Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »Is it tilted because you disagree with it or can you prove your claim?Deleted User wrote: »How about you show me your regression analysis or some published research with regression analysis on non cherry picked data.
A review paper is supposed to provide an up-to-date account of peer-reviewed research in a specific field. That is quite clearly not what this paper is attempting to do, which suggests very poor editorial standards at the journal that published it.0 -
Have you actually read the paper ?
It goes on to say “…one cannot be positive that indeed such a correlation exists (for chemistry data)…”; an utterly bizarre statement, as one cannot be positive about anything – that’s not how science works.
On then to “…or even, if existing (for ice-cores data), whether it leads to a "severe" or a "gentle" global warming…”, which essentially means “yeah, a correlation exists when ice core data is used, but we’re not sure what adjective we should use to describe it”. Meaningless nonsense.
And then we have “A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2).” Firstly, given that everything is based on the laws of physics, I find it bizarre that the authors feel the need to point out that this particular finding is in keeping with the physical laws of the universe (and that this term somehow made it through the peer-review process without being removed). Secondly, the claim in question is not taken from a peer-reviewed paper, but rather a book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Cooling-Developments-Environmental-ebook/dp/B0017X0UMW/ref=sr_1_1
One of the papers on which this book is based was thoroughly debunked in a rebuttal, published by the same journal that published the original paper:It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.0 -
If water vapours role has been underplayed then CO2 is less significant than we thought. Climate models would need adjusting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082422New calculations show that our already sizeable water footprint is 18% bigger than we thought.
The study is based on a century's worth of observational data drawn from 100 river basins across the world.
It reveals a significant increase in the water being "lost" to the atmosphere as a direct result of human activity.
This occurs through evaporation from land and water surfaces, and from plants as they transpire.
Link to the paper itself
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6265/1248This increase raises a recent estimate of the current global water footprint of humanity by around 18%, to 10,688 ± 979 km3/year. The results highlight the global impact of local water-use activities and call for their relevant account in Earth system modeling.
This is not insignificant."Dam and irrigation developments - even though local - have a big global impact on human water consumption. That's what has not been calculated before and what we've estimated in this paper," Prof Destouni said.
"The water footprint could be up to 20% larger than previously estimated," Dr Jaramillo revealed.
"In dry areas, reducing the water in the environment can have an enormous impact on humans and ecosystems. In a wet landscape, it is in relative terms not as big in the direr areas. Central Asia (Aral Sea), Middle East, areas around the Mediterranean - these are examples of most vulnerable."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35121340A new global temperature forecast from the UK's Met Office says that 2016 is likely to be even warmer than 2015.
This year has already been provisionally declared the warmest on record thanks to a combination of global warming and a strong El Nino.
The Met Office believes that temperatures in 2016 could be 1.1C above pre-industrial levels.
Last week in Paris, countries agreed that the world should pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5C.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »If water vapours role has been underplayed then CO2 is less significant than we thought. Climate models would need adjusting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082422
Link to the paper itself
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6265/1248
This is not insignificant.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35121340
Water vapour is not a driver of global warming, it's a feedback. Water only persists in the atmosphere for a few hours or days at most before falling to the ground as precipitation It's a feedback because warmer air can hold more water vapour, so unfortunately, the warmer we get, the more of an effect water vapour has on our climate, but the water vapour itself is not driving the higher temperatures, it's reacting to them.
The reason CO2 is the most dangerous greenhouse gas is because the carbon cycle is a lot slower than the other greenhouse gasses and we are pumping a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than the natural processes can absorb, so we are adding a cumulation of gas to our atmosphere that will persist even after we are dead.
Methane is another dangerous driver because our increases in emissions are faster than the natural absorption rate0 -
After a very warm winter globally, arctic sea ice is starting the melting season from a very low base.
If the trend continues, this will probably the worst season yet.
A lot will depend on wind patterns, but there's also expected to be a strong feedback effect whereby the more clear dark water that exists, the greater the warming effect as the season continues.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/0 -
2016 is almost guaranteed to be the warmest year on record.
The last 7 months have all been record breaking months
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-records
Currently, the warmest year on record is 2015, the previous warmest year on record was 2014
So we're set to have 3 consecutive record breaking years in a row
Where are all the 'Global warming has stopped' people now?0 -
Disturbingly, these issues will not be dealt with until we sort out the mess in our economic and financial systems. I see big trouble ahead0
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »Disturbingly, these issues will not be dealt with until we sort out the mess in our economic and financial systems. I see big trouble ahead0
-
Deleted User wrote: »Sorting out the environment (or should I say slowing its destruction down) is a polar opposite of the aims of our financial "masters of the universe!" ensuring continual growth is non-negotiable.
I think continuing growth is possible but we need to grow in the right direction.
A carbon free economy requires huge investment and would be a massive project, but it hurts the interests of the owners of polluting industry and they're fighting it tooth and nail.
If it was a war, there would be an unlimited budget to defeat the enemy, until it is acknowledged that this is an existential threat as dangerous as any rogue nation armed with nuclear weapons, we will not see governments of the world take this seriously enough0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote:Sorting out the environment (or should I say slowing its destruction down) is a polar opposite of the aims of our financial "masters of the universe!" ensuring continual growth is non-negotiable.
Crux of the problem. We have to address these issues immediately or we can say bye bye to planet earth very very soon0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Sorting out the environment (or should I say slowing its destruction down) is a polar opposite of the aims of our financial "masters of the universe!" ensuring continual growth is non-negotiable.Decoupling of global emissions and economic growth confirmed
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) – the largest source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions – stayed flat for the second year in a row, according to analysis of preliminary data for 2015 released today by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
“The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news: we now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.0 -
I'm not sure that's the issue it was anymore though:
https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
im very very wary of info from think tanks. a lot of s*ite out there. i think the implementation of economic systems and theories such as neoliberalism and neoclassical theory are having detrimental effects to this planet. we re doing incredible damage to the planet with such systems. we have to come up with better systems and fast0 -
I'm not sure that's the issue it was anymore though:
https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html
The limits to growth have taken care of the acceleration in the growth of industrial activity, but growth has to be maintained at all costs.
Growth is being maintained, but virtually rather than materially.
Referring to decoupling, is a way of distraction from the continued environmental destruction that is going on.0 -
this documentary was aired on bbc during the week, pollution on the ganges and its catchment. may interest some here. very upsetting to watch actually.
0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »im very very wary of info from think tanks.0
-
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »That growth is largely in financial activity, moving money from one bank account to another as opposed to actually making stuff.0
-
-
All economic growth in recent years has been in the financial sector? Really?
For example, privatisation, the process of splitting a large state organisation which has only one revenue stream, i.e. direct funding via taxation, into multiple financial transactions between the sliced & diced entities that exist now.
All those individual financial transactions are "growth" producers. A good example is the company that hires the track maintenance equipment to the sub contractor who maintains the railway network.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »For example, privatisation, the process of splitting a large state organisation which has only one revenue stream, i.e. direct funding via taxation, into multiple financial transactions between the sliced & diced entities that exist now.
All those individual financial transactions are "growth" producers. A good example is the company that hires the track maintenance equipment to the sub contractor who maintains the railway network.
Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic - let's leave it there.0 -
For the first time apparently there's been a jet stream shift in the last couple of days. It's more than a little frightening what the consequences of this are.
It's quite unprecedented for the jet stream to cross the equator. It pretty much ends seasonality.
0 -
Advertisement
-
CMOTDibbler wrote: »For the first time apparently there's been a jet stream shift in the last couple of days. It's more than a little frightening what the consequences of this are.
It's quite unprecedented for the jet stream to cross the equator. It pretty much ends seasonality.
This story will be used for years by deniers as proof that people who believe that global warming is a serious threat are 'alarmists'
The Jet stream does occasionally leak into the other hemisphere. It's not common, but neither is it unprecedented.
Add to this the other comments in the video that suggest that ocean currents are breaking down and we have a well intentioned advocate overstepping the boundaries of his own expertise.
There is no solid equatorial barrier that separates the northern and southern hemispheres that has been breached. This is just the (already worrying) phenomena of meandering jet-streams that well informed people already know about.
Climate scientists already warn about the dangers of disruption to atmospheric and oceanic currents due to the melting of the ice caps, and this threat is real and extremely alarming, but premature distortions of the science like the one above don't do anyone any favours.0 -
Last month was the hottest June on record. That makes it fourteen record-breaking months in a row:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/hottest-ever-june-sees-14th-month-of-record-temperatures-1.27282210 -
Hottest since 1880, lol, hmmm that's not much of a record though in Earth's existence really. It makes good headlines though if you like that sort of thing.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »Hottest since 1880, lol, hmmm that's not much of a record though in Earth's existence really. It makes good headlines though if you like that sort of thing.
I'm not sure I agree with your sentiment here
What do you mean by 'that sort of thing'?0 -
I'm not sure I agree with your sentiment here
What do you mean by 'that sort of thing'?
Sensational headlines. The media love it.
I remember the time they said in 2000 or so that our Children would not know what snow was , actually from the British Independent which was deleted but can still be found. How do I know it was deleted ? because I kept the bookmark.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
That was a claim from Dr David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia and the Media jumped all over it with massive heading. That's what I'm talking about "that sort of thing" And there's no shortage of them either.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Sensational headlines.
Thats a fine example of revisionism you've caught there
That was when they were still selling "global warming"
Before they had to climb down a bit and rebrand it as anthropogenic climate change.
Is the climate changing?
of course
Are we causing it?
probably
Can we stop it?
probably not
Is our best course of action to make plans for food and water security?
definitely
Will it happen ?
no
Why ?
Because of:- ISIL (Daesh, ISIS, insert next one here)
- Democracy (Such as it is)
- The Economy, Stupid !
- Poverty
- Human nature (we are just bald monkeys really)
- Pokemon Go !
- Netflix
- Twink
- Enda Kenny
- Michael Noonan
- The entire Healy Rae Dynashty
- The Rothschild Banking System (IMF)
- The EU
- THe US
- Russia
- CHina
- INdia
- Brazil
- Ebola
- Zika
- Consumerism
- corporate interests
- Lobbyists
- Greed
- stupidity
- Time (this is probably the most important factor)
- Everyone on the planet's desire and expectation that a "modern" western lifestyle is achievable, sustainable or even remotely
- Depression
- Fear
- Anxiety
- Star Wars
- Meat Eating
- Cars
- Holidays
- Every other distraction or selfish goal that we as humans will use as a daily distraction from the impending collapse of our civilization, culture, way of life and hopes for the future.
- I'm pretty sure you can see where this list is going
- Rupert Murdoch
- Trident
- Brexit
- Richard Bransons (his spin and sales pitch was terrific though)
- Al Gore
- every US president since about McKinley
- The Queen of England
- I'm gonna stop now. Massively TLDR;
- There is hope out there. Seek it, Find it.
- If you can't find it, seek inner peace. it tastes the same anyway
My sincere apple logies for the rambling tinfoil hat post. my overtired attempt at putting pith and humor in the same place.
Oh, and Twitter. them too :rolleyes:0 -
I would edit the post above and add Apathy*, but I can't be bothered.
* in reality, possibly the top answer.0 -
AngryHippie wrote: »Thats a fine example of revisionism you've caught there
That was when they were still selling "global warming"
Before they had to climb down a bit and rebrand it as anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change and global warming are interchangable. Global warming is causing climate change.
The anthropogenic part is included to avoid the inevitable denialist hijacking of every single discussion to say 'climate changes naturally blah blah'
Everyone knows that climate changes naturally, AGW or Climate change is not about the natural changes, it's only about the changes humans are causing to the global climate. (which are real and potentially catastrophic)0 -
Well if people are that worried about Co2 why not for instance push the Government to replant our forest ? Not pine crap but real forest. Trees and plants love the stuff.
Ireland is one of the if not "the" most most deforested land on the European continent due to our severe over farming.
People are not as concerned about chemicals and air pollution we endure daily as they are about the possibility of a warmer earth.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Hottest since 1880, lol, hmmm that's not much of a record though in Earth's existence really.Deleted User wrote: »Sensational headlines. The media love it.Deleted User wrote: »I remember the time they said in 2000 or so that our Children would not know what snow was , actually from the British Independent which was deleted but can still be found. How do I know it was deleted ? because I kept the bookmark.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
That was a claim from Dr David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia and the Media jumped all over it with massive heading. That's what I'm talking about "that sort of thing" And there's no shortage of them either.
As an aside, there’s also often a big difference between science and what the media report as science.Deleted User wrote: »Well if people are that worried about Co2…0 -
Advertisement
-
As an aside, there’s also often a big difference between science and what the media report as science.
I can't seem to quote using the button for some reason.
But that is a problem. Science journalists are often well-meaning, but underinformed. And they are under pressure for headlines that will catch attention. Too often the order of importance is eye-catching headline first and the science second. It is hardly surprising that people that don't want to, don't have time to or don't have the interest doing their own research from primary sources either swallow it wholesale or else see too many sensational headlines come to nothing and end up deeply suspicious of the actual science rather than its reporting.
It's also weird that climatologists get so much trouble for the global warming/climate change issue when "climate change" was popularised by big business (oil I think, although I'd have to look it up again) as it was supposed to sound less alarming.0 -
Here, Ireland is the most deforested land on the whole European continent , if we're that concerned about Co2 why don't we lobby the Government to plant actual forest ? I'm not talking that pine crap they have now for industry for to cut again in 30 years or less. real trees that benefit the land and the Irish people and the environment .0
-
I think you're missing the wood for the trees there Mad_Lad
I would love to see new native tree forestry in Ireland, I think it would be amazing for many reasons, but it's not going to make even a tiny dent in the climate change problem.
We would be much better off focusing on preserving the forests that are currently being cut down, and moving away from fossil fuels towards renewable zero carbon or carbon neutral energy.
There should be massive import taxes for lumber imported from the worlds rainforests. We don't need teak decking or garden furniture in Ireland. That wood would be a lot better off in Sri Lanka where it belongs.
Global warming requires global solutions. Countries that happen to host the worlds rainforests should be getting subsidies to help them manage their forests and to make it more economically attractive to leave the forests the way they are.
We need global action to reduce carbon emissions, so that we don't have free riders taking advantage of cheap fossil fuel energy while others are making investments in green technologies. And also to tackle the transition as many nations lose huge sources of income and wealth, global agreements are required to prevent dumping of fossil fuels as some nations try to squeeze the last income out of their reserves0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Here, Ireland is the most deforested land on the whole European continent , if we're that concerned about Co2 why don't we lobby the Government to plant actual forest ? I'm not talking that pine crap they have now for industry for to cut again in 30 years or less. real trees that benefit the land and the Irish people and the environment .
Actually, it isn't.
It may well have been 30ish years ago but there's been a fairly hefty increase in forested land (pg 5 and 6 are good here) since Coillte was founded (1988ish).
Unfortunately, broadleaf species are usually more expensive due to their relatively slow growth and their need for higher quality land normally already in use for agriculture. That said, there was a big increase in broadleaf planting throughout the 1990s and 2000s (nice figure on page 11 of that report).0 -
In the west of Ireland there was a drive for planting trees. There seems to have been an idea to plant broadleaves around the edges where they could be seen and then softwood coniferous makes up the main part of it in the actual depths.0
-
What a strange place this website is.
The last post on climate change in this forum, which is only the most profound and compelling challenge faced by the human species, was two years ago.
Or is there another science-focused and rational-minded forum somewhere else on Boards where people can discuss climate science, policy etc?0 -
What a strange place this website is.
The last post on climate change in this forum, which is only the most profound and compelling challenge faced by the human species, was two years ago.
Or is there another science-focused and rational-minded forum somewhere else on Boards where people can discuss climate science, policy etc?
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018Plummeting numbers of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish around the world are an urgent sign that nature needs life support. Our Living Planet Report 2018 shows population sizes of wildlife decreased by 60% globally between 1970 and 2014.
For the last 20 years, scientists from ZSL, WWF and other organisations, have been monitoring changes in the populations of thousands of animal species around the world. Sadly, they’ve concluded that the variety of life on Earth and wildlife populations is disappearing fast.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Climate change is a distraction, the real tragedy is the loss of natural habitat, loss of bio-diversity and the massive increase in human population which is displacing all other life on Earth.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018
Climate change isn't a distraction, it's the worst problem facing mankind since WW2. Climate change involves widespread loss of habitat through coral bleaching, destruction of rainforests, melting of polar ice and glaciers, increases in drought and heatwaves that make it unsustainable for species to survive where they once flourished.
There is no point in tackling the other issues unless we tackle climate change, and conversely, tackling climate change will also do a lot to improve biodiversity as some of the solutions to climate change are to reforestation and education in family planning and equality for girls in the developing world.0 -
Climate change isn't a distraction, it's the worst problem facing mankind since WW2. Climate change involves widespread loss of habitat through coral bleaching, destruction of rainforests, melting of polar ice and glaciers, increases in drought and heatwaves that make it unsustainable for species to survive where they once flourished.
There is no point in tackling the other issues unless we tackle climate change, and conversely, tackling climate change will also do a lot to improve biodiversity as some of the solutions to climate change are to reforestation and education in family planning and equality for girls in the developing world.
Stop the human terraforming, and climate change will look after itself.
Of course, before you can stop the expansion of human activity into the few remaining pieces of natural habitat, you would have to stop the population rising and then embark on a population reduction project.
People don't want to face up to that stark reality, so they use "climate change" as a diversion and only tinker with the chosen indicators, like CO2.0 -
Advertisement
-
Climate change isn't a distraction, it's the worst problem facing mankind since WW2. Climate change involves widespread loss of habitat through coral bleaching, destruction of rainforests, melting of polar ice and glaciers, increases in drought and heatwaves that make it unsustainable for species to survive where they once flourished.
There is no point in tackling the other issues unless we tackle climate change, and conversely, tackling climate change will also do a lot to improve biodiversity as some of the solutions to climate change are to reforestation and education in family planning and equality for girls in the developing world.
AP PHOTOS: Yemen’s displaced live on bread crumbs, leaves
Behind the Reporting: How the War in Yemen Became a Bloody Stalemate
Miscarriages and malnourishment: The perils of pregnancy in Yemen
Civilians bear brunt of landmine explosions in Shan State
Clearing the landmines of eastern Ukraine
Landmines kill almost hourly – let's end their brutal scourge for good
Why the U.S. Military Won't Give Up Its Cluster Bombs
Cluster Bombs Are Back—and America and Russia Can't Get Enough
Israeli Army Buying Local Cannons to Sidestep International Ban on Cluster Bombs
Life among Israeli cluster bombs in Lebanon
Stopping people killing each other seems like a top priority issue to me, but I can see why someone who advocates "family planning" (i.e. population control) in the third world might not care about that since the outcome is the same - less people which is the ultimate goal of the dark green elements of the environmental movement. You somehow fail to notice that people are dying because of man made global warfare while the number of people being killed by weather events an natural disasters has declined over the last century.Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Trust me, a team of men with bulldozers & chainsaws can do far more damage to the environment than any "climate change" scenario. You are looking at the issue backwards.
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397
With climate change, we could see the desertification of the amazon rainforest and the complete loss of all tropical coral reefs, the two most biodiverse biomes on earthStop the human terraforming, and climate change will look after itself.
Of course, before you can stop the expansion of human activity into the few remaining pieces of natural habitat, you would have to stop the population rising and then embark on a population reduction project.
People don't want to face up to that stark reality, so they use "climate change" as a diversion and only tinker with the chosen indicators, like CO2.0 -
Pa ElGrande wrote: »AP PHOTOS: Yemen’s displaced live on bread crumbs, leaves
Behind the Reporting: How the War in Yemen Became a Bloody Stalemate
Miscarriages and malnourishment: The perils of pregnancy in Yemen
Civilians bear brunt of landmine explosions in Shan State
Clearing the landmines of eastern Ukraine
Landmines kill almost hourly – let's end their brutal scourge for good
Why the U.S. Military Won't Give Up Its Cluster Bombs
Cluster Bombs Are Back—and America and Russia Can't Get Enough
Israeli Army Buying Local Cannons to Sidestep International Ban on Cluster Bombs
Life among Israeli cluster bombs in Lebanon
Stopping people killing each other seems like a top priority issue to me, but I can see why someone who advocates "family planning" (i.e. population control) in the third world might not care about that since the outcome is the same - less people which is the ultimate goal of the dark green elements of the environmental movement. You somehow fail to notice that people are dying because of man made global warfare while the number of people being killed by weather events an natural disasters has declined over the last century.
There will never be peace in a world where conflicts of basic resources like fresh water and food are amplified due to climate change
And Family planning and educating girls is an essential element in poverty reduction and improvements in quality of life for the poorest people in the world.0 -
Oh feck off. I didn't say we shouldn't tackle war and famine, I said that it will be in vain in the long term if we don't solve climate change. The human suffering we see today will be amplified massively if we see global average temperatures increase 2 or 3c above pre-industrial temperatures and the temperatures won't stop increasing from there as feedbacks get activated.
As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.
The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.There will never be peace in a world where conflicts of basic resources like fresh water and food are amplified due to climate change
That myth has been blown apart.And Family planning and educating girls is an essential element in poverty reduction and improvements in quality of life for the poorest people in the world.
It is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.
For those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.
If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.
Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
Pa ElGrande wrote: »As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.
We face temperatures hotter than we have experienced in the 2 million or so years since humans evolved as a speciesIt is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.
Or perhaps they could be educated and empowered to take control of their own lives and make their own choicesFor those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.
He's actually a total clown. For example, at about 10 minutes in, says they drew in a line with ms paint onto a graph when it clearly shows on the graph that this red line is an analysis based on Marcott et al. This is the kind of rubbish you get when you have morons who think they know everything rushing through papers looking for things that they misunderstand just enough to think they've found a discrepancy in the science.0 -
Earths climate is very well understood. . . .There is no precedent for the temperatures we are facing unless we reduce our CO2 equivalent emissions.
We face temperatures hotter than we have experienced in the 2 million or so years since humans evolved as a species
No we don't. Even though you claim the the climate is well understood the predictions made to date for temperatures have been consistently wrong and the claims of warmest year 'eva are grasping at straws while ignoring the margin of error.By blown apart, you mean disputed. . . .
I mean blown apart. The real reasons for today's mass migration are towards areas of the planet that offer a higher standard of living compared with subsistence living or political oppression and lack of opportunity in their homeland. Within China there is migration to the south-east, within Russia there is migration from the former colonies of the Soviet Union towards the west of the country in particular Moscow and St. Petersburg. In South and central America there is migration towards the prosperous North and there is migration from Africa and the middle East towards Europe all driven by economic opportunity and even the generous welfare states.So you're saying these women should aspire to having washing machines to ease the burdon of their domestic chores.
Or perhaps they could be educated and empowered to take control of their own lives and make their own choices
A degree in climate studies is not going to empower you when you are living a subsistence existence. That means no running water, no electricity and hard labor scratching a living off the land being one bad harvest away from wipeout. The only safety net in that environment is have your children take care of you when you can't work anymore.Richard Lindzen is a busted flush. . . . . continues to make factually incorrect statements such as 'co2 is not a pollutant'. . . .
He is correct CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for life on Earth. As a carbon based life form you depend on it or have you forgotten about the carbon cycle and essential processes like photosynthesis.You need better sources. I watched that video and this guy doesn't understand what he's talking about.
He's actually a total clown. For example, at about 10 minutes in, says they drew in a line with ms paint onto a graph when it clearly shows on the graph that this red line is an analysis based on Marcott et al. This is the kind of rubbish you get when you have morons who think they know everything rushing through papers looking for things that they misunderstand just enough to think they've found a discrepancy in the science.
What is this about then? This is politics, the science is just the cover story to provide the optics.
Countries negotiate key messages of IPCC’s controversial ‘Special Report’Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Pa ElGrande wrote: »No it isn't, otherwise alarmists would not have needed to re-label catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming as climate change or adjust the data or maybe carry out a proper audit of the data used in their datasets.
On the other hand, 'Climate change' has been around for decades, the IPCC has been around since 1988No we don't. Even though you claim the the climate is well understood the predictions made to date for temperatures have been consistently wrong and the claims of warmest year 'eva are grasping at straws while ignoring the margin of error.
The physics are very well understood, almost incontrovertible. What we don't fully understand is the effect of all the various feedbacks. We have a good idea of what values they are likely to have, but we don't know for certain and likely won't know until we measure them in hindsight (by which time it's way too late to do anything about them)I mean blown apart. The real reasons for today's mass migration are towards areas of the planet that offer a higher standard of living compared with subsistence living or political oppression and lack of opportunity in their homeland. Within China there is migration to the south-east, within Russia there is migration from the former colonies of the Soviet Union towards the west of the country in particular Moscow and St. Petersburg. In South and central America there is migration towards the prosperous North and there is migration from Africa and the middle East towards Europe all driven by economic opportunity and even the generous welfare states.A degree in climate studies is not going to empower you when you are living a subsistence existence. That means no running water, no electricity and hard labor scratching a living off the land being one bad harvest away from wipeout. The only safety net in that environment is have your children take care of you when you can't work anymore.He is correct CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for life on Earth. As a carbon based life form you depend on it or have you forgotten about the carbon cycle and essential processes like photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide might be essential for photosynthesis, but it's toxic to humans. If you don't believe me, put a plastic bag over your head and breath (don't actually do this)
CO2 has a natural balance of about 280ppm, this is the carbon cycle in balance. Humans dug up billions of tonnes of oil coal and gas that took the natural carbon cycle tens of millions of years to sequester, and are burning it over the course of only a few centuries. We are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere and you don't do that without consequences.What is this about then? This is politics, the science is just the cover story to provide the optics.
Countries negotiate key messages of IPCC’s controversial ‘Special Report’
Only a lunatic thinks that the worlds governments are all colluding to make climate change seem worse than it is. If anything, there are governments all over the world resisting any attempts to tackle it and doing everything they can to drag their feet and avoid being held to committments to reduce oil, gas and coal consumption.
Even your own link confirms that the language in the SPM document was watered down significantly from it's earlier drafts0 -
On the other hand, 'Climate change' has been around for decades, the IPCC has been around since 1988
Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.Wrong again. The calculations for climate sensitivity made by Arrhenius in 1896 was about 3c for a doubling of CO2.. This is smack in the middle of the IPCC projections for Climate sensitivity
The physics are very well understood, almost incontrovertible. What we don't fully understand is the effect of all the various feedbacks. We have a good idea of what values they are likely to have, but we don't know for certain and likely won't know until we measure them in hindsight (by which time it's way too late to do anything about them)
Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.Of course people who are displaced are going to migrate to where there is opportunity for a better life. Duh. What do you think will happen when millions of people are displaced from their land because of rising seas or drought. Are they just going to wander around the deserts forever, or are they going to try to make their way to cities or places where there is opportunity to build a better life. What happens when the people living there don't like the mass migration driving down their own wages or standard of living? Conflict. The rise of anti immigrant populism like we're seeing in Europe and America, and ultimately violent conflict.Then they should get a degree in something else then. Actually, lets start by teaching them how to read. Allowing girls to dream of a life other than as a baby factory. Teach them that there is more to the world than subsistence. When they are educated they can become involved in politics, fight for representation so that they're not living hand to mouth.
You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.Carbon dioxide might be essential for photosynthesis, but it's toxic to humans. If you don't believe me, put a plastic bag over your head and breath (don't actually do this)
CO2 has a natural balance of about 280ppm, this is the carbon cycle in balance. Humans dug up billions of tonnes of oil coal and gas that took the natural carbon cycle tens of millions of years to sequester, and are burning it over the course of only a few centuries. We are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere and you don't do that without consequences.
Without us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve. It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.Only a lunatic thinks that the worlds governments are all colluding to make climate change seem worse than it is. If anything, there are governments all over the world resisting any attempts to tackle it and doing everything they can to drag their feet and avoid being held to committments to reduce oil, gas and coal consumption.
Even your own link confirms that the language in the SPM document was watered down significantly from it's earlier drafts
Most governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
Pa ElGrande wrote: »Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.
These few tabloid headlines have been repeated over and over and over and over again in the Denial blogosphere so that it gives the false impression that there was ever a clamour about potential global cooling.
Climate changes naturally over time due to certain known factors, none of which are responsible for the current warming which is incontrovertibly caused by humans. There is absolutely no scientific debate anymore that the warming in recent decades is caused by humans, and that if we continue to emit CO2 the warming will increase.Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.
Watch this animation and tell me that Arctic sea ice isn't in terminal decline.
Globally glaciers are in decline in most places. Kilamanjaro has lost about 30% of it's mass in recent decades. Record snow is a form of precipitation, or weather, which is not a disproof of climate change.Well the sea has been rising for several hundred years now and we are doing just fine we have the technology to deal with it. If you look at your own country the trend has been rural to urban migration since the 19th century with some exceptional brief periods.You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the best way to help these people is to encourage them to have big families to the limit of their ability to feed them in the hope that some of them will survive long enough to care for the parents in their (premature) old age.Without us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve.It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.
At above 1000ppm there are significant declines in human cognition and above 2000ppm there are serious deficiencies in human cognition
CO2 in the air also affects the PH in our blood.
Humans have never existed with an atmosphere above 300ppm CO2. Now it's at 405ppm, even if we work hard to reduce our emissions, we're likely to see levels peak at close to 600ppm
When the levels of CO2 are this high in the atmosphere, it's impossible to escape short of breathing through a ventilator.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_healthMost governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.0 -
How old are you? There were a couple of scientists predicting a cooling phase in the 70s which got picked up by the press and the usual tabloid exaggeration did not reflect the state of the science at all.
These few tabloid headlines have been repeated over and over and over and over again in the Denial blogosphere so that it gives the false impression that there was ever a clamour about potential global cooling.
Still twisting things to suit the global warming agenda?
Global cooling was a big deal in the 1970s, at least for the World Meteorological Organisation where its report from1979 at it's first climate conference stated:The probability, nevertheless, is that the surface temperature of the Earth (at present near 288 deg K
or 15 deg C) has not greatly changed over a period of 2 x 109 years.
Such analyses are sketchy and approximate, but they suggest that the present- day Earth's surface (and that of the past two million years) are substantially cooler than has been usual in history.
We live in an abnormal phase of a planetary climate that in most epochs permitted a largely ice-free surface.
Nothing in the record suggests that we are about to climb back to the normal condition which may well be
5 to 10 deg C warmer than present conditions.Few, if any, scientists believe the C0 2 problem in itself justifies
a curb, today, in the usage of fossil fuels or deforestation.
https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiT0fu76MDeAhUGasAKHVH0DCIQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0cfdak6gVLsoyeKsY2Lr2W
It was unusually cooler in the 1970s with nothing to suggest that we were heading towards earth's normal condition.
You're also aware that today (in spite of the alleged catastrophic global warming in the interim) the earth's average temperature is just below what the WMO said it was in 1979, 15°C.0 -
Still twisting things to suit the global warming agenda?
Global cooling was a big deal in the 1970s, at least for the World Meteorological Organisation where its report from1979 at it's first climate conference stated:
https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiT0fu76MDeAhUGasAKHVH0DCIQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0cfdak6gVLsoyeKsY2Lr2W
It was unusually cooler in the 1970s with nothing to suggest that we were heading towards earth's normal condition.
You're also aware that today (in spite of the alleged catastrophic global warming in the interim) the earth's average temperature is just below what the WMO said it was in 1979, 15°C.
There is no 'normal condition'. There are however conditions that are suitable for human life, and conditions that are unsuitable for human life. Humans evolve during the Pleistocena and have only existed during the Holocene when temperatures were stable within this interglacial cycle.
Human civilisation, in terms of our nations, infrastructure, history, heritage, culture, identity, technology etc has only existed during the holocene.
The previous Epoch, the Pliocene had an ice free arctic, and guess what was different back then? CO2 levels were above 400ppm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement