,no ability to sniff out exaggeration or boasting etc
It’s interesting but kind of in my opinion reinforces the point of how clueless relatively we are dropwise in the very big ocean of the unknown
Don’t ever get me wrong though
Having that view and wanting to care for the environment and athmosphere are mutually inclusive as far as I’m concerned

Well the points I raised are not my own, in fact it was explained by a scientist that with regards climate change, this is what they have been doing, going back through every and any records. So for example if something of interest was written by a Irish Monk, they would look for that evidence elsewhere as well, to see if the observation was also seen across Europe for example, is it replicated in tree trunk rings etc.

It’s a bit like forensics, they can work backwards etc

Shedbebreezy

I can't actually believe we have so many man made climate change deniers on here. Over 97% of climate scientists agree its real.

Q: What causes global warming?
A: Global warming occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) and other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface. Normally, this radiation would escape into space—but these pollutants, which can last for years to centuries in the atmosphere, trap the heat and cause the planet to get hotter. That's what's known as the greenhouse effect.


There are those who say the climate has always changed, and that carbon dioxide levels have always fluctuated. That’s true. But it’s also true that since the industrial revolution, CO₂ levels in the atmosphere have climbed to levels that are unprecedented over hundreds of millennia.

So here’s a short video we made, to put recent climate change and carbon dioxide emissions into the context of the past 800,000 years.


The temperature-CO₂ connection
Earth has a natural greenhouse effect, and it is really important. Without it, the average temperature on the surface of the planet would be about -18℃ and human life would not exist. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is one of the gases in our atmosphere that traps heat and makes the planet habitable.

We have known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century. About 150 years ago, a physicist called John Tyndall used laboratory experiments to demonstrate the greenhouse properties of CO₂ gas. Then, in the late 1800s, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first calculated the greenhouse effect of CO₂ in our atmosphere and linked it to past ice ages on our planet.

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

Scientists use the chemistry of the water molecules in the ice layers to see how the temperature has varied through the millennia. These ice layers also trap tiny bubbles from the ancient atmosphere, allowing us to measure prehistoric CO₂ levels directly.

Temperature and CO₂
The ice cores reveal an incredibly tight connection between temperature and greenhouse gas levels through the ice age cycles, thus proving the concepts put forward by Arrhenius more than a century ago.

In previous warm periods, it was not a CO₂ spike that kickstarted the warming, but small and predictable wobbles in Earth’s rotation and orbit around the Sun. CO₂ played a big role as a natural amplifier of the small climate shifts initiated by these wobbles. As the planet began to cool, more CO₂ dissolved into the oceans, reducing the greenhouse effect and causing more cooling. Similarly, CO₂ was released from the oceans to the atmosphere when the planet warmed, driving further warming.

But things are very different this time around. Humans are responsible for adding huge quantities of extra CO₂ to the atmosphere – and fast.

The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years.



Before the industrial revolution, the natural level of atmospheric CO₂ during warm interglacials was around 280 ppm. The frigid ice ages, which caused kilometre-thick ice sheets to build up over much of North America and Eurasia, had CO₂ levels of around 180 ppm.

Burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, takes ancient carbon that was locked within the Earth and puts it into the atmosphere as CO₂. Since the industrial revolution humans have burned an enormous amount of fossil fuel, causing atmospheric CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to skyrocket.

In mid-2017, atmospheric CO₂ now stands at 409 ppm. This is completely unprecedented in the past 800,000 years.


The massive blast of CO₂ is causing the climate to warm rapidly. The last IPCC report concluded that by the end of this century we will get to more than 4℃ above pre-industrial levels (1850-99) if we continue on a high-emissions pathway.

If we work towards the goals of the Paris Agreement, by rapidly curbing our CO₂ emissions and developing new technologies to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere, then we stand a chance of limiting warming to around 2℃.

The fundamental science is very well understood. The evidence that climate change is happening is abundant and clear.

Full article and video http://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368


IMO its just pure ignorance and stupidly to deny it.

gabeeg

George Sunsnow wrote: »

It’s interesting but kind of in my opinion reinforces the point of how clueless relatively we are dropwise in the very big ocean of the unknown

MOD NOTE : Offensive text removed

There is an unreadable amount of corroborating evidence from many sectors of science. The argument is over.

All you're doing is leaving evidence of the nonsense some believed for future generations to laugh at

George Sunsnow

Shedbebreezy wrote: »

IMO its just pure ignorance to deny it.

With respect,Vilification of valid differing opinions is a better example of ignorance in my opinion
Regardless no one is debating climate change the concept here
Some are expressing the view it’s hijacked for other agendas and some are questioning where and how it’s at all possible to conclude anything without a long enough lead in or lead out (100’s of years either side)

I’d suggest a separate thread at this stage but I’d be bored to be honest

Shedbebreezy

George Sunsnow wrote: »

With respect,Vilification of valid differing opinions is a better example of ignorance in my opinion
Regardless no one is debating climate change the concept here
Some are expressing the view it’s hijacked for other agendas and some are questioning where and how it’s at all possible to conclude anything without a long enough lead in or lead out (100’s of years either side)

I’d suggest a separate thread at this stage but I’d be bored to be honest

But how is it a valid opinion to deny it? It's basic Scientific fact , the more C02 in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth gets. Unless you have conclusive evidence to say otherwise? Didn't think so. As I said it's just pure ignorance to deny it. Read that piece I linked.

George Sunsnow

Shedbebreezy wrote: »

But how is it a valid opinion to deny it? It's basic Science, the more C02 in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth gets. Unless you have conclusive evidence to say otherwise? Didn't think so. As I said it's just pure ignorance to deny it. Read that piece I linked.

Point to where I have denied tonight that pumping Co2 into the athmosphere is bad please
Otherwise please quit the misrepresentation of my views thank you

ABC101

Shedbebreezy wrote: »

But how is it a valid opinion to deny it? It's basic Scientific fact , the more C02 in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth gets. Unless you have conclusive evidence to say otherwise? Didn't think so. As I said it's just pure ignorance to deny it. Read that piece I linked.

Technically it is CO2 and water vapor (Clouds etc) plus some other gases in the atmosphere.

Shedbebreezy

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Point to where I have denied tonight that pumping Co2 into the athmosphere is bad please
Otherwise please quit the misrepresentation of my views thank you

-I said it was pure ignorance to deny man made climate change due to C02 pollution.
-You quoted that and said" Vilification of valid differing opinions is a better example of ignorance in my opinion"

So if you think it's a VALID opinion to disagree with the fact more C02 equals a warmer world, especially without any evidence to back that claim I really can't help you.

George Sunsnow

Shedbebreezy wrote: »

So if you think it's a VALID opinion to disagree with the fact more C02 equals a warmer WORLD, especially without any evidence to back that claim I really can't help you.

Keyword you’ve used there is if
Some do ,I don’t which is why I asked you to show me where I said I did as stating what I haven’t said is misrepresenting me
My opinion is simply to state the level of impact cannot be proven by waving storms in the air,freezes or heatwaves when they appear in less intensive decades
Mainly we need more time and less hijacking of the subject by tax authorities
How and ever , as I’ve said from the outset,I’ve no interest in the angerfest that this subject descends into or ruining my eyes with any more white light on the topic

Shedbebreezy

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Keyword you’ve used there is if
Some do ,I don’t which is why I asked you to show me where I said I did as stating what I haven’t said is misrepresenting me
My opinion is simply to state the level of impact cannot be proven by waving storms in the air,freezes or heatwaves when they appear in less intensive decades
Mainly we need more time and less hijacking of the subject by tax authorities
How and ever , as I’ve said from the outset,I’ve no interest in the angerfest that this subject descends into or ruining my eyes with any more white light on the topic

The keyword is if lol. You're full of ___ good night

nacho libre

George Sunsnow wrote: »

I’m pretty sure I’ve given my view on climate change here before,I think it’s a concept politically hijacked to either raise new taxes or to thwart industrial competition
]

I have no iron in the fire so to speak, but
you could just as easily point out it's also in the interest of big corporations to play down the link between climate change and man, so they can carry on some activities in environmentally sensitive regions.

ABC101

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Keyword you’ve used there is if
Some do ,I don’t which is why I asked you to show me where I said I did as stating what I haven’t said is misrepresenting me
My opinion is simply to state the level of impact cannot be proven by waving storms in the air,freezes or heatwaves when they appear in less intensive decades
Mainly we need more time and less hijacking of the subject by tax authorities
How and ever , as I’ve said from the outset,I’ve no interest in the angerfest that this subject descends into or ruining my eyes with any more white light on the topic

Is’nt it amazing how no matter how dire the situation is, there is always somebody trying to see how they can profit from it!!! In this case the Taxman!!!

pistolpetes11

WARNINGS AND INFRACTIONS GIVEN FOR PEOPLE BEING UNCIVIL , KEEP THIS THREAD ON TOPIC

MJohnston

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which is what exactly? It looks more like a showcase for a long list of companies on the website, a bit like the Ploughing Championships has become. If these companies are sponsors then why isn't it free? Where does the money go?

Anyway, it's off topic.

Not being in any way a part of the company running it, I'm not sure why you would expect me to be privy to the financial ins and outs of the it, but I think it's rather irrelevant. I also have no idea what the Ploughing Championships have to do with anything, but anyway.

My thinking is that it's great to see a science-positive resource that is clearly targeted at school-age children and school groups.

Say my name

Shedbebreezy wrote: »

I can't actually believe we have so many man made climate change deniers on here. Over 97% of climate scientists agree its real.

Q: What causes global warming?
A: Global warming occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) and other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface. Normally, this radiation would escape into space—but these pollutants, which can last for years to centuries in the atmosphere, trap the heat and cause the planet to get hotter. That's what's known as the greenhouse effect.


There are those who say the climate has always changed, and that carbon dioxide levels have always fluctuated. That’s true. But it’s also true that since the industrial revolution, CO₂ levels in the atmosphere have climbed to levels that are unprecedented over hundreds of millennia.

So here’s a short video we made, to put recent climate change and carbon dioxide emissions into the context of the past 800,000 years.


The temperature-CO₂ connection
Earth has a natural greenhouse effect, and it is really important. Without it, the average temperature on the surface of the planet would be about -18℃ and human life would not exist. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is one of the gases in our atmosphere that traps heat and makes the planet habitable.

We have known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century. About 150 years ago, a physicist called John Tyndall used laboratory experiments to demonstrate the greenhouse properties of CO₂ gas. Then, in the late 1800s, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first calculated the greenhouse effect of CO₂ in our atmosphere and linked it to past ice ages on our planet.

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

Scientists use the chemistry of the water molecules in the ice layers to see how the temperature has varied through the millennia. These ice layers also trap tiny bubbles from the ancient atmosphere, allowing us to measure prehistoric CO₂ levels directly.

Temperature and CO₂
The ice cores reveal an incredibly tight connection between temperature and greenhouse gas levels through the ice age cycles, thus proving the concepts put forward by Arrhenius more than a century ago.

In previous warm periods, it was not a CO₂ spike that kickstarted the warming, but small and predictable wobbles in Earth’s rotation and orbit around the Sun. CO₂ played a big role as a natural amplifier of the small climate shifts initiated by these wobbles. As the planet began to cool, more CO₂ dissolved into the oceans, reducing the greenhouse effect and causing more cooling. Similarly, CO₂ was released from the oceans to the atmosphere when the planet warmed, driving further warming.

But things are very different this time around. Humans are responsible for adding huge quantities of extra CO₂ to the atmosphere – and fast.

The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years.



Before the industrial revolution, the natural level of atmospheric CO₂ during warm interglacials was around 280 ppm. The frigid ice ages, which caused kilometre-thick ice sheets to build up over much of North America and Eurasia, had CO₂ levels of around 180 ppm.

Burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, takes ancient carbon that was locked within the Earth and puts it into the atmosphere as CO₂. Since the industrial revolution humans have burned an enormous amount of fossil fuel, causing atmospheric CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to skyrocket.

In mid-2017, atmospheric CO₂ now stands at 409 ppm. This is completely unprecedented in the past 800,000 years.


The massive blast of CO₂ is causing the climate to warm rapidly. The last IPCC report concluded that by the end of this century we will get to more than 4℃ above pre-industrial levels (1850-99) if we continue on a high-emissions pathway.

If we work towards the goals of the Paris Agreement, by rapidly curbing our CO₂ emissions and developing new technologies to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere, then we stand a chance of limiting warming to around 2℃.

The fundamental science is very well understood. The evidence that climate change is happening is abundant and clear.

Full article and video http://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368


IMO its just pure ignorance and stupidly to deny it.

I will take your 800,000 years ago and raise you 25m years ago.
https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

George Sunsnow

nacho libre wrote: »

I have no iron in the fire so to speak, but
you could just as easily point out it's also in the interest of big corporations to play down the link between climate change and man, so they can carry on some activities in environmentally sensitive regions.

I agree
But jeepers until Trump came along they’ve been doing a terrible job at it!!
It’s probably unlikely his direction will forever have legs though

JCX BXC

While I won't give my opinion either way on this debate, I will state that there's clearly an interest by some organisations to create a profit from this issue. Some of this is fine, eg Companies becoming greener in order to gain a better brand image, which is dare I say a good thing. However that's the nice way in which this issue is being exploited.

MJohnston

George Sunsnow wrote: »

I agree
But jeepers until Trump came along they’ve been doing a terrible job at it!!
It’s probably unlikely his direction will forever have legs though

Trump doesn't need to enact anything permanent to cause major 'damage', he just needs to hold up progress for a while.

Shedbebreezy

Say my name wrote: »

I will take your 800,000 years ago and raise you 250m years ago.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

And what's your point?

MJohnston

JCX BXC wrote: »

While I won't give my opinion either way on this debate, I will state that there's clearly an interest by some organisations to create a profit from this issue. Some of this is fine, eg Companies becoming greener in order to gain a better brand image, which is dare I say a good thing. However that's the nice way in which this issue is being exploited.

It would seem to me that this would pale in significance compared to the money profited by those who have...lets call it climate change indifference - to be extremely kind.