Jump to content

Climate Change


KB1
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 bit like the Maldives, another place that apparently wont be here next year as the sea swallows it up 🙂

But dont let that ruin a good sensationalistic story.

I remember reading some report on rising sea levels that said the Maldives would be swallowed up by 2010. Did they get it wrong? Does that mean the Maldives are still here after all?

Maybe we're not all going to be dead by 2025... 😲 Fantastic, I'm off to celebrate by buying another shotgun!

Edited by Westward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Try and find some up to date figures (2019) on global temp averages (most end in 2016)

Try and find figures on up to date sea level averages, arctic ice sheet extent that doesnt end in 2016.

Hint, you have to look really hard.😏

A good read is the recent court case regarding the 'hockey stick' climate graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

This is from NASA. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX

Data source: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Credit: NASA/GISS
 
Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)
--------------------------------

Year No_Smoothing  Lowess(5)
2010      0.72      0.65
2011      0.61      0.66
2012      0.64      0.70
2013      0.68      0.74
2014      0.75      0.79
2015      0.90      0.83
2016      1.02      0.87
2017      0.92      0.91
2018      0.85      0.95
2019      0.98      0.98
3 hours ago, vmaxphil said:

Just watched a YouTube on when Antarctica was tropical, true it was about 80 million years ago but the earth was much hotter all over and animals were still running around, apparently they are finding fossils of quite large animals and palm trees 

? What does that have to do with global warming?  Millions of years ago contenents were in a different place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, oowee said:

This is from NASA

I could say that since 1880 (140 years) global average temps have gone up by 1 whole degree centigrade. Wow. 

But that's not strictly accurate, virtually ALL of that growth has occurred since 1980? So our +1 oC has happened in the last 40 years. 

So why haven't we had a steady increase in temperature since accurate records began? Bear in mind we've been relying on fossil fuels well before 1980, and no one gave 2 hoots about global warming or the environment in general back then. Yet strangely enough, once we DO start caring about what we put into the atmosphere, THATS when we start recording problems, CFCs, CO, particulates ect. All get a mention at some point, before the present day 'carbon' rules the roost in the doom mongers arsenal. 

If we stay on our present 'warming' rate of 1 degree C in the next 40 years, is that enough to cause an 'extinction' event?       Flood coastal cities, creating more hurricanes, bushfire? 

Is our environment that fragile? 

Do we not have massive climate change every year through seasonal changes? Which we all manage to survive! 

We will reduce our emissions, at a steady pace, we will use less fossil fuels eventually, but to say if we don't do it right now, or we'll all be dead in 20 years, is just plain stupid, plus, if we can't survive 2,3,or even 5 degrees hotter than now, I don't think we deserve to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I could say that since 1880 (140 years) global average temps have gone up by 1 whole degree centigrade. Wow. 

But that's not strictly accurate, virtually ALL of that growth has occurred since 1980? So our +1 oC has happened in the last 40 years. 

So why haven't we had a steady increase in temperature since accurate records began? Bear in mind we've been relying on fossil fuels well before 1980, and no one gave 2 hoots about global warming or the environment in general back then. Yet strangely enough, once we DO start caring about what we put into the atmosphere, THATS when we start recording problems, CFCs, CO, particulates ect. All get a mention at some point, before the present day 'carbon' rules the roost in the doom mongers arsenal. 

If we stay on our present 'warming' rate of 1 degree C in the next 40 years, is that enough to cause an 'extinction' event?       Flood coastal cities, creating more hurricanes, bushfire? 

Is our environment that fragile? 

Do we not have massive climate change every year through seasonal changes? Which we all manage to survive! 

We will reduce our emissions, at a steady pace, we will use less fossil fuels eventually, but to say if we don't do it right now, or we'll all be dead in 20 years, is just plain stupid, plus, if we can't survive 2,3,or even 5 degrees hotter than now, I don't think we deserve to. 

Maybe because the co2 growth is logrythmic. The data is for averages rather than absolutes. The increases in absolute terms are higher.

We are increasing our use of fossil fuels rather than reducing. The climate eco system is sensitive. I dived the maldives before and after el-ninio. The coral was devestated. Temperature increase was just a few degrees. 

I can't imagine we would be dead in 20 years from now but maybe we start an ireversible change? Hopefully we can find a scientific soution so that we can carry on with the destruction.

Just in case I am trying to like oat milk and on Sunday I bought lunch from the smoked vegan kiosk in Bristol centre (it was great).  

Edited by oowee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oowee said:

Just in case I am trying to like oat milk and on Sunday I bought lunch from the smoked vegan kiosk in Bristol centre (it was great

You are a hero, of the new world (order) 😂

Some more (wrong) climate predictions from yesteryear. 

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions#.Xid_fA6xbVU.facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

FB_IMG_1579681346985.jpg.59ebf3db4ffd4c3ab6190386e2427009.jpg

It's always been about money!!!

A few years ago, the EU commission promised to spend 100 billion 'fighting' climate change. 

Where was this money coming from? 

Taxes, and it was going to spend this money on creating more taxes, obviously they would take a cut of it, without cutting out their own massive footprint. 

Lies, hypocrisy and legalised theft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've mentioned before there is no real, repeatable, peer reviewed science that shows CO2 to be the cause of climate change. There is however a lot of pseudo-science which is the term for producing a theory first then looking for evidence which appears to support the theory and often disregarding evidence that doesn't.

Then throw in plain old wrong "facts". The BBC had a recent explanatory item on their site dealing with climate change, which acknowledged that the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapour. Good stuff, well done BBC. However, in their determination to fit up CO2 as the villain, they produced two completely ridiculous statements:

Firstly that water vapour only exists in the atmosphere for a few days. Now that might be true for individual molecules, but whilst water vapour is constantly being returned to the earth it's also constantly being added back into to the atmosphere, therefore the % in the atmosphere is more or less constant. Of course the greater the population and the greater the need for meat production, the greater the amount of water vapour that is being generated. Now the UN's 3rd world climate change lobbying team (IPCC) can't mention this because rapid population growth mostly occurs in the 3rd world and since the UN cannot blame the 3rd world, by definition it must be the 1st world causing the problem.

Secondly the BBC made the erroneous claim that it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial age levels which is nonsense. Just as with water vapour, the earth has various ways of disposing of or consuming atmospheric CO2, and again it is a continuous process. If it were not so, there would be a significant percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere whereas it is still, even today, only a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Other organisations make equally laughable erroneous statements such as average temperatures have never in recorded history been as warm as they are now.

The trouble is, people are highly prone to accept and believe inaccurate information simply because they like or respect the person or organisation presenting it, rather than by examining the veracity of the information or the qualifications of the presenter to be expounding it. Hence poor old David Attenborough being wheeled out as the most credible presenter available  regardless of how qualified he is to inform people.

The reality is that CO2 gets the blame for climate change because the alternative explanation is politically unpalatable. But the activists don't care about facts do they?

Edited by Westward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Westward said:

As I've mentioned before there is no real, repeatable, peer reviewed science that shows CO2 to be the cause of climate change. There is however a lot of pseudo-science which is the term for producing a theory first then looking for evidence which appears to support the theory and often disregarding evidence that doesn't.

Then throw in plain old wrong "facts". The BBC had a recent explanatory item on their site dealing with climate change, which acknowledged that the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapour. Good stuff, well done BBC. However, in their determination to fit up CO2 as the villain, they produced two completely ridiculous statements:

Firstly that water vapour only exists in the atmosphere for a few days. Now that might be true for individual molecules, but whilst water vapour is constantly being returned to the earth it's also constantly being added back into to the atmosphere, therefore the % in the atmosphere is more or less constant. Of course the greater the population and the greater the need for meat production, the greater the amount of water vapour that is being generated. Now the UN's 3rd world climate change lobbying team (IPCC) can't mention this because rapid population growth mostly occurs in the 3rd world and since the UN cannot blame the 3rd world, by definition it must be the 1st world causing the problem.

Secondly the BBC made the erroneous claim that it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial age levels which is nonsense. Just as with water vapour, the earth has various ways of disposing of or consuming atmospheric CO2, and again it is a continuous process. If it were not so, there would be a significant percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere whereas it is still, even today, only a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Other organisations make equally laughable erroneous statements such as average temperatures have never in recorded history been as warm as they are now.

The trouble is, people are highly prone to accept and believe inaccurate information simply because they like or respect the person or organisation presenting it, rather than by examining the veracity of the information or the qualifications of the presenter to be expounding it. Hence poor old David Attenborough being wheeled out as the most credible presenter available  regardless of how qualified he is to inform people.

The reality is that CO2 gets the blame for climate change because the alternative explanation is politically unpalatable. But the activists don't care about facts do they?

Ok, taking fist things first; if the % of water vapour is constant how can you claim that meat production produces more water vapour?

Secondly; You seem to be pointing the finger at the "3rd world" being the consumers of the most meat? Science disagrees with you...

Finally; You don`t seem to have given any sources, or if they followed the scientific method so how can we be sure your facts are actually true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It's not just about the temperature.

How many more people can this planet support?

Rising temperatures could be managed but continuing population levels are a far more pressing issue. I really fear for my grand kids because I think the population on our small island will make life far more intollerable than rising temperatures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, oowee said:

This is from NASA. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

 

This NASA?

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/nasa-confirms-their-own-conspiracy-theory/

 

Also when you say 'on record', you know the records started at the end of the Dickensian Little Ice age in the 1850's? 

It's good that we're still recovering from that, civilisation has always thrived in warm periods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, henry d said:

Ok, taking fist things first; if the % of water vapour is constant how can you claim that meat production produces more water vapour?

Secondly; You seem to be pointing the finger at the "3rd world" being the consumers of the most meat? Science disagrees with you...

Finally; You don`t seem to have given any sources, or if they followed the scientific method so how can we be sure your facts are actually true?

You do have a way of distorting things, for what purpose I have no idea. I actually said the % of water vapour is more or less constant but as usual you missed the context; I was referring to short term changes.

I'm not claiming or implying the 3rd world consumes the most meat. Context yet again Henry! I said only this: " rapid population growth mostly occurs in the 3rd world"

Can I ask Henry if English is your 1st language?

Edited by Westward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Westward said:

 " rapid population growth mostly occurs in the 3rd world"

However the residents of 3rd world countries contribute far less emmissions than those of developed nations. 

Total CO2 emissions by country/region in 2017 vs per capita emissions (top 40 countries)

800px-Total_CO2_emissions_by_country_in_2017_vs_per_capita_emissions_%28top_40_countries%29.svg.png

 

57 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It's not just about the temperature.

How many more people can this planet support?

Depends on how much meat and dairy is consumed 🙂 Now I am on my second purchase of oat milk that should make way for a family of 5 in the third world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Westward said:

You do have a way of distorting things, for what purpose I have no idea. I actually said the % of water vapour is more or less constant but as usual you missed the context; I was referring to short term changes.

I'm not claiming or implying the 3rd world consumes the most meat. Context yet again Henry! I said only this: " rapid population growth mostly occurs in the 3rd world"

Can I ask Henry if English is your 1st language?

Sure is.

You did not say short term, so I did not distort that, you missed it out. Which means that there is more water vapour in the atmosphere, yes?

2 hours ago, Westward said:

Of course the greater the population and the greater the need for meat production, the greater the amount of water vapour that is being generated. Now the UN's 3rd world climate change lobbying team (IPCC) can't mention this because rapid population growth mostly occurs in the 3rd world

Here`s your quote, you seem to be saying 1 - world population is increasing  2 - more water vapour is being released because of meat production and then link these two to third world growth even though they do not eat as much meat as the "first world".

The link I provided would have shown you that the average American eats 30 times (120.2 KG) more meat than the average Bangladeshi (4kg) and we here in the UK eat eleven times (84.2Kg) more than them too, so I am hard pressed to find a reason why you seem to think that there is a correlation between meat production and the third world being to blame for the problems that come from meat production (you only mention water vapour and disregard gases etc)

So looking at the extremes, 329 M Americans, eating 30 times more meat than 161 M Bangladeshis, that is 60 times (app) more meat and the same pollutants/water vapour.

Yeah, English is my first language, my skin is white and my English lineage goes back to the 18th century thanks for asking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, oowee said:

However the residents of 3rd world countries contribute far less emmissions than those of developed nations. 

Total CO2 emissions by country/region in 2017 vs per capita emissions (top 40 countries)

800px-Total_CO2_emissions_by_country_in_2017_vs_per_capita_emissions_%28top_40_countries%29.svg.png

 

Depends on how much meat and dairy is consumed 🙂 Now I am on my second purchase of oat milk that should make way for a family of 5 in the third world. 

but what are your methane emmisions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, henry d said:

Exactly, if you go by population density of the land then the UK should stop breeding now.... but thats not going to happen (and has little to do with johnny foreigner neither)

UK has significantly reduced breeding - apparently by way too much which is why we supposedly need to ecourage mass immigration (many of who breed more than us using multiple wives to facilitate that aim)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ditchman said:

but what are your methane emmisions

Funny you should say that :lol: I have a, not so great, pancreas so my methane emmissions are not what they should be, even if my wife might disagree.

1 minute ago, Dave-G said:

UK has significantly reduced breeding - apparently by way too much which is why we supposedly need to ecourage mass immigration (many of who breed more than us using multiple wives to facilitate that aim)

We would not be dependent on imports if we adopted a policy of sustainable economic growth. Quality over quantity should be our mantra. I read that Putin has put tax breaks in place to encourage population growth in Russia as a result of declining population levels. Sounds counter intuitive given the climate issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

UK has significantly reduced breeding - apparently by way too much which is why we supposedly need to ecourage mass immigration (many of who breed more than us using multiple wives to facilitate that aim)

...and your point is? This is about density of population, we (white brits) were the ones who overpopulated this country, we can`t blame others we started the ball rolling before any substantial immigration started

Edited by henry d
Lost some of the text somewhere???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Yer losin the plot Henry - you wrote UK should stop breeding... but that's not going to happen 

sorry some of the text got lost in the ether.

Its true, we should stop as we are running out of space, we have more people per Km than Pakistan, Gambia or Nigeria...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...