FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Is there a climate emergency ?

Jump to newest
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Is science backing up this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

End of thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And all of this has happened before, and it will happen again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

...and a great way to tax people ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes it's a problem, but no one who can help out wants to. Easier to squander wealth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich

you wont stop it maybe delay the inevitable for a few years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is natural, but remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs, we should however be more worried about polution, the planet will return to its normal self after a few cycles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entralscotscpl7Couple
over a year ago

Falkirk


" ...and a great way to tax people ...."

There you go. Answered perfectly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

everything becomes extinct eventually and is replaced by something else humans are no different.for some reason we have started to belive that we are more important to the planet than we actualy are.in the life of the planet we are gona be here for half hour or so to be replaced with something else

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Of course not.

The earth is like the human body. You can pump it full of toxic chemicals as much as you want for as long as you want with no harmful effects. So just carry on as you were.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

Nah..no climate change in my house because we could not give a shit ...we dedicate our time to work and fun ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

Saves us all a fortune. Instead of flying to the costas, stay at home in our warmer summers. Alls good , especially for run down British seaside tourist towns . Plus less flying = doing our bit to help out the polar bears.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

For every paper written about Antarctic ice reducing, a different paper says ice is increasing and it is getting colder there . How come ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

Bloody hell we have so many experts/scientists on the fab forum ....don't know how you have time to swing...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

Oh I see now ...all talk and no bollocks ....sounds like the experts life ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

It doesn't take a genius to accept that man is the problem .. corporate greed mostly doesn't give a shit about the climate and our planet.. look at just our major super markets dictate how the amazon and other ancient rain forests are dug up for miles upon miles of palm plantations. And corned brazilian beef farms.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

+ Palm oil used in every supermarket product at present.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

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 ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 28/01/20 21:40:52]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Warmer air holds more moisture.If it’s still cold enough to snow, more snow will fall because more moisture is present.Therefore, increased snow is a paradoxical effect of global warming."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://futurism.com/antarctica-snowfall-climate-change

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Unfortunately the Green Party and their supporters did more damage to the argument, and the environment, in the last election than anyone.

Telling people to vote tactically, the 'Tories Out At Any Cost' brigade implied there isn't an emergency. If they had said "Vote for us or die" people might have listened.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Science is fact - Climate facts are facts.

Start of with the reason for the study

by scientist evidence and then the study and then the conclusion.

The starting point of this decades study was to determine if the earth - from man made pollutants, starting way back from the industrial revolution - gases burned and released from our Planet ?

The conclusion is that our planet is heating up from man made effects faster than we ever expected from the new fact based data.

Take a world leader who has fired thousands of scientists who use to work for the state and only listens to the oil company and coal company billionaires .. now that is fake & corrupt - spouting lies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

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 ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

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/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Your argument to take something that we can not fully study yet - dark matter - the fact of my post is that climate has been studied factually for many mnay years now - with science and now modern technology, satellite imagery, and thousands of scientists from all countries on this planet, fact

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury


"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 ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Any how every one has there own opinions. which is good ;p

Open minded and all that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

This started in the 70's we are still here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury

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%

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

God bless the carbon sinks .They absorb around a third of the excess CO2 we put out.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more is absorbed by the oceans ... until they become saturated.

The more CO2 dissolves into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2.

The most recent data shows an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide from about 315 ppm in 1958 to about 411 ppm in 2019.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For clarity the oceans aren’t the only carbon sink.Plants grab carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis ,some of this carbon is transferred to soil as plants die and decompose.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

That's personal ...

I'm glad u rattle easy ...and of course you are always right ...wow such an expert ...on bollocks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Some of the scientist have devoted there lifes work in many cases, living away from family and loved ones in parts of the world only scientist can take and record this important science of our planet.

Did one of the UK's scientist land a rover on an asteroid or comet a few years ago? ? he did not live to sea his work completed - the landing of this unbelievable and extraordinary achievement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Turns out scientists have been exagerating all along. Check out BBC news if you want.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" I will continue to be clever and still not give a shit ..."

Now that is funny

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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)??????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How to win a climate change argument is to state... "Quote one IPCC scientist who says that"...

You'll win every time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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%"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

[Removed by poster at 29/01/20 23:54:51]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

[Removed by poster at 29/01/20 23:54:46]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ykmwyldTV/TS
over a year ago

Belpre

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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

I think if I had a house in a low lying or flat coastal area, I might move to higher ground

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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 ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury

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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The 10 years to the end of 2019 have been confirmed as the warmest decade on record by three global agencies.

According to Nasa, Noaa and the UK Met Office, last year was the second warmest in a record dating back to 1850.

The past five years were the hottest in the 170-year series, with the average of each one more than 1C warmer than pre-industrial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

[Removed by poster at 31/01/20 00:32:32]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/30/now-that-climate-change-is-irrefutable-denialists-like-andrew-bolt-insist-it-will-be-good-for-us

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oopaandchampersCouple
over a year ago

St Johns

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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Nasa - link on global temperature

science - fact

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

NASA link

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury

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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1175875/uk-long-range-weather-forecast-winter-met-office-bbc-weather-snow

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/01/20 23:37:12]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Happy selfostricisationandcuttingeconomictiesforeconomicprosperityday to fellow Britons

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Scientists in Siberia have discovered an area of sea that is "boiling" with methane, with bubbles that can be scooped from the water with buckets. Researchers on an expedition to the East Siberian Sea said the "methane fountain" was unlike anything they had seen before, with concentrations of the gas in the region to be six to seven times higher than the global average.

https://www.newsweek.com/methane-boiling-sea-discovered-siberia-1463766

Just so you know methane is 20 times more effective as a greenhouse house gas than CO2.

Then there's also methane bubbling up from under the red sea. Yay.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

And?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

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 .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ykmwyldTV/TS
over a year ago

Belpre

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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

Indias huge land mass - hottest ever heat waves

https://www.indiaspend.com/65-indians-exposed-to-heatwaves-in-may-june-2019-july-2019-was-indias-hottest-ever/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"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"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Same position then, based on posts so far, a forum consensus:

It's an accepted stance, based on the consensus of the world's relevant leading experts in climate science, that humans have caused significant global heating.

It was reported some time ago, based on some peoples' comments about natural causes:

"The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of -0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of -0.1°C to 0.1°C."

Whilst the current human caused 'forcing' to temperature is currently about 1°C. As everyone here appreciates, there is a substantial difference between the world's natural climate change of -0.1°C to +0.1°C and the human caused increase of +1°C.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ykmwyldTV/TS
over a year ago

Belpre


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ice__bloke OP   Man
over a year ago

redcar

India's huge land mass - hottest ever heat waves

NASA statistics and Indian Satellite data 2019

https://www.indiaspend.com/65-indians-exposed-to-heatwaves-in-may-june-2019-july-2019-was-indias-hottest-ever/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an For YouMan
over a year ago

belfast/holywood

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51595285

Strange how people would spend money on bots to influence public opion but not spend money on fake news and false science?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Global warming.... it's fucking freezing outside

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top