Climate Change thread

[Guest]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Modern humans have been inhabiting the Earth for at least 200,000 years, (their ancestors for some 3,000,000 years)

 

They, modern humans, have survived at least 3 "ice ages" and "warm ages", during that time. They have thrived in all environments from the steaming  equatorial jungles to the deserts, flood plains,  and the Arctic.

 

It would be a co-incidence indeed if, given today's technology, humankind could not survive this latest interglacial warming period during the lifetime of a Greta, or an AlGore, "special" though they are! 

 

Especially an average warming of 1 or 2 degrees!

 

Here's the latest from the NOAA/NASA satellite record of the last 44 years.

 

 

 

Ice Ages

 

 

 

 

Just remember that it was  YOU who called Al Gore and Greta special, and not me. Why, I don't know, but if that was an attempt to annoy me it didn't work.

You can save a lot of time and effort digging up all these charts because I never even look at them. It is a well known tactic to find statistics that seem to prove their point.

In fact, when you use diagrams to try to prove your point, you are supposed to give the origins of them because many are not from trusted sources.

There are so many these days who just pick up their facts from googling everything rather than their own knowledge so I never read them.

You have still got a job of work in hand to explain why the polar icecaps are melting, and the sea levels are rising, at the increased speed they are and you are welcome to explain without diagrams,

If you think otherwise regarding global warming, that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions and I have no reason to care what yours is. I know it's always opposite to what the "experts" say.

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Organgrinder

[Chekhov]

Can we have some Global Warming plese as I'm 'effin freezing, and I might not be able to go swimming tonight or my lad to school tomorrow because of the snow. Though I accept that has as much to do with the ludicrous excessive risk aversion these days as the snow itself.

22 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

I know I'm badly outnumbered on here, in this subject at least but it won't be the first time when lot's of people have been proved wrong.

Can I mention the C word ?

Edited March 8, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

22 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

It's not surprising then, that polar bears and tigers come so low on your chart of what's important.

You may not like the message but, it wont help to stick your head in the sand and ignore it.  

The human race has shown it's stupidity in so many ways already, but to more or less welcome it's own destruction, is unbelievable just because you don't like the message.

Little Greta knows what she's taking about no matter what people's opinions of her are.

My post of yesterday is relevant here.

BTW, OG, should we avoid tidal power schemes that distrub the wading birds feeding grounds ? Or, on the other hand, is it not a climate emergency ?

 

As I've said before these Nett Zero zealots are totally inconsistent anyway, either that or they're completely divorced from reality. A MASSIVE dose of pragmatism woudl do them a world of good. :

 

1 - The most environmentally friendly form of transport is the electrfied railway. So, far from protesting against HS2 they should be 'effing volunteering on it for free.

 

2 - The most reliable form of green energy is tidal power, but they're against it "because of the wading birds habitat".
I thought they said it was a climate emergency ? ! ?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Can we have some Global Warming plese as I'm 'effin freezing, and I might not be able to go swimming tonight or my lad to school tomorrow because of the snow. Though I accept that has as much to do with the ludicrous excessive risk aversion these days as the snow itself.

Can I mention the C word ?

I don't know mate, I must be slow today again.  What's the C word and it's significance?

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

My post of yesterday is relevant here.

BTW, OG, should we avoid tidal power schemes that distrub the wading birds feeding grounds ? Or, on the other hand, is it not a climate emergency ?

 

As I've said before these Nett Zero zealots are totally inconsistent anyway, either that or they're completely divorced from reality. A MASSIVE dose of pragmatism woudl do them a world of good. :

 

1 - The most environmentally friendly form of transport is the electrfied railway. So, far from protesting against HS2 they should be 'effing volunteering on it for free.

 

2 - The most reliable form of green energy is tidal power, but they're against it "because of the wading birds habitat".
I thought they said it was a climate emergency ? ! ?

I have believed for a long time that the sea was our best source of energy.

I don't believe the governments answer that doing so would automatically disturb the wading birds feeding grounds. 

There is a damn lot of ocean out  there, North, East, South and West and they can't feed everywhere so I say, we should be able to use the sea without  being compromised.

As an animal and wildlife lover, I would not want to interfere with wading birds or any other forms of marine life but nobody has explained to me why this should be the case.

Electric railway is a brilliant form of transport for our needs. We had stupid government years back when they closed the electrified Victoria Eastern Line and kept open the Midland non-electric line.

We are not in total agreement then but the points you make are valid and that's what debate is all about.

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Organgrinder

[trastrick]

53 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

 

 

Just remember that it was  YOU who called Al Gore and Greta special, and not me. Why, I don't know, but if that was an attempt to annoy me it didn't work.

You can save a lot of time and effort digging up all these charts because I never even look at them. It is a well known tactic to find statistics that seem to prove their point.

In fact, when you use diagrams to try to prove your point, you are supposed to give the origins of them because many are not from trusted sources.

There are so many these days who just pick up their facts from googling everything rather than their own knowledge so I never read them.

You have still got a job of work in hand to explain why the polar icecaps are melting, and the sea levels are rising, at the increased speed they are and you are welcome to explain without diagrams,

If you think otherwise regarding global warming, that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions and I have no reason to care what yours is. I know it's always opposite to what the "experts" say.

 

 

 

Lol

 

I'm tired of posting the same links over and over again to folks who claim they don't even bother to look at them.

 

But since you raise the point, the raw data for the temperature chart can be found here:

 

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

 

And for those trogladites who don't know we are in an Inter Glacial Epoch, here's another link:

 

 

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods

 

Y'all welcome!

[Guest]

Just now, trastrick said:

Lol

 

I'm tired of posting the same links over and over again to folks who claim they don't even bother to look at them.

 

But since you raise the point, the raw data for the temperature chart can be found here:

 

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

 

And for those trogladites who don't know we are in an Inter Glacial Epoch, here's another link:

 

 

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods

 

Y'all welcome!

Since you know that people don't look at your charts,  why do you persist in posting them?

 

When I come on here to debate any subject,  I don't rely on quotes from others.  I tell you what I think.

I may be right or I may be wrong but what you get is my honest view.

 

I am quite happy to listen to your honest view, even though it may differ from mine and I may not agree but,  a debate should consist of more than quoting 3rd parties all the time.

Thanks anyweay.

[trastrick]

40 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Since you know that people don't look at your charts,  why do you persist in posting them?

 

When I come on here to debate any subject,  I don't rely on quotes from others.  I tell you what I think.

I may be right or I may be wrong but what you get is my honest view.

 

I am quite happy to listen to your honest view, even though it may differ from mine and I may not agree but,  a debate should consist of more than quoting 3rd parties all the time.

Thanks anyweay.

Here’s a hint:

 

 When the folks in power, or those getting rich off a public issue, or parroting each other in the MSM, tell the public that “scientists say” it is wise to look up what scientists are actually saying and what the actual data and evidence really is.

 

Otherwise you could be exposed to misinformation, like the “Russian Collusion” hoax, the COVID threat hype and malfeasance, the Climate Change Hype, and even the Ukraine war hype that the brave Ukrainians are winning and Putin is turning tail, shamed by the “world” and about to be toppled from power by his own people! 

 

Even as today as Key Ukraine City of BaKhmut falls to Russian forces!

 

I'd be quite happy to just have discussions limited to opinions, sans links,  but that would reduce to number of posters here, especially those who scream about needing a verifying link to such mundane common knowledge as the frequency of Ice Ages and Inter Glacial Epochs.

 

Plus I’m not a wanna be moderator, so I accept it is what it is!  
 

Peace!

Edited March 8, 2023 by trastrick

[Annie Bynnol]

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

And for those trogladites who don't know we are in an Inter Glacial Epoch, here's another link:

 

 

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods

 

Y'all welcome!

    Here is a hint. Read your own link.

• The bit that says "... due to the combustion of fossil fuels resulting in an increase in global warming, the icecaps are melting at a more rapid pace annually—raising the sea level by an average of 3.2 mm/yr and over 70 mm since 1995".
• Or that that the graph you show does not appear the article you linked it to.
• Or that your link appears to have been written before the graph was created.

       This graph was is the work of Panchuk, K. (2019) Glaciation over Earth’s History. The University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

       Reproduced in a paper about "Climate Change, Environment, Anthropogenic Changes, Greenhouse Gases, Sea Level Change" in Review of Climate Change Impacts on Human Environment: Past, Present and Future Projections by  Adamo, Al-Ansari and Sissak in Engineering, Vol.13 No.11, November 30, 2021. 

 

      The error strewn  statement you made that "...  modern humans, have survived at least 3 "ice ages" and "warm ages", during that time. They have thrived in all environments from the steaming  equatorial jungles to the deserts, flood plains,  and the Arctic.", would be a very good University entrance interview discussion. 

 

 

[trastrick]

12 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

    Here is a hint. Read your own link.

• The bit that says "... due to the combustion of fossil fuels resulting in an increase in global warming, the icecaps are melting at a more rapid pace annually—raising the sea level by an average of 3.2 mm/yr and over 70 mm since 1995".
• Or that that the graph you show does not appear the article you linked it to.
• Or that your link appears to have been written before the graph was created.

       This graph was is the work of Panchuk, K. (2019) Glaciation over Earth’s History. The University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

       Reproduced in a paper about "Climate Change, Environment, Anthropogenic Changes, Greenhouse Gases, Sea Level Change" in Review of Climate Change Impacts on Human Environment: Past, Present and Future Projections by  Adamo, Al-Ansari and Sissak in Engineering, Vol.13 No.11, November 30, 2021. 

 

      The error strewn  statement you made that "...  modern humans, have survived at least 3 "ice ages" and "warm ages", during that time. They have thrived in all environments from the steaming  equatorial jungles to the deserts, flood plains,  and the Arctic.", would be a very good University entrance interview discussion. 

 

Not wanting to follow your rabbit hole invitation to discuss the definition of words like "Ice ages", Warm Ages, or the current requirements of University Entrance standards, I'll leave those meandering issues aside.

 

Scientists now have the technology and tools (satellites) at their disposal to observe, collect, and report data over decades, as "climate" is defined (as opposed to weather). It's a relatively recent development and much more reliable than the "terrestrial" instrument methods, that go back to 1850 on most global warming charts.

 

Those old "terrestrial"temperatures records were derived, from a combination of land thermometers, ancient tidal gauges, ice core samples, tree ring data, and even steamship water intakes. long before people had reached the North and South Poles, and a good portion of the Third World. So there was obviously a lot of proxy manual guesswork to infill the missing areas.

 

But now we have the best data ever available. Satellites have been observing the Earth for 43 years now.

 

According to NASA/NOAA's satellite data, the warming anomaly over the 43 year period is 0.08 degrees (less than one tenth of a degree)

 

The debate is (or more accurately SHOULD be) about whether this current warming is "catastrophic", or manageable, without "fundamentally" changing our way of life and global economies, and spending $trillions by countries that are already incurring unsustainable National Debts in an attempt to impose a certain arbitrary temperature some 50 to 100 years from now. A government fiat, that's a bit of a stretch for any thinking person.

 

These predictions are, and will be subject to many opinions, as usual couched in  left/right viewpoints, and the debate is not settled, nor is "the science".

 

( I don't think the latest climate goddess Greta, would pass your own standards of interview for qualification to comprehend the entire scientific and economic issues encompassed in this debate  )

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by trastrick