FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is there a climate emergency ?
Is there a climate emergency ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"And all of this has happened before, and it will happen again." If we discover we live a multiverse I guess It doesn’t matter. Until then it does. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Is science backing up this." . From what I've read it would appear there's some science that points to us all being fucked, there's some science that says it's not really a problem but the majority lies in the middle ground of we need to get our act together before 2040. I would guess that twenty years to completely reorganize Society is a slight emergency and personally I think it's never going to happen so it's totally up to technology to get us out of our hole we've dug | |||
| |||
" ...and a great way to tax people ...." There you go. Answered perfectly  | |||
"As long as the human race keeps on expanding there will be a problem as we are outstripping the worlds resources using them up faster than it can replenish. Slowly eradicating wildlife by destroying natural habitats " . Were not expanding, that's a myth, there's a dozen countries with a birthrate over 2.2 and shit loads with a birthrate under 1.5. Within 100 years the human population will be cut by at least one half just by that statistic alone, if you follow the demographics by 2150 were down to a few hundred million. Were a very odd species that's decided to self terminate one way or another. | |||
| |||
"As long as the human race keeps on expanding there will be a problem as we are outstripping the worlds resources using them up faster than it can replenish. Slowly eradicating wildlife by destroying natural habitats . Were not expanding, that's a myth, there's a dozen countries with a birthrate over 2.2 and shit loads with a birthrate under 1.5. Within 100 years the human population will be cut by at least one half just by that statistic alone, if you follow the demographics by 2150 were down to a few hundred million. Were a very odd species that's decided to self terminate one way or another." There is two ways to look at human expansion (I) number of people (II) amount of total resources we are using - while it's correct that global birth rates are falling it is not correct that we are using less resources - there is a considerable population bulge and global popn is likely to continue to rise until the mid 2000s. Add that to increased demands due to reducing poverty and we definitely have a serious problem to deal with. | |||
| |||
"Is science backing up this.. From what I've read it would appear there's some science that points to us all being fucked, there's some science that says it's not really a problem but the majority lies in the middle ground of we need to get our act together before 2040. I would guess that twenty years to completely reorganize Society is a slight emergency and personally I think it's never going to happen so it's totally up to technology to get us out of our hole we've dug" I stopped after "from what I've read...." Because the Beano or Infowars are not good sources for information on climate science. | |||
"Is science backing up this.. From what I've read it would appear there's some science that points to us all being fucked, there's some science that says it's not really a problem but the majority lies in the middle ground of we need to get our act together before 2040. I would guess that twenty years to completely reorganize Society is a slight emergency and personally I think it's never going to happen so it's totally up to technology to get us out of our hole we've dug I stopped after "from what I've read...." Because the Beano or Infowars are not good sources for information on climate science. " . There's plenty of papers that have looked at the whole of the body of evidence papers and show exactly what I've just wrote which is that the majority of scientific research shows the middle ground is the most likely. But hey your the man with the degree in this stuff so you must know that already don't you?. Do you want me to site the papers for you to read?. There publicly available  | |||
| |||
"Is science backing up this.. From what I've read it would appear there's some science that points to us all being fucked, there's some science that says it's not really a problem but the majority lies in the middle ground of we need to get our act together before 2040. I would guess that twenty years to completely reorganize Society is a slight emergency and personally I think it's never going to happen so it's totally up to technology to get us out of our hole we've dug I stopped after "from what I've read...." Because the Beano or Infowars are not good sources for information on climate science. . There's plenty of papers that have looked at the whole of the body of evidence papers and show exactly what I've just wrote which is that the majority of scientific research shows the middle ground is the most likely. But hey your the man with the degree in this stuff so you must know that already don't you?. Do you want me to site the papers for you to read?. There publicly available "The "middle ground" is that there is a very serious problem that requires an urgent solution. Just because a considered opinion lies between two extremes does not mean that it is not serious. | |||
| |||
"Nah..no climate change in my house because we could not give a shit ...we dedicate our time to work and fun ..." Yep. Confirmed. You definitely have no clue what's going on. I wasn't sure if you were clueless or just don't give a fuck. Turns out. On this issue. You have literally no idea. | |||
| |||
"For every paper written about Antarctic ice reducing, a different paper says ice is increasing and it is getting colder there . How come ?" That's not true at all is it? 
Why are people so determined to believe that they know more than the International Panel on Climate Change made up of thousands of scientists who actually understand the measurements and the data?
What part of someone's ego makes them think that they know better?
Something for another thread perhaps? | |||
"And all of this has happened before, and it will happen again." It hasn't though. No species has changed the climate before. We are also aware of the problem and the risk and capable of resolving it but are choosing not to. That's just a bit dumb really. | |||
"For every paper written about Antarctic ice reducing, a different paper says ice is increasing and it is getting colder there . How come ?" How come? Because it's simply not true. All the data shows that the ice is reducing. Also to note. Climate change is an extremely complex issue. And is more than just the reduction in ice. Selecting isolated pieces of information, such as "we had an unusually cold day in April", is Trump level ignorance. | |||
| |||
"Bloody hell we have so many experts/scientists on the fab forum ....don't know how you have time to swing..." This is the politics section, no one here actually swings! | |||
| |||
"For every paper written about Antarctic ice reducing, a different paper says ice is increasing and it is getting colder there . How come ?" The expert scientific consensus is that humans have caused significant global heating since the industrial revolution. This heating level already is perilously close to the level +1.5Celsius, which will be catastrophic for human life as we know it, as well as other life on the planet. If we exceed 1.5C global average increased temperature change, measured from ice, oceans (which absorb 90% of the heat increases), as well as on land, the resultant catastrophe will be in a totally different league of severe devastation to all life on earth. | |||
"And all of this has happened before, and it will happen again. It hasn't though. No species has changed the climate before. We are also aware of the problem and the risk and capable of resolving it but are choosing not to. That's just a bit dumb really." Yes it has but you're "adding" an equation that wasn't present in my statement | |||
"And all of this has happened before, and it will happen again. It hasn't though. No species has changed the climate before. We are also aware of the problem and the risk and capable of resolving it but are choosing not to. That's just a bit dumb really. Yes it has but you're "adding" an equation that wasn't present in my statement ""All of this" hasn't happened before. I'm not arguing for the sake of it. Man-made climate change has not happened before. The climate has changed before over thousands of years not a century or two. I don't think that I'm "adding" anything. I wasn't calling you dumb by the way, just the idea of not doing anything about man made climate change. | |||
"Bloody hell we have so many experts/scientists on the fab forum ....don't know how you have time to swing..." This is the bit that you don't seem to get. There are thousands of experts. They sit on the IPCC. Their opinion is that there's a climate crisis. That's all that is being related here. Are you more of an expert than they are? | |||
"Bloody hell we have so many experts/scientists on the fab forum ....don't know how you have time to swing..." No one needs to be an expert. The science is all documented. You are free to read it. Knowledge cures ignorance. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes and some experts don't agree with it but as it does not suit you choose to ignore...and only spout your own will and get the arse when the answer is not what you want ....this is a forum for all and different opinions ..." Less than one % of the "experts" refute the findings. The fact that they are funded by the fossil fuels industry has nothing to do with it. The point of science is that you can demonstrate your findings. This eliminates the need for "belief". Your options are: 1. Continue to be willfully ignorant. 2. Learn about what's going on. | |||
"Taken from NASA study on Antarctic based based on evaluation of years of study from satellite Observations; A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice. According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." Essentially this is old ice formed over a very long period of time. The author does not concur with your "scientific" conclusion. You're welcome. According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. [...] “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said. The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice - enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise. [NASA.gov, 10/30/15] Lead Study Author Astutely Warned Deniers Would Misuse Study To Dismiss Global Warming Lead Author Jay Zwally: “I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This,” But “It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming.” In an interview with Nature, the study's lead author, glaciologist Jay Zwally, warned that “climate deniers” would wrongly tout the study as proof that “we don't have to worry [about global warming] as some people have been making out” : The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear. [Nature, 10/2/15] | |||
"For every paper written about Antarctic ice reducing, a different paper says ice is increasing and it is getting colder there . How come ?" https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbrettschneider/2018/10/06/is-there-a-warming-temperature-increased-snowfall-paradox/ | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes and some experts don't agree with it but as it does not suit you choose to ignore...and only spout your own will and get the arse when the answer is not what you want ....this is a forum for all and different opinions ... Less than one % of the "experts" refute the findings. The fact that they are funded by the fossil fuels industry has nothing to do with it. The point of science is that you can demonstrate your findings. This eliminates the need for "belief". Your options are: 1. Continue to be willfully ignorant. 2. Learn about what's going on." I will continue to be clever and still not give a shit ... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes and some experts don't agree with it but as it does not suit you choose to ignore...and only spout your own will and get the arse when the answer is not what you want ....this is a forum for all and different opinions ... Less than one % of the "experts" refute the findings. The fact that they are funded by the fossil fuels industry has nothing to do with it. The point of science is that you can demonstrate your findings. This eliminates the need for "belief". Your options are: 1. Continue to be willfully ignorant. 2. Learn about what's going on. I will continue to be clever and still not give a shit ..." Well if you are so clever and really dont give a shit why are you wasting your and our time on here instead of being clever doing something worthwhile? Just a thought! | |||
"Yes and some experts don't agree with it but as it does not suit you choose to ignore...and only spout your own will and get the arse when the answer is not what you want ....this is a forum for all and different opinions ... Less than one % of the "experts" refute the findings. The fact that they are funded by the fossil fuels industry has nothing to do with it. The point of science is that you can demonstrate your findings. This eliminates the need for "belief". Your options are: 1. Continue to be willfully ignorant. 2. Learn about what's going on. I will continue to be clever and still not give a shit ..." That's an oxymoron | |||
"CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere to the nearest hundredth of one percent: 1990: 0.04% 1995: 0.04% 2000: 0.04% 2005: 0.04% 2010: 0.04% 2015: 0.04% 2020: 0.04% Pre industrial revolution: 0.03%" It's gone from about 250ppm to over 400ppm. But you'd know that seeing as you post so much on these science based threads. You'll also note at how it's currently increasing as an exponential rate over a very short time. You'll also note a direct correlation with mean global temperature. But don't worry about the big picture. You hold onto what infowars and the fossil fuels industry tells you. #thoughtsandprayers | |||
| |||
"That's personal ... I'm glad u rattle easy ...and of course you are always right ...wow such an expert ...on bollocks" Why do you consider "experts" to be a negative thing? In this instance, it's just people who understand the science behind man made climate change. | |||
| |||
| |||
" I will continue to be clever and still not give a shit ..." Now that is funny | |||
"CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere to the nearest hundredth of one percent: 1990: 0.04% 1995: 0.04% 2000: 0.04% 2005: 0.04% 2010: 0.04% 2015: 0.04% 2020: 0.04% Pre industrial revolution: 0.03%" So with rounding you can go from 0.0351 to 0.0449 without showing any difference even though there is a 27% increase. Why on earth would you measure something only amounting to what would be less than 3m thick as a percentage of the earth's atmosphere? (Except to obfuscate)?????? | |||
"Dark matter allegedly makes up 85% of the universe. That’s quite a lot of it. Yet “scientists” have no idea what it is . But it must be a fact ?" Dark matter has nothing to do with climate change. Not understanding dark matter which is a theory to explain an energy imbalance on a universal scale dies not mean that a completely different set of scientists are incorrect about climate change. What a dumb comparison. | |||
| |||
"Fact is they are trying to understand it - scientist are deep under the north sea at this moment - at boulby mine - north yorkshire. https://stfc.ukri.org/about-us/where-we-work/boulby-underground-laboratory/ " I was told by an expert on here that STFC don't have any scientists... strange that... | |||
"CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere to the nearest hundredth of one percent: 1990: 0.04% 1995: 0.04% 2000: 0.04% 2005: 0.04% 2010: 0.04% 2015: 0.04% 2020: 0.04% Pre industrial revolution: 0.03%" | |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want." Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to." | |||
| |||
| |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want. Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to.""Yes, read it thank you. Get a dictionary and learn what exaggerating means  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want. Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to."
Yes, read it thank you. Get a dictionary and learn what exaggerating means "
The model has not changed. The input data has.
Implying that because a problem is disastrous rather than catastrophic means that there's nothing to worry about is quite simply dumb.
It turns out that your cancer will kill you in a year rather than six months, so there's nothing to worry about. | |||
"Human influence on global climate change has been drastic over the last 100 years, and extremely drastic over the last 50 years. The Arctic permanent ice shelf that use to stay solid year round has lost 1% of it permanent ice every year since 1979. " I read NASA has said more ice is forming than is melting though, so who do you believe | |||
"Human influence on global climate change has been drastic over the last 100 years, and extremely drastic over the last 50 years. The Arctic permanent ice shelf that use to stay solid year round has lost 1% of it permanent ice every year since 1979. I read NASA has said more ice is forming than is melting though, so who do you believe " Maybe cos they’ve got a good view from up there, as opposed to some one in Manchester ? | |||
"Human influence on global climate change has been drastic over the last 100 years, and extremely drastic over the last 50 years. The Arctic permanent ice shelf that use to stay solid year round has lost 1% of it permanent ice every year since 1979. There's no sense in arguing with all the nonbelievers of human influenced climate change out there. The evidence is right before their eyes, there either too blind to see the facts, or too ignorant to understand them. It doesn't really matter if they don't believe it anyway. The facts are, it's going to get much worse, and it's going to happen much faster . Countries should be taking huge steps to prepare for all the changes that are going to happen, but they won't, there's no profit in it at this point." Too true! Average temperature since 1900 has risen 0.8C  | |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want. Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to."
Yes, read it thank you. Get a dictionary and learn what exaggerating means
The model has not changed. The input data has.
Implying that because a problem is disastrous rather than catastrophic means that there's nothing to worry about is quite simply dumb.
It turns out that your cancer will kill you in a year rather than six months, so there's nothing to worry about."I will ignore the insensitive nature of your unrelated analogy, as I'd expect nothing less. As you don't understand the article I will summarise. We don't have 10 years to save the planet, we did it 10 years ago. The planet will get warmer but not the extent the doom mongers said and there will be no mass extinction of human kind because of measures already undertaken. Future measures may even slow and lower it further. That is from scientists, not me, if you have an issue troll them. I have an enjoyable life to live  | |||
"Human influence on global climate change has been drastic over the last 100 years, and extremely drastic over the last 50 years. The Arctic permanent ice shelf that use to stay solid year round has lost 1% of it permanent ice every year since 1979. There's no sense in arguing with all the nonbelievers of human influenced climate change out there. The evidence is right before their eyes, there either too blind to see the facts, or too ignorant to understand them. It doesn't really matter if they don't believe it anyway. The facts are, it's going to get much worse, and it's going to happen much faster . Countries should be taking huge steps to prepare for all the changes that are going to happen, but they won't, there's no profit in it at this point." Exactly it matters not what the climate change deniers think. Absolutely nobody cares what flat earth loons think. The important thing is we have scientific consensus and industry and governments are now involved and onboard in addressing the problem. A technological solution will be found and a shift is happening in the right positive direction. The future is bright and sustainable. Climate change deniers know they don’t have to be right or have scientific consensus they just need to put doubt in people’s minds .Such is their modus operandi. They’ve just turned far up to late with their guff to make a difference now.. | |||
| |||
"Mapped Arctic sea ice extent on 25/01/2020 was 14.11 million km2 which is 420,000 km2 or 2.9% less than the 2008-2018 median. This is largest sea ice extent on this day since 2014. The current sea ice accumulation rate is 65,000 km2/day, the fifth highest since 1979! So, great news! "Yay | |||
| |||
"Yes and some experts don't agree with it but as it does not suit you choose to ignore...and only spout your own will and get the arse when the answer is not what you want ....this is a forum for all and different opinions ..." There's no doubt about the global heating level and its causes. We have 100% certainty in all relevance for the public, who aren't climate scientists. Human caused global heating is fact. Motivation and commitment to do anything about it is what's important now, to prevent it getting much worse, as the current status quo will degrade life on this planet as we know. | |||
| |||
"Mapped Arctic sea ice extent on 25/01/2020 was 14.11 million km2 which is 420,000 km2 or 2.9% less than the 2008-2018 median. This is largest sea ice extent on this day since 2014. The current sea ice accumulation rate is 65,000 km2/day, the fifth highest since 1979! So, great news! "As you've seen, human caused global heating is certain. And the temperature of the worlds oveans are the hottest ever, which is a major problem, as they absorb over 90% of the heat levels on earth. | |||
"Mapped Arctic sea ice extent on 25/01/2020 was 14.11 million km2 which is 420,000 km2 or 2.9% less than the 2008-2018 median. This is largest sea ice extent on this day since 2014. The current sea ice accumulation rate is 65,000 km2/day, the fifth highest since 1979! So, great news!
As you've seen, human caused global heating is certain. And the temperature of the worlds oveans are the hottest ever, which is a major problem, as they absorb over 90% of the heat levels on earth.
"Absolutely, 2019 ocean temp was 0.075C warmer than the 1981-2010 average. | |||
"Mapped Arctic sea ice extent on 25/01/2020 was 14.11 million km2 which is 420,000 km2 or 2.9% less than the 2008-2018 median. This is largest sea ice extent on this day since 2014. The current sea ice accumulation rate is 65,000 km2/day, the fifth highest since 1979! So, great news!
As you've seen, human caused global heating is certain. And the temperature of the worlds oveans are the hottest ever, which is a major problem, as they absorb over 90% of the heat levels on earth.
Absolutely, 2019 ocean temp was 0.075C warmer than the 1981-2010 average."That's it buddy. Keep hanging on to those isolated, incorrect statistics. If you ignore the context, the big picture and the reality of the situation. Maybe it will all go away! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Scotland grew grapes in 14 th century ...the Thames was freezing Nov to April a hundred years later... no cars planes and the world's population tiny then...climate is a strange one." Might be strange. But we have a very good understanding of it | |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want. Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to."
Yes, read it thank you. Get a dictionary and learn what exaggerating means
The model has not changed. The input data has.
Implying that because a problem is disastrous rather than catastrophic means that there's nothing to worry about is quite simply dumb.
It turns out that your cancer will kill you in a year rather than six months, so there's nothing to worry about.
I will ignore the insensitive nature of your unrelated analogy, as I'd expect nothing less.
As you don't understand the article I will summarise. We don't have 10 years to save the planet, we did it 10 years ago.
The planet will get warmer but not the extent the doom mongers said and there will be no mass extinction of human kind because of measures already undertaken. Future measures may even slow and lower it further.
That is from scientists, not me, if you have an issue troll them. I have an enjoyable life to live "How magnanimous of you but you do realise that the point of an analogy is to be unrelated don't you? It is also a perfectly appropriate one to make
The planet is not "saved". All that this article states is that due to the actions that have actually been taken and the economic changes to sustainable energy pricing the worst case scenario is not as bad as it once was. That iS the point in taking action. Silly boy.
Again, the attempt to paint those who are concerned about climate change as holding extreme views. Using the vocabulary of "Doom mongers" and "mass extinction of human kind" is laughable.
Mass extinctions of other species are occurring as a result of climate change. Humanity may well survive but that is hardly the same as thriving. A world in conflict due to severe weather events, water and food shortages and the migrations that this drives is unlikely to be a happy one.
I can only assume that you think that you think that an increase in global temperature by 0.5 degC or 1 degC let alone 3 degC is "a small number" and therefore cannot have any significant effect. That would only prove that you do not, in fact, understand the issue at all. | |||
"Mapped Arctic sea ice extent on 25/01/2020 was 14.11 million km2 which is 420,000 km2 or 2.9% less than the 2008-2018 median. This is largest sea ice extent on this day since 2014. The current sea ice accumulation rate is 65,000 km2/day, the fifth highest since 1979! So, great news! "There are 365 days in a year and 45 years since 1979 and you pick one day to compare?
Is this really the best that you can do?
I still don't know what version of climate denier you are though.
Do you really not understand your own view well enough to write it down here?
That is the actual purpose of the thread. | |||
"Is science backing up this.. From what I've read it would appear there's some science that points to us all being fucked, there's some science that says it's not really a problem but the majority lies in the middle ground of we need to get our act together before 2040. I would guess that twenty years to completely reorganize Society is a slight emergency and personally I think it's never going to happen so it's totally up to technology to get us out of our hole we've dug I stopped after "from what I've read...." Because the Beano or Infowars are not good sources for information on climate science. . There's plenty of papers that have looked at the whole of the body of evidence papers and show exactly what I've just wrote which is that the majority of scientific research shows the middle ground is the most likely. But hey your the man with the degree in this stuff so you must know that already don't you?. Do you want me to site the papers for you to read?. There publicly available
The "middle ground" is that there is a very serious problem that requires an urgent solution.
Just because a considered opinion lies between two extremes does not mean that it is not serious.". I'm pretty sure that's what I wrote, right at the top of the post, if you can be arsed reading | |||
| |||
| |||
"Unseasonably warm today, but not as warm as UK's highest recorded temperature for this day, 15.2C set at Teignmouth in 1880. Cor what a scorcha!" Was there global warming in 1880? | |||
"Unseasonably warm today, but not as warm as UK's highest recorded temperature for this day, 15.2C set at Teignmouth in 1880. Cor what a scorcha!" 26c and sunny today in Tenerife.. | |||
"Unseasonably warm today, but not as warm as UK's highest recorded temperature for this day, 15.2C set at Teignmouth in 1880. Cor what a scorcha! Was there global warming in 1880?" Some. But there are still people today with the same understanding as the average punter in 1880. | |||
| |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office " So, again, you are picking specific temperatures in specific locations and implying that these somehow reflect global trends. That's a bit silly isn't it?  | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office " Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab. | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab." | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office " Again. As the gulf stream slows the UK will get colder. Not hotter. Once the gulf stream stops completely we will experience winters similar to Canada. | |||
| |||
"Scotland grew grapes in 14 th century ...the Thames was freezing Nov to April a hundred years later... no cars planes and the world's population tiny then...climate is a strange one." It certainly has many facets, with our world being such a huge and complex environment, everywhere between the poles. As we know, shorter-term weather is different to the longer-term climate, both of which can reveal seemingly pleasant characteristics, as well as the unpleasant. Right now we have the knowledge of causative influences as well as more precise abilities for prediction, that our ancestors didn't have. Our expertise and wisdom should suit us well. Most of the lifeforms that we share this planet with don't have that luxury and it's our responsibility to live our lives to provide opportunities to all existing and future life forms to remain safe, alive and not to suffer due to our selfish motivation to retain a stubborn rigidity against their success. There'll appear to be some positives, more comfortable weather some of the time, places that seem more favourable etc. When we focus down on that level and type of granularity, it will obscure the significant damage underway and the more catastrophic effects to come. | |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want. Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to."
Yes, read it thank you. Get a dictionary and learn what exaggerating means
The model has not changed. The input data has.
Implying that because a problem is disastrous rather than catastrophic means that there's nothing to worry about is quite simply dumb.
It turns out that your cancer will kill you in a year rather than six months, so there's nothing to worry about.
I will ignore the insensitive nature of your unrelated analogy, as I'd expect nothing less.
As you don't understand the article I will summarise. We don't have 10 years to save the planet, we did it 10 years ago.
The planet will get warmer but not the extent the doom mongers said and there will be no mass extinction of human kind because of measures already undertaken. Future measures may even slow and lower it further.
That is from scientists, not me, if you have an issue troll them. I have an enjoyable life to live
How magnanimous of you but you do realise that the point of an analogy is to be unrelated don't you? It is also a perfectly appropriate one to make
The planet is not "saved". All that this article states is that due to the actions that have actually been taken and the economic changes to sustainable energy pricing the worst case scenario is not as bad as it once was. That iS the point in taking action. Silly boy.
Again, the attempt to paint those who are concerned about climate change as holding extreme views. Using the vocabulary of "Doom mongers" and "mass extinction of human kind" is laughable.
Mass extinctions of other species are occurring as a result of climate change. Humanity may well survive but that is hardly the same as thriving. A world in conflict due to severe weather events, water and food shortages and the migrations that this drives is unlikely to be a happy one.
I can only assume that you think that you think that an increase in global temperature by 0.5 degC or 1 degC let alone 3 degC is "a small number" and therefore cannot have any significant effect. That would only prove that you do not, in fact, understand the issue at all."I am referring to the insensitive nature of your analogy, I personally do not find using a disease like cancer in that way amusing. The fact you do says much more about you. Learn to comprehend what I have written. All you are doing is putting down words of no relevence. Now go away and troll someone else, I'm not biting | |||
"Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want. Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Too many word
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51281986
The worst case scenario whereby no changes to CO2 emissions is no longer correct because...countries have signed up to reducing their emissions and the economics of green power generation have changed.
"This new work questions the chances of very high future emissions because renewable energy is now much cheaper, and competing with coal.
So rather than a world that warms by 6C, it should mean that the world will warm by around 3C based on current policies that countries have signed up to."
Yes, read it thank you. Get a dictionary and learn what exaggerating means
The model has not changed. The input data has.
Implying that because a problem is disastrous rather than catastrophic means that there's nothing to worry about is quite simply dumb.
It turns out that your cancer will kill you in a year rather than six months, so there's nothing to worry about.
I will ignore the insensitive nature of your unrelated analogy, as I'd expect nothing less.
As you don't understand the article I will summarise. We don't have 10 years to save the planet, we did it 10 years ago.
The planet will get warmer but not the extent the doom mongers said and there will be no mass extinction of human kind because of measures already undertaken. Future measures may even slow and lower it further.
That is from scientists, not me, if you have an issue troll them. I have an enjoyable life to live "As you're motivated to increase your knowledge of climate science and the human caused significant global heating that has happened and is continuing to degrade life on earth, I recommend reading published scientific evidence, in the recognised literature, or from the IPCC. Other sources are less reliable and will not have the scientific rigour needed to provide more fully credible data. We're currently at about 1 degree Celsius average above pre-industrial global temperature. +1.5C is an ideal target maximum, which shows how perilously close to this that we are at. Exceeding this will have more profoundly deleterious effects on life on earth. We've taken some steps to help to mitigate the heating effects but have a huge distance still to go. | |||
"Scotland grew grapes in 14 th century ...the Thames was freezing Nov to April a hundred years later... no cars planes and the world's population tiny then...climate is a strange one. It certainly has many facets, with our world being such a huge and complex environment, everywhere between the poles. As we know, shorter-term weather is different to the longer-term climate, both of which can reveal seemingly pleasant characteristics, as well as the unpleasant. Right now we have the knowledge of causative influences as well as more precise abilities for prediction, that our ancestors didn't have. Our expertise and wisdom should suit us well. Most of the lifeforms that we share this planet with don't have that luxury and it's our responsibility to live our lives to provide opportunities to all existing and future life forms to remain safe, alive and not to suffer due to our selfish motivation to retain a stubborn rigidity against their success. There'll appear to be some positives, more comfortable weather some of the time, places that seem more favourable etc. When we focus down on that level and type of granularity, it will obscure the significant damage underway and the more catastrophic effects to come. " People tend to think of earth as a bathtub. It's not. There are ocean currents which affect things in different ways. If you can picture the ocean currents going towards the glaciers being hotter then they melt more ice. When that ice melts it cools the water down. So measuring ocean temperature before the current reaches the poles and measuring it after are two different things. You can't just average them out. Because the planet is warmer as a whole there is more moisture in the air. Storms are worse, snowfalls are heavier. While winter snowfall is gaining new snow the parts in contact with ocean currents are melting. So with 1000ft of ice on top of a base that is being eroded it will eventually collapse. Imagine the tidal wave caused by 1000ft glacier? | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office So, again, you are picking specific temperatures in specific locations and implying that these somehow reflect global trends. That's a bit silly isn't it? "FACTS !. Not boring sarcastic drivel and pointless questions | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab." Most factual man on fab. Not a sore bitter loser | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab. Most factual man on fab. Not a sore bitter loser " What kind of loser then? | |||
| |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab. Most factual man on fab. Not a sore bitter loser What kind of loser then?" A loser with no knowledge of climate change? Also, I'm not sure why understand climate change makes me a "sore loser". Meanwhile you're lack of understanding makes you the "most factual man on fab"? Too much special sauce this evening? | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab. Most factual man on fab. Not a sore bitter loser What kind of loser then? A loser with no knowledge of climate change? Also, I'm not sure why understand climate change makes me a "sore loser". Meanwhile you're lack of understanding makes you the "most factual man on fab"? Too much special sauce this evening?" Sorry mate. That wasn't directed at you. Just a flippant joke really | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab. Most factual man on fab. Not a sore bitter loser What kind of loser then? A loser with no knowledge of climate change? Also, I'm not sure why understand climate change makes me a "sore loser". Meanwhile you're lack of understanding makes you the "most factual man on fab"? Too much special sauce this evening? Sorry mate. That wasn't directed at you. Just a flippant joke really "No worries. My reply was to captain "most factual man on fab" | |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office Most easily confused man. 31st Jan 2020. Fab. Most factual man on fab. Not a sore bitter loser What kind of loser then? A loser with no knowledge of climate change? Also, I'm not sure why understand climate change makes me a "sore loser". Meanwhile you're lack of understanding makes you the "most factual man on fab"? Too much special sauce this evening? Sorry mate. That wasn't directed at you. Just a flippant joke really
No worries. My reply was to captain "most factual man on fab""He is. In his mind. He's a legend. Meanwhile in OUR universe....  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Hottest ever temp in wales - 1990 Coldest ever temp in wales - 1940 Hottest / coldest in Scotland - 2003/1895 and 1982 Hottest/ coldest england 2019/1982 although the 2019 figure only marginally exceeded the previous 1976 record . NI hottest coldest - 1976/2010 Wettest across all 4 regions- in 5 mins or in 1 hour 1893/1901. So hardly any extreme weather records in the last 20 years in the UK Figures from the met office So, again, you are picking specific temperatures in specific locations and implying that these somehow reflect global trends. That's a bit silly isn't it?
FACTS !. Not boring sarcastic drivel and pointless questions"
Random, isolated, "facts" do not represent even a vague understanding of how an entire data set leads to a conclusion.
In a drugs trial of 100 people, 99 died and 1 was cured.
On Tuesday someone in a drugs trial was cured therefore the drug is safe.
This is the type of " fact" that you are presenting.
That's a bit silly isn't it? | |||
| |||
"Official figures . All I did was lay them out. And guess what. You all put your slant on the facts. And guess what? You are arguing against official figures. How pathetic is that . I didn’t even draw a conclusion. Feckin hopeless lol" You really don't understand at all to you? You've been pointed to the global data in this thread. It's global trends that matter. What happens on a given day in a specific location is noise. The fact that the data is "official" does not mean that you are using it properly as you are very capably demonstrating
You really don't understand do you?
Look at the graphs of global temperature changes and global sea level changes and global frequency of climate disasters.
Actually look at them at write on this thread that you can see no pattern whatsoever. | |||
"Official figures . All I did was lay them out. And guess what. You all put your slant on the facts. And guess what? You are arguing against official figures. How pathetic is that . I didn’t even draw a conclusion. Feckin hopeless lol" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-51111176 The 10 years to the end of 2019 have been confirmed as the warmest decade on record by three global agencies. What's the view like when you have your head in the sand? | |||
| |||
"Official figures . All I did was lay them out. And guess what. You all put your slant on the facts. And guess what? You are arguing against official figures. How pathetic is that . I didn’t even draw a conclusion. Feckin hopeless lol You really don't understand at all to you? You've been pointed to the global data in this thread. It's global trends that matter. What happens on a given day in a specific location is noise. The fact that the data is "official" does not mean that you are using it properly as you are very capably demonstrating
You really don't understand do you?
Look at the graphs of global temperature changes and global sea level changes and global frequency of climate disasters.
Actually look at them at write on this thread that you can see no pattern whatsoever."When you have a Brexit mentality then "global" means anything in the UK. There is nothing outside of the UK. | |||
"And?" Of all the pathetic responses I've ever seen on fab this one is a winner. Not only is it infantile and meaningless it's also in response to no one in particular. Thanks for a good laugh | |||
| |||
"Yay.... I’m a winner . That must make you the loser . No surprise there. Now about this American super weapon that blasted NYC to bits . Lol. And I’m funny ?.... ha ha . " Basic science. If something freefalls at gravitational acceleration what does this tell us about the reactive component in terms of Newton's third law of motion? | |||
| |||
"To all the nonbelievers! There is no argument, you don't have a leg to stand on! Forget all the scientific facts that you obviously can not understand! Just talk with any elder Inuit Tribe member or elder Chukchi Tribe member, and ask them if human influenced climate change is a fact or not, it'll be an educational experience for you!" What would he base his opinion on? | |||
"To all the nonbelievers! There is no argument, you don't have a leg to stand on! Forget all the scientific facts that you obviously can not understand! Just talk with any elder Inuit Tribe member or elder Chukchi Tribe member, and ask them if human influenced climate change is a fact or not, it'll be an educational experience for you!" Yeah cos obviously those people have all the data at their fingertips lol | |||
| |||
"To all the nonbelievers! There is no argument, you don't have a leg to stand on! Forget all the scientific facts that you obviously can not understand! Just talk with any elder Inuit Tribe member or elder Chukchi Tribe member, and ask them if human influenced climate change is a fact or not, it'll be an educational experience for you!" I am sure that the water table in India - Punjab - water wells are in man made climate crisis https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/why-punjab-has-a-water-crisis-and-what-now-795509 | |||
| |||
"No.. not at all.. it's a far left Soros slush fund with the United nations.. look into the Club of Rome (formed in 1968)" All this seems to mean is "Blah blah, conspiracy, blah blah, Soros, blah blah"  | |||
| |||
"To all the nonbelievers! There is no argument, you don't have a leg to stand on! Forget all the scientific facts that you obviously can not understand! Just talk with any elder Inuit Tribe member or elder Chukchi Tribe member, and ask them if human influenced climate change is a fact or not, it'll be an educational experience for you! I am sure that the water table in India - Punjab - water wells are in man made climate crisis https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/why-punjab-has-a-water-crisis-and-what-now-795509 " Yes, I agree. It's causing problems in many places around the world, and it will get much worse unfortunately. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"There must be an emergency. Gretel tunaburger is heading to Bristol to take part in a school strike and to tell our government what we should be doing to stop the flooding " Is she walking there | |||
"There must be an emergency. Gretel tunaburger is heading to Bristol to take part in a school strike and to tell our government what we should be doing to stop the flooding Is she walking there" No, swimming | |||
