Off Topic The Climate debate

Many of them also believe in God. This is just the End of the World is Nigh guy from the street corner gone global.

If you live in a warmer country, with lower fuel and energy prices it's easier to be philosophical about Climate Change. If you were sitting in a freezing cold house because your energy bills are ridiculous you might wonder when it's going to get warmer like they keep telling you it will.
They are making people's life a misery and killing people now because a computer model tells them it might get warmer in 50 years.
It's warmed by 1.2 degrees since 1850 apparently and hasn't made any difference.
If, from everything I've posted, you don't know my feelings then your blinkers are on tighter than I thought.
There's no actual evidence is there?

Give me temperature readings from one place that hasn't changed since 1850.
Show me an actual picture of sea level rise.

Two very reasonable questions that won't be answered.

We don't get a choice in the UK, our **** Government virtue signals on our behalf.

 

One things certain mother earth(sorry don't know if she is transitioning yet) will still be here long after us two legged cretins have vanished from her kingdom, know doubt of our own making by hook or by crook and I'm sure that she won't give a toss that we've gone.....mother earth to the animals who the **** invited them numptys!!

 

The stupid thing is that if you listen to the actual feet on the ground scientists, not the media or political hype or the mad rantings of the very small group of 'scientists' who have found fame, you can see the actual picture.
Tamsin Edwards for example, is a climate scientist who advises the UK Government and is a contributing author to the IPCC. She is an expert in ice sheets and sea level rise and the papers she co-authors make very interesting reading. There's obviously an air of caution but not the doomsday scenario you see in the headlines.
The biggest issue I have with all of it though, and you don't need to be an expert to appreciate this, is the models. They're only as good as the data you put in and the climate is incredibly difficult to predict, just look how much trouble they have predicting the weather.
You also have to predict what is coming within 50-100 years.

Will we overcome the hurdles and make fusion reactors a possibility?

Will we find a cheap energy storage solution?

Will we harness new forms of energy more economically?

How much will our population increase and will we all go vegan?

Could you have predicted where we are now in 1970?

That's without taking into account massive world events, volcanoes, wars, virus' .....

 

I'd never heard of Tamsin Edwards, but having read a little of what she has written she seems pretty good.

I have previously given you a link to research into the effects of increasing sea level on the Solomon Islands, which had pictures. Perhaps a "picture" of the change in sea level recorded at Newlyn, Cornwall over a 100 year period will be sufficient. This shows an average yearly increase of +1.4mm. Temperature readings have been taken at the Radcliife Meteorological station at Oxford University since the 1700's and consistent since the early 1800's

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-60122469

Climate change

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60165816
more climate change.

 

I couldn't find before and after pictures of the Solomon Islands but, it seems that wave energy was the biggest culprit. What I did find among the reports I read was this quote:
"Aerial images revealed that another six low-lying islands – in the unpopulated Laiap, Nahtik and Ros island chains – became submerged between 2007 and 2014. Each was about 100 square metres."

100 square metres is just slightly bigger than my fat arse.

A couple of observations about the Cornish data - you might not know this being an Aussie but the Northern UK mainland is bouncing back after being under miles of ice during the last ice age so the South is sinking which would make it look like sea levels are rising.
The figures are adjusted - AGAIN
Isn't it strange how sea levels have risen consistently for 100 years? CO2 only really kicks in, according to your previous posts, in about 1980.
Anyone would think that the rise in sea level is not connected to the rise in CO2 and may be a natural occurence.

You'll never be convinced, just as I wouldn't be able to convince you that God doesn't exist if you were as certain about religion as you are about CC.

 

Wait for Eric to post a picture of an Aussie taking his hat off because it's so hot.

They'll still say that January is one of the warmest months on record, wait for it.
I remember in November there were record low temperatures in parts of the UK but they still had the balls to say it was one of the warmest on record.
It's nonsense

 

The figures were corrected to account for the southern part of England sinking slightly otherwise the raw data shows a rise of 1.8mm a year. In case you don't know the Cornish data is significant in that all heights in the UK are determined by mean sea level at Newlyn, established in the early 1900's. I can't recall saying that the effects of co2 kick in about 1980. The temperature charts I've posted tend to show warming from about the beginning of the 1900's.

 

This is the chart I'm referring to.
The temperature doesn't increase, apart from an uptick in the 40s, until about 1980, then it increases markedly. The sea level changes you posted show a constant rise from 1900. Either there is no link between the two or some of the data is wrong.
I think that is a valid question, don't you?
My point about the Cornish data is that again it's adjusted. I refer you back to the pictures of Fort Denison I mentioned previously.
There are two pictures taken decades apart that show no increase in sea level. They've been questioned because there is no way of knowing at what time of year or tide the picture was taken.
What does that mean to you?
It means to me that if there has been any sea level rise you can't picture it because the sea level depends on the season, the state of the tide and the time of day.
Yet we are told that within 30 years many of our coastal cities will be under water.
There is no evidence of any catastrophic sea level rise.

You believe what you want to believe but I don't have faith. I need to see the evidence.
That doesn't mean models, projections or adjusted figures. Raw data

 

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/australia-high-tide-at-fort-denison-in.html

 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

Mars warmed 1 degree between 1975-96.

I found this while reading about the Solar Grand Maximum which some scientists say caused this, and our, warming.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/899/jupiters-atmosphere-heats-up-under-solar-wind/

Jupiter is also warming.

Maybe there's more to this CC than we think.

 

So where did I say that co2 didn't kick until the 1980's?

The graph shows an increase in temperature from 1900

The sea level data was only adjusted to account for land movement, the raw data is available if you want it.

Temperature rises and sea level increases appear to be linked so you have no valid point unless you have some other data

You keep mentioning Fort Denison, why?

I agree sea level depends on the state of the tide etc, that's why I gave you records of mean sea level recorded at the same place for a 100 years.

You keep asking me for data and information and I provide it but where is your evidence to counter the argument that the climate is changing?

 

I'm not saying it's not changing. I'm saying that any change is manageable and much of it may be natural variations.
I gave an example earlier of my problem with mean or average data.
How can you measure global sea levels? It's utter nonsense. If the tide is in in one place, it's out somewhere else.
On the same theme how can you measure global temperatures? If they're making decisions for me based on temperatures in Antarctica, the middle of the Pacific, Death Valley and the Outback of Australia then I'm nervous.
I've been on this rock a fair few years and I don't think it's any different than when I was a kid. If it is it's hardly noticeable and certainly not worth letting poor people freeze in their own homes.
It's a criminal shame.

 

In relation to Mars - NASA scientists in the article you reference say - that when surface areas darken and expand, relatively more energy from the sun is being absorbed by the surface, which causes temperatures to rise near the surface. This, in turn, produces a less stable atmosphere generating more turbulent eddies and whirling dust devils. The more dust that is redistributed to bright surfaces, the more surfaces darken and expand, which causes more sunlight to be absorbed, increased temperatures, and less stable the atmosphere, say scientists.

In the article about Jupiter - Such heating and chemical reactions may tell us something about other planets with harsh environments, and even early Earth," said Yasumasa Kasaba of Tohoku University, who also worked on the observing team.

But clearly there have been and are solar influences on the weather and temperatures on earth.

 

Hopefully the changes to the climate are manageable I suspect the main points we disagree on are, should we be doing anything now and if we do make changes how are these implemented. I agree the way the policies are implemented needs to be planned carefully to avoid what you describing.

 

I think this article explains how the assessment of weather data including temperature is done. There are claimed to be over 32,000 weather stations that provide data into the assessment.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

 

Enough of the sea levels,air pollution,mars bars, professor this professsor that,graphs,charts etc etc etc....it's up to each individual what they believe in and who they think is right in what is being spouted, as we all know someone somewhere will make vast fortunes out of this "crisis" be it true or a sham....ground control is there anybody out there

 

Indeed

 

Anyone remember in the 70's when we told crude oil would run out by the year 2000.
Never happened.
I have lived by the sea for the last 30 years, the supposedly warmest years on record,
Well the beach bars are still here and the boats are still floating in the harbour not in the car park.
The whole 'carbon footprint' is a scam, a good way to tax people and make people feel guilty for turning on the heating when it's fookin freezing or driving the car to the shop instead of walking.
After reading this thread it makes me even more convinced that I should not worry about this, science will have the answers, pity the tree huggers are also against nuclear power.