Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36158154)

I’m by no means a climate sceptic but as a bald statistic this doesn’t mean anything. Neither does the observation that a human couldn’t survive in it for any length of time.

There are plenty of places on earth a human can’t survive without serious technical assistance, either because of extreme heat, cold, altitude or whatever. While I’m content to accept we have a problem, gaining widespread acceptance of that fact requires careful, patient and well-explained and properly contextualised statistics. Sharing headline figures in isolation makes the error of confusing weather with climate; this in turn gives sceptics an ‘out’ (because it’s easy to select some other weather and use it to make a counterfactual argument).

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36158175)

If I have time, I will try and find some trend data to illuminate this.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36158210)

I wouldn't bother. Those that refuse to accept the reality of the situation will never be convinced, even when the sea water comes through their front door.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36158211)

Do bother though - we have to keep trying because the consensus right now is that even at this stage the worst effects are avoidable and the damage is reversible, even if not in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36158211)

Do bother though - we have to keep trying because the consensus right now is that even at this stage the worst effects are avoidable and the damage is reversible, even if not in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36158211)

Do bother though - we have to keep trying because the consensus right now is that even at this stage the worst effects are avoidable and the damage is reversible, even if not in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36158266)

I found this site that seems to be reasonable in its presentation & interpretation of the trend data:

https://www.worlddata.info/global-warming.php

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36158272)

Damien already rebutted those...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36158276)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36158278)

You haven't rebutted them. You just keep ignoring that those increases happened much much slower

Just to highlight that the notion we've brought it '150 years sooner' is nonsense. They don't timestamp geological changes so precisely, the scale on that chart can't show '100 years'. When we talk of geological eras we're talking about timespans that last longer than our civilisations. The last warming period lasted longer than any human history you've read about. The entire history of human civilisation has been faster than the last warming period. It's not something that was 'brought forward 150 years'.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36158294)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36157090)

The warming event 140,000 years ago was the Eemian period. It took roughly 15,000 - 20,000 years to go from ice age (-4) to around +2c. 6 degrees warming over 15,000 years. That's a rate of 0.0004c increase per year.

Meanwhile, it's taken since 1880 to rise 1c. That's a take of 0.007 increase per year. That's 17x faster.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36158304)

To be fair, I can go onto Google and find any amount of graphs, charts and papers to suit any argument I want on this subject.

I can point to hundreds of social media posts by someone who knows nothing about what they’re posting, but like a good picture. I dismiss them all.

I much rather listen to people, you can get a sense of whether they’re bullshitting or not, especially in long form interviews we’re they can be challenged on their claims.

Personally I’ve found Bjorn Lomborg, to come across as most sensible. He does not deny Climate Change, but argues our efforts could better directed and money better spent.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36158305)

An interesting read, yes it's published by a group that could be described as pro climate change but an interesting read all the same.