|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 28, 2023 1:17:04 GMT
...but just suppose they are right? Given the massive global scientific weight behind the climate change projections, versus the seemingly few qualified detractors, it strikes me the science is pretty mature now and all pointing in one direction, so shouldn't we at least hear the message? Do we distrust experts to such a degree now that we just ignore them all? The real political headache is in striking the right balance between the expert scientific message and the expectations of modern living. Here we need adults to lead us, rather than a crop of sound bite, window dressing, adversarial parliamentarians. I am not hopeful... Why dont you just say "flat earthers".... we dont agree with you.. so we MUST be wrong. No, you could well be right and there is no human-induced climate change underway. You are potentially betting your future grandchildren's lives on that hunch of course. Or you could look more closely at the evidence and what scientists are telling us is happening...
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:17:33 GMT
the earth is 4.5billion years old... and you spout 150yrs of records... you do the maths. ... 99.9% over how many years? again .. the earth is 4.5 billion years old... are you silly enough to believe that a report based over 150yrs (and no its ~50yrs) of study can determine the climatic future of the earth? I 'spout' 150 years of precise measurements alongside multiple sources of long term data sources going back millennia. 4.5 billion years ago this planet was a barely coherent mass of molten elements - spoiler alert, we don't live 4.5 billion years ago and couldn't possibly have (it was a bloody hell-hole). Our 'current' history is a minute fragment of that timeline and we're pretty damn new in the scheme of things. In the earth's timeframe there have been many instances where the climate changed but this was over very long periods of time or more importantly due to some cataclysmic and very, very obvious and explainable influence (think dinosaurs and a big rock - although again, nowhere near our little slice of existence). Our explanation however happens to be an observable increase in a compound that blocks infra-red radiation after losing energy due to passing through the atmosphere and bouncing off the earth's surface (hence allowing heat in but not out) to explain that. It took almost the entirety of humanity's several hundreds of thousands of years of existence to get to roughly one billion people and in the space of just over two centuries we octuple'd it. In that timeframe our discovery and consumption of fossil fuels exploded and at the exact same time temperatures started to increase at a rate unprecedented by any measure we have. This includes thermometers which yes! do go back 150 years (not sure where your temperature records come from) and to be fully truthful actually go back to the 1600's but they were deliberately excluded to prevent bias in older technology.Is that enough math? send me link.. i will read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:21:33 GMT
Why dont you just say "flat earthers".... we dont agree with you.. so we MUST be wrong. No, you could well be right and there is no human-induced climate change underway. You are potentially betting your future grandchildren's lives on that hunch of course. Or you could look more closely at the evidence and what scientists are telling us is happening... No i am not... as you say i could well be right... so i could actually be betting my future grandchildrens future on your false assumtions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 28, 2023 1:21:45 GMT
Those 88,000 climate change studies aren't constrained to just the human record-keeping of the past 50 or 150 years! Science is a little more inventive than that. They also use alternative recording sources spanning millennia, such as ice cores for example, and include other methods as mentioned by iano . Do you deny the 'hole' in the ozone layer too? My layman's understanding is scientists discovered it, recommended the path forward, we listened and acted, and the hole is now slowly recovering as a result. Mankind caused it, mankind discovered and has hopefully rectified it. Good science at work. Parallels there with climate change perhaps? point me their and ill read it. Here's just one example... www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141 
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 1:22:09 GMT
...but just suppose they are right? Given the massive global scientific weight behind the climate change projections, versus the seemingly few qualified detractors, it strikes me the science is pretty mature now and all pointing in one direction, so shouldn't we at least hear the message? Do we distrust experts to such a degree now that we just ignore them all? The real political headache is in striking the right balance between the expert scientific message and the expectations of modern living. Here we need adults to lead us, rather than a crop of sound bite, window dressing, adversarial parliamentarians. I am not hopeful... Why dont you just say "flat earthers".... we dont agree with you.. so we MUST be wrong. I don't see you as a flat earther (that thing's a zero sum game and doesn't contribute anything) and I'm going to go out on a limb and say Berny doesn't either. I also fully empathise with yours and ilMoro's statements regarding the Moroccan energy minister - believe it or not. If we have a local source of energy versus something we have to ship over then maybe we should exploit that rather than use exactly the same amount of oil/gas and have to ship it thousands of miles. The issue is, given how long it would take us to exploit that resource (it does take time to identify, isolate, drill and exploit new wells) should we be building alternate energy sources and/or at the very least reducing our consumption as much as we can tolerate (no I don't want us living in caves). I fully accept that this shift will be a painful, expensive and laborious process, albeit a lot of which we've already endured (and we are seeing results) - but I hope you can accept my opinion that from a scientific and pragmatic perspective it genuinely is necessary.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 1:28:38 GMT
send me link.. i will read it. For the 1880's you're looking at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Goddard Institute and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climactic Data Centre. These collectively used sensor stations worldwide over this period. If you want to go back further, the Central England Temperature Data Series began in the 1600's but this is not included as part of official temperature records for the purposes of climate change as it's using older equipment and limited in locality.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:34:00 GMT
From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO2 changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods (see Fig. 3). This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, thats funny, around the sun.... ive only read the first bit...
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:35:32 GMT
send me link.. i will read it. For the 1880's you're looking at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Goddard Institute and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climactic Data Centre. These collectively used sensor stations worldwide over this period. If you want to go back further, the Central England Temperature Data Series began in the 1600's but this is not included as part of official temperature records for the purposes of climate change as it's using older equipment and limited in locality. stop waffling and send me a link.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:51:00 GMT
Why dont you just say "flat earthers".... we dont agree with you.. so we MUST be wrong. I don't see you as a flat earther (that thing's a zero sum game and doesn't contribute anything) and I'm going to go out on a limb and say Berny doesn't either. I also fully empathise with yours and ilMoro's statements regarding the Moroccan energy minister - believe it or not. If we have a local source of energy versus something we have to ship over then maybe we should exploit that rather than use exactly the same amount of oil/gas and have to ship it thousands of miles. The issue is, given how long it would take us to exploit that resource (it does take time to identify, isolate, drill and exploit new wells) should we be building alternate energy sources and/or at the very least reducing our consumption as much as we can tolerate (no I don't want us living in caves). I fully accept that this shift will be a painful, expensive and laborious process, albeit a lot of which we've already endured (and we are seeing results) - but I hope you can accept my opinion that from a scientific and pragmatic perspective it genuinely is necessary. we dont have to exploit the resource... we already have it... exploited, piped and used... IT CALLED NORTH SEA GAS.... fracking was gonna be the future.... now rejected... coal mines closed... now reopened... gas imported from usa at 4x the cost.. AND YES IT IS EXPENSIVE... EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE...
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 1:51:45 GMT
From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO2 changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods (see Fig. 3). This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, thats funny, around the sun.... ive only read the first bit... That would be the parts where the chart AdrianC provided match up to the astronomical record (over quite a long time). Does our recent set of ellipse around the Sun explain why the temperature rose so significantly in such a short time?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 1:54:08 GMT
From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO2 changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods (see Fig. 3). This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, thats funny, around the sun.... ive only read the first bit... That would be the parts where the chart AdrianC provided match up to the astronomical record (over quite a long time). Does our recent set of ellipse around the Sun explain why the temperature rose so significantly in such a short time? Give me a chance, ive not read all the guff yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 28, 2023 2:10:05 GMT
From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO2 changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods (see Fig. 3). This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, thats funny, around the sun.... ive only read the first bit... Yes, with the geocentric model of our solar system becoming seriously challenged in the 16th century, some of us now believe in the heliocentric version... Isn't science wonderful? 
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 28, 2023 2:11:12 GMT
That would be the parts where the chart AdrianC provided match up to the astronomical record (over quite a long time). Does our recent set of ellipse around the Sun explain why the temperature rose so significantly in such a short time? Give me a chance, ive not read all the guff yet. you have basically sent me a link that says climate change is linked to the sun... which i must say i fully agree with.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 2:26:43 GMT
Give me a chance, ive not read all the guff yet. you have basically sent me a link that says climate change is linked to the sun... which i must say i fully agree with. I'm assuming you're referring to the one adrianc posted, in which case - Yes, over very very long times the earth's orbit or angle can affect the climate (we are talking along the lines of ice ages here). Additionally as mentioned before, asteroids can smash into it, tectonic plates can slip, mass fires can erupt, aliens can invade, all of which will have either a very long timeframe or an observable reason as to its cause. I asked you what changed heliocentrically in the last 150 years to explain the temperature rise.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 28, 2023 2:27:51 GMT
I don't see you as a flat earther (that thing's a zero sum game and doesn't contribute anything) and I'm going to go out on a limb and say Berny doesn't either. I also fully empathise with yours and ilMoro's statements regarding the Moroccan energy minister - believe it or not. If we have a local source of energy versus something we have to ship over then maybe we should exploit that rather than use exactly the same amount of oil/gas and have to ship it thousands of miles. The issue is, given how long it would take us to exploit that resource (it does take time to identify, isolate, drill and exploit new wells) should we be building alternate energy sources and/or at the very least reducing our consumption as much as we can tolerate (no I don't want us living in caves). I fully accept that this shift will be a painful, expensive and laborious process, albeit a lot of which we've already endured (and we are seeing results) - but I hope you can accept my opinion that from a scientific and pragmatic perspective it genuinely is necessary. we dont have to exploit the resource... we already have it... exploited, piped and used... IT CALLED NORTH SEA GAS.... fracking was gonna be the future.... now rejected... coal mines closed... now reopened... gas imported from usa at 4x the cost.. AND YES IT IS EXPENSIVE... EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE... Yes, we do. The UK's North Sea reserves are heavily depleted (the peak was in 2001 and we may have a couple of decades at best at our reduced rate), far from being an exporter as we were at the beginning we are a net importer and that is only going to get worse. There are no new directly accessible reserves available, any new extraction will require extensive geologic science and logistics to extract (and not to mention quite a few crossed fingers). Fracking, well that was basically pot-luck and compared to the size of the US was nothing short of a band-aid (a very expensive one!). Coal is useless outside of electricity generation now given that the vast majority of heating infrastructure is gas, not to mention it's the worst possible fuel from a public health perspective (let's not go back to London in the 1950's when they had to ban it due to the death counts in the thousands over a single week). We kept a few coal power plants open as an emergency due to the Ukraine war but from a look at the grid it's barely been used for years (even with an energy crisis). I'm sure you'd be happy to open up those mines (what's left of their reserves) and fire up the plants but given the time and resource involved your plan would be vastly more expensive and to put it frankly, stupid. Oh, and the mine that reopened - that was for ingredients for steel production not power.
|
|
