Cable Forum
Page 7 of 7 « First 3456 7
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Climate Change (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33710159)

Sephiroth 18-07-2025 20:46
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36199501)
I read it alright, and it's a daft question given the rate of climate change which is clearly not natural. If there's natural warming on top of that then we really are stuffed.
Like I said, every few thousand years, the climate changes, Geology proves that. Industrialisation has hastened that by a couple of hundred years.

Remember, ice has to melt somewhere, sea levels have to rise everywhere, ocean current change, some parts of the planet will be colder, some warmer.

All this net zero crap won't change a thing except make some *******s rich.

Damien 18-07-2025 22:50
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36199490)
Would it be fair to say that, given the "few thousand years" cycle, had industrialisation not happened, then in a couple of hundred years' time humanity would be facing the same challenge as we seem to face now?

We just need to deal with this challenge sensibly, for example buying time with nuclear power while better energy solutions are found.
What took tens of thousands of years, even more than that, is now taking decades.

Paul 19-07-2025 01:30
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36199490)
Would it be fair to say that, given the "few thousand years" cycle, had industrialisation not happened, then in a couple of hundred years' time humanity would be facing the same challenge as we seem to face now?
No, it would not be fair/accurate to say that, these changes take many thousands of years.
You can see from that timeline thats its been quite steady (changes within 0.5 ºC) for the last 10,000 years, and little evidence that much would have changed over the next few thousand either, certainly not in a couple of hundred years.

OLD BOY 24-07-2026 16:05
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36199491)
Think you've lost the plot over timescales here. Natural change happens over thousands of years, this has happened over decades and is escalating out of control at an ever increasing rate. It'll get to a point where we can't do anything about it. We may have already passed that point. But we should still try (the majority won't as its inconvenient, will cost, and always tomorrow's / the next generations problem).
How do you explain the ‘little ice age’, then? That didn’t happen over thousands of years.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...e-study-finds/

At last, confirmation from the Met Office that our heatwaves have been caused…not by carbon emissions, but by increased sunlight finding its way to the Earth’s surface, and with more intensity, due to the pollution clean-up.

This is one of the things I’ve been saying for decades now. It’s bloody obvious, so why have they just concluded that this is the reason?

I still cannot believe such an infinitesimal amount of increased carbon in the atmosphere can make a noticeable temperature difference anyway. The human activity I am far more concerned about is deforestation.

papa smurf 24-07-2026 16:40
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220148)
How do you explain the ‘little ice age’, then? That didn’t happen over thousands of years.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...e-study-finds/

At last, confirmation from the Met Office that our heatwaves have been caused…not by carbon emissions, but by increased sunlight finding its way to the Earth’s surface, and with more intensity, due to the pollution clean-up.

This is one of the things I’ve been saying for decades now. It’s bloody obvious, so why have they just concluded that this is the reason?

I still cannot believe such an infinitesimal amount of increased carbon in the atmosphere can make a noticeable temperature difference anyway. The human activity I am far more concerned about is deforestation.

hang tight our forum expert will be along in a mo :erm:

Hugh 24-07-2026 16:41
Re: Climate Change
 
Always better to go to the source, rather than accept a Richard Tice spin of the Telegraph’s interpretation of a Research Paper…

The Lead Author of the Research Paper states

Quote:
The contribution of greenhouse gases is, in any case, the most important factor.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution

Quote:
Study lead author Dr Pedro Roldán‐Gómez, an associate researcher at the Barcelona Supercomputer Centre, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph saying that “most” of the “excess warming” in Europe, beyond that of comparable regions in the northern hemisphere, can be linked to declining aerosols.

But, earlier in the article, the newspaper interprets this as, simply, “most of the extra heat experienced in Britain and Europe” is down to air pollution.

GB News uses a similar phrasing, reporting that “much of the additional warming across Britain and western Europe since the 1980s is linked to the sharp decline in airborne particles known as aerosols”.

This is “misleading”, says Fischer, while Roldan-Gomez tells Carbon Brief that this is a “tricky point”, which “could lead to wrong interpretations if not properly explained”. He adds:

“The contribution of greenhouse gases is, in any case, the most important factor.”

---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220151)
hang tight our forum expert will be along in a mo :erm:
:wavey:

I’m no expert, but I like researching factual information, rather than let my innate prejudices decide whether something is true or not…

Here's the bits that the Telegraph forgot to include...

https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/07/cl...nse-heatwaves/

Quote:
The findings are consistent with a second recent study examining European heatwaves, which concluded that greenhouse gases were the dominant driver of the long-term increase in heatwaves between 1940 and 2020, while aerosols had previously masked part of that warming. As aerosol pollution declined, that cooling effect weakened.

The researchers stressed that the findings do not mean that reducing air pollution was a mistake. Sulphate pollution causes serious damage to human health and the environment, and the decline in emissions has brought substantial benefits.

Nor does the research suggest that greenhouse gases are irrelevant to Europe’s warming. The authors found that the reduction in aerosols acted as an additional factor that amplified warming primarily driven by greenhouse gas emissions.

Carth 24-07-2026 16:53
Re: Climate Change
 
However, you can't really argue that a polluted atmosphere doesn't help reduce global temperatures, so we need to find something 'safe' to shove up there to restrict or reflect some sunlight (heat).

Massive forest fires just aren't the answer, which is a shame as we will probably see more of them

OLD BOY 24-07-2026 17:16
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36220152)
Always better to go to the source, rather than accept a Richard Tice spin of the Telegraph’s interpretation of a Research Paper…

The Lead Author of the Research Paper states

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution


---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------



:wavey:

I’m no expert, but I like researching factual information, rather than let my innate prejudices decide whether something is true or not…

Here's the bits that the Telegraph forgot to include...

https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/07/cl...nse-heatwaves/
They would say that, wouldn’t they? And I find it strange that you rubbish an article because it was ‘shared’ by Richard Tice.

A notable extract from your article:

As European countries improved their air quality through the second half of the 20th century, the cooling effect of aerosols has gradually been removed.

This can boost heatwaves in two ways – directly, by letting more sunlight reach the land surface and, indirectly, by influencing the jet stream.

Using hundreds of simulations from nine climate models, the new study finds that a decline in aerosols is resulting in more frequent “quasi-stationary Rossby waves”.

Rossby waves are huge meanders in the jet stream. Occasionally, they become slow-moving – or “quasi-stationary” – which allows weather systems to get stuck over one region, leading to prolonged heatwaves.

These circulation changes have contributed to Europe’s rapidly warming summers.

However, while Europe’s heatwaves are being influenced by declining aerosols, it is “wrong” to say they are being “caused” by them, says Prof Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich.

Climate zealots will be highly embarrassed by these findings and of course, those promoting carbon as the bad guy cannot possibly admit they were wrong, as demonstrated by the last paragraph of the extract above)!

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220155)
However, you can't really argue that a polluted atmosphere doesn't help reduce global temperatures, so we need to find something 'safe' to shove up there to restrict or reflect some sunlight (heat).

Massive forest fires just aren't the answer, which is a shame as we will probably see more of them
Absolutely. And let’s just remind ourselves that there is only 0.04% of the atmosphere that comprises carbon.

Itshim 24-07-2026 18:24
Re: Climate Change
 
I remember as a youngster reading the next ice age was coming in my lifetime

Carth 24-07-2026 18:30
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36220160)
I remember as a youngster reading the next ice age was coming in my lifetime
People of our age have been through about 5 extinction cycles in our lifetime, there always seems to be something catastrophic arriving next year ;)

papa smurf 24-07-2026 19:10
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220162)
People of our age have been through about 5 extinction cycles in our lifetime, there always seems to be something catastrophic arriving next year ;)
yea i remember when that asteroid hit the gulf of america:) the sky went dark and all the dinosaurs died

jem 24-07-2026 19:41
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220165)
yea i remember when that asteroid hit the gulf of america:) the sky went dark and all the dinosaurs died
Ha, newbie, I definitely recall the Late Devonian mass extinction event, now that was a real one, youngsters of today - no bloody idea.....

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36220160)
I remember as a youngster reading the next ice age was coming in my lifetime
Technically, as there is permanent ice at both poles then we are in an ice age - currently though we are in an interglacial period where the ice is melting back rather than advancing.

It was accepted in the 60’s by some scientists that the Earth would continue to cool, but the public messaging was somewhat less than optimal. The idea of the UK being covered in ice within a lifetime was ludicrous - these timescales run to tens of thousands of years.

Carth 24-07-2026 20:08
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220165)
yea i remember when that asteroid hit the gulf of america:) the sky went dark and all the dinosaurs died
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36220168)
Ha, newbie, I definitely recall the Late Devonian mass extinction event, now that was a real one, youngsters of today - no bloody idea.....
One mistake, that's all I made, one little mistake with a negative integer in my calculations and . . . *BANG* the ruddy universe appears

OLD BOY 24-07-2026 20:48
Re: Climate Change
 
It’s not a good thing that a growing sector of the population is skeptical these days by pronouncements by scientists. They were much more diligent before the war and everything got rigorously peer reviewed before theories were published. What happened?

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36220168)
Ha, newbie, I definitely recall the Late Devonian mass extinction event, now that was a real one, youngsters of today - no bloody idea.....

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------



Technically, as there is permanent ice at both poles then we are in an ice age - currently though we are in an interglacial period where the ice is melting back rather than advancing.

It was accepted in the 60’s by some scientists that the Earth would continue to cool, but the public messaging was somewhat less than optimal. The idea of the UK being covered in ice within a lifetime was ludicrous - these timescales run to tens of thousands of years.
It’s also pertinent to remember that ships once passed by Greenland when the sea was free of ice altogether, and yet if that happened now, everyone would be up in arms that something had to be done about it as it’s all our fault!

Hugh 24-07-2026 21:38
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220173)
It’s not a good thing that a growing sector of the population is skeptical these days by pronouncements by scientists. They were much more diligent before the war and everything got rigorously peer reviewed before theories were published. What happened?

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------



It’s also pertinent to remember that ships once passed by Greenland when the sea was free of ice altogether, and yet if that happened now, everyone would be up in arms that something had to be done about it as it’s all our fault!
Mate…

Can I suggest smaller schooners of the Amontillado…

jem 24-07-2026 21:57
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220173)
It’s not a good thing that a growing sector of the population is skeptical these days by pronouncements by scientists. They were much more diligent before the war and everything got rigorously peer reviewed before theories were published. What happened?

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------



It’s also pertinent to remember that ships once passed by Greenland when the sea was free of ice altogether, and yet if that happened now, everyone would be up in arms that something had to be done about it as it’s all our fault!
Sorry what, the seas around Greenland have been free of permanent ice for millennia. They still are.

OLD BOY 25-07-2026 11:02
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36220185)
Sorry what, the seas around Greenland have been free of permanent ice for millennia. They still are.
The Norse people farmed land on Greenland, which is too cold now to enable that.

The point I’m making is that there was previously a Medieval warm period, which ended around the 12th century, and the Little Ice Age followed, which ended around 1850. During that period, thickening sea ice between Iceland and Greenland made travel very difficult.

The climate changes and causes significant disruption to lives which can be relatively sudden - a bit like we’re going through right now.

Paul 25-07-2026 21:49
Re: Climate Change
 
It was not a proper (Global) Ice Age, just a slightly cooler period in the North.
It is believed to have been caused partly by Volcanic activity, changing ocean currents, and possibly lower solar output.

Much like the preceeding warmer period, it was just a slight variation in part of the planet, for a few hundred years, not global.

TheDaddy 25-07-2026 23:14
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220203)
The Norse people farmed land on Greenland, which is too cold now to enable that.

The point I’m making is that there was previously a Medieval warm period, which ended around the 12th century, and the Little Ice Age followed, which ended around 1850. During that period, thickening sea ice between Iceland and Greenland made travel very difficult.

The climate changes and causes significant disruption to lives which can be relatively sudden - a bit like we’re going through right now.
Funny I thought they farmed the sheltered sub artic fjords there, same as they did in Iceland

OLD BOY 26-07-2026 11:13
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36220235)
It was not a proper (Global) Ice Age, just a slightly cooler period in the North.
It is believed to have been caused partly by Volcanic activity, changing ocean currents, and possibly lower solar output.

Much like the preceeding warmer period, it was just a slight variation in part of the planet, for a few hundred years, not global.
Yes, that indeed seems to be the case. But it shows how non man made events can lead to significant changes on the planet.

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36220241)
Funny I thought they farmed the sheltered sub artic fjords there, same as they did in Iceland
You are correct that a small amount of farming takes place now, but it is restricted to 37 animal farms that are concentrated in sheltered southern coastal fjords near Narsaq, Qaqortoq and Nanortalik.

Norse settlers used the clement weather around 985 CE to establish farms, but following the transition to the Little Ice Age, farming became drastically harder, shortening the growing season to a point where crops failed to yield seeds, eventually forcing the Norse colonies to collapse or abandon agriculture for marine hunting.

To answer your point, yes, modern contemporary farming has addressed the cold-weather limitations that currently exist, although modern farmers still face occasional challenges like summer droughts.

1andrew1 26-07-2026 11:47
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220157)
They would say that, wouldn’t they? And I find it strange that you rubbish an article because it was ‘shared’ by Richard Tice.
Follow the money. Tice is a fossil fuel flunky who shares one-sided articles. The original source is the best.

OLD BOY 26-07-2026 19:31
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36220253)
Follow the money. Tice is a fossil fuel flunky who shares one-sided articles. The original source is the best.
Typical knee jerk reaction by the left!

Hugh 26-07-2026 22:39
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220267)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 View Post
Follow the money. Tice is a fossil fuel flunky who shares one-sided articles. The original source is the best.
Typical knee jerk reaction by the left!
Are you denying that Reform UK has received £22 million in donations from Thailand-based Christopher Harborne, whose firm AML Global sells jet fuel?

1andrew1 27-07-2026 05:48
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220267)
Typical knee jerk reaction by the left!
Reading the original source is not left wing or right wing! It's about thinking for yourself by looking at the facts.

papa smurf 27-07-2026 07:46
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36220287)
Reading the original source is not left wing or right wing! It's about thinking for yourself by looking at the facts.
isn't that just looking at someone else's "facts"

Hugh 27-07-2026 08:51
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220288)
isn't that just looking at someone else's "facts"
Don’t look up…

Carth 27-07-2026 09:00
Re: Climate Change
 
Good film that . . .

anyway, 'thinking for yourself' is something many people now do by looking on Facebook and Twitter (X to me is a mark on a treasure map).

But have no fear, AI will soon be doing it for everyone ;)

Hugh 27-07-2026 09:56
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220288)
isn't that just looking at someone else's "facts"
I understand your dilemma…

Whose facts to believe - Richard Tice’s "facts", or the person who did the actual research and wrote the paper the Richard Tice got his "facts" from?

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220290)
Good film that . . .

anyway, 'thinking for yourself' is something many people now do by looking on Facebook and Twitter (X to me is a mark on a treasure map).

But have no fear, AI will soon be doing it for everyone ;)
Good general point, but in this specific case, we are pointing out that looking at the source research material is relevant…

Basic data analysis and verification - check the source for validity and reliability (which is where "so-called" AI gets it wrong sometimes).

Carth 27-07-2026 10:09
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Whose facts to believe - Richard Tice’s "facts", or the person who did the actual research and wrote the paper the Richard Tice got his "facts" from?
Seems to be a bit of a 'rabbit hole' to me. As I understand it, research probably involves gathering figures, measurements, extrapolations and conclusions done by others and pulling it all together to make sense (lol) of it, in which case 'facts' go even further back in the chain of 'writing a paper' on something. ;)

papa smurf 27-07-2026 12:26
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220297)
Seems to be a bit of a 'rabbit hole' to me. As I understand it, research probably involves gathering figures, measurements, extrapolations and conclusions done by others and pulling it all together to make sense (lol) of it, in which case 'facts' go even further back in the chain of 'writing a paper' on something. ;)
you could gather the figures,measurements ,extrapolations ,etc etc ,give the data to 10 separate bodies and get 10 different conclusions

Carth 27-07-2026 12:31
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220304)
you could gather the figures,measurements ,extrapolations ,etc etc ,give the data to 10 separate bodies and get 10 different conclusions
But which one would you believe :shrug:

if any ;)

papa smurf 27-07-2026 12:44
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220305)
But which one would you believe :shrug:

if any ;)
You just put a loaded question into hughgle and accept the answer ;)

Hugh 27-07-2026 13:39
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220297)
Seems to be a bit of a 'rabbit hole' to me. As I understand it, research probably involves gathering figures, measurements, extrapolations and conclusions done by others and pulling it all together to make sense (lol) of it, in which case 'facts' go even further back in the chain of 'writing a paper' on something. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220304)
you could gather the figures,measurements ,extrapolations ,etc etc ,give the data to 10 separate bodies and get 10 different conclusions
Tell me you don’t understand the Scientific Method and Peer-Reviewed Science without telling me you don’t understand the Scientific Method and Peer-Reviewed Science…

papa smurf 27-07-2026 13:47
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36220310)
Tell me you don’t understand the Scientific Method and Peer-Reviewed Science without telling me you don’t understand the Scientific Method and Peer-Reviewed Science…
while you're at this comedy show can you see if you can pick up some new material,this recycled drivel isn't remotely entertaining

Hugh 27-07-2026 13:50
Re: Climate Change
 
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2026/07/4.gif

Probably why you support Reform…

Hom3r 27-07-2026 14:01
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220162)
People of our age have been through about 5 extinction cycles in our lifetime, there always seems to be something catastrophic arriving next year ;)

Well the Earth is around 5 billion years old and we've had 5 Ice ages, and we are leaving the 5th so guess what temperatures are going to rise, then they will drop, and it will be cold.

Mr K 27-07-2026 15:01
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36220315)
Well the Earth is around 5 billion years old and we've had 5 Ice ages, and we are leaving the 5th so guess what temperatures are going to rise, then they will drop, and it will be cold.
You guess wrong.

The latest climate change is over last 150 years, warming is occurring roughly 20 times faster than natural recovery periods from past ice ages. It correlates exactly with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Carth 27-07-2026 15:02
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36220310)
Tell me you don’t understand the Scientific Method and Peer-Reviewed Science without telling me you don’t understand the Scientific Method and Peer-Reviewed Science…
Follow the science . . .
Follow the science . . .
Follow the science . . .

It could be wrong . .

*shouts loudly* Just follow the science . . . it worked for Covid

papa smurf 27-07-2026 15:18
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220323)
Follow the science . . .
Follow the science . . .
Follow the science . . .

It could be wrong . .

*shouts loudly* Just follow the science . . . it worked for Covid
it was more like guidance for sheeple

OLD BOY 27-07-2026 20:17
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36220281)
Are you denying that Reform UK has received £22 million in donations from Thailand-based Christopher Harborne, whose firm AML Global sells jet fuel?
So what? You just resent people with money.

TheDaddy 27-07-2026 21:41
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220351)
So what? You just resent people with money.
More like he resents what the people with money are buying for £22 million and what their return on investment will be

1andrew1 27-07-2026 21:49
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220351)
So what?
Common sense, Old Boy.

If someone who heads up a political party receiving millions from someone making money from fossil fuels, the chances of them circulating objective articles on global warming is not going to be high.

Carth 27-07-2026 21:53
Re: Climate Change
 
Apparently . . nobody listens to what Reform say anyway, so £22 million seems a steep price for nothing ;)

Hugh 28-07-2026 09:10
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220362)
Apparently . . nobody listens to what Reform say anyway, so £22 million seems a steep price for nothing ;)
Apparently… it’s a rounding error on Harborne’s fortune, so why not invest (to him) pocket change on the chance Nige may get in - probably written off against whatever tax he may pay in Thailand, anyway…

Carth 28-07-2026 09:43
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36220372)
Apparently… it’s a rounding error on Harborne’s fortune, so why not invest (to him) pocket change on the chance Nige may get in - probably written off against whatever tax he may pay in Thailand, anyway…
oh, so it's like advertising then.

Companies pay vast amounts of money to get their products advertised on the TV (and some kind of tax relief) in the very faint chance that the people watching won't fast forward through them.

Probably makes perfect sense to somebody :D

TheDaddy 28-07-2026 17:51
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220374)
oh, so it's like advertising then.

Companies pay vast amounts of money to get their products advertised on the TV (and some kind of tax relief) in the very faint chance that the people watching won't fast forward through them.

Probably makes perfect sense to somebody :D
Oh it makes perfect sense, you only have to look at elmo's roi from donnie to know that or Miriam Adelson's for that matter

Carth 28-07-2026 18:57
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36220398)
Oh it makes perfect sense, you only have to look at elmo's roi from donnie to know that or Miriam Adelson's for that matter
No idea what on earth that means . . . actually, not even bothered what it means if it's American garbage

Hom3r 28-07-2026 20:37
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36220322)
You guess wrong.

The latest climate change is over last 150 years, warming is occurring roughly 20 times faster than natural recovery periods from past ice ages. It correlates exactly with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

please tell me how you can work out accurately 5 billion years with about 150 years of data?

mrmistoffelees 28-07-2026 20:42
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36220409)
please tell me how you can work out accurately 5 billion years with about 150 years of data?
Ice cores ?

jem 28-07-2026 22:52
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36220410)
Ice cores ?
Among other methods - for ice cores it’s the isotopic composition of gasses trapped in tiny bubbles frozen in the ice. Another method is tree rings - although they only really work back a few thousand years, and ocean sediment cores.

Paul 29-07-2026 00:56
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36220409)
please tell me how you can work out accurately 5 billion years with about 150 years of data?
It seems to work in polls ok .... :D

Carth 29-07-2026 08:51
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36220418)
It seems to work in polls ok .... :D
You little tinker you, I wish I'd thought of that one :D

Damien 29-07-2026 09:11
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36220413)
Among other methods - for ice cores it’s the isotopic composition of gasses trapped in tiny bubbles frozen in the ice. Another method is tree rings - although they only really work back a few thousand years, and ocean sediment cores.
Also layers of rock sedimentation and radiometric dating. The rock literally is laid as eras pass, and geologists can tell what the atmosphere was like to form it. (We knew something happened at the time the dinosaurs went extinct via this method, long before we found the crater).

jem 29-07-2026 20:17
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36220424)
Also layers of rock sedimentation and radiometric dating. The rock literally is laid as eras pass, and geologists can tell what the atmosphere was like to form it. (We knew something happened at the time the dinosaurs went extinct via this method, long before we found the crater).
The CT boundary, in rocks below that level dinosaur fossils are numerous, above it, none. The boundary itself is marked by a thin deposit layer, over-rich in iridium. So obviously something catastrophic happened on a global scale some 65-66 million years ago, the increased iridium did suggest a metiorite impact, it was many, many years later that the likely candidate for the site was uncovered in. what is now, Mexico.

60-odd million years of erosion have erased most surface features, but there is considerable evidence from the shocked state of the rocks underground.

Now before I am accused of taking the thread off course, I am pointing out that it is certainly possible to deduce what happened or what the conditions were like long before humans kept records or even existed. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times over it’s history - but never so fast as we are seeing now.

So what is causing the mean global temperature to climb so fast? What happened in the world around 150 years ago? Coincidence, oir could there be a connection?

Carth 30-07-2026 02:10
Re: Climate Change
 
Didn't General Custer get his arse kicked about 150 years ago? ;)

Hugh 30-07-2026 08:43
Re: Climate Change
 
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2026/07/6.gif

papa smurf 30-07-2026 09:44
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220454)
Didn't General Custer get his arse kicked about 150 years ago? ;)
Alexander Graham Bell patented the telephone, i bet custer wished he had one

Paul 30-07-2026 14:36
Re: Climate Change
 
Um.... ok, and back to the subject please.

Chris 30-07-2026 23:04
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36220447)
The CT boundary, in rocks below that level dinosaur fossils are numerous, above it, none. The boundary itself is marked by a thin deposit layer, over-rich in iridium. So obviously something catastrophic happened on a global scale some 65-66 million years ago, the increased iridium did suggest a metiorite impact, it was many, many years later that the likely candidate for the site was uncovered in. what is now, Mexico.

60-odd million years of erosion have erased most surface features, but there is considerable evidence from the shocked state of the rocks underground.

Now before I am accused of taking the thread off course, I am pointing out that it is certainly possible to deduce what happened or what the conditions were like long before humans kept records or even existed. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times over it’s history - but never so fast as we are seeing now.

So what is causing the mean global temperature to climb so fast? What happened in the world around 150 years ago? Coincidence, oir could there be a connection?
Apparently, a Doldrum spacecraft crashed on Earth, causing widespread Iridium contamination, right before a Marian attack vessel destroyed the Doldrum homeworld, generating a massive asteroid which then impacted earth causing the dinosaurs to go extinct.

Or so Star Trek just told me. :D

jem 31-07-2026 19:59
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36220504)
Apparently, a Doldrum spacecraft crashed on Earth, causing widespread Iridium contamination, right before a Marian attack vessel destroyed the Doldrum homeworld, generating a massive asteroid which then impacted earth causing the dinosaurs to go extinct.

Or so Star Trek just told me. :D
Yes I watched that documentary, its conclusions are somewhat contested thought. :)

In an earlier post I mentioned what happened on Earth some 150 years ago, Battle of the Little Big Horn and patenting of the telephone were mentioned. Realistically I should have said 200 years ago, my bad. The start of wide spread industrialisation, originating in the UK but then spreading globally.

If you deny that climate change is happening, and is real, then please have an alternative explanation for why the Earth’s mean temperature had risen so much over the past few decades. By definition that is a change in the climate.

OK some may claim that human activities are not responsible, increased solar activity etc have all been cited. Carbon Dioxide is absolutely a ‘greenhouse gas’ (ask Venus what is happening there, it’s a case of a runaway greenhouse effect), I don’t think anyone can deny the physics and chemistry here. So even if you don’t believe that the rise in temperature is entirely due to human activity surely it makes sense to at least not make the situation worse!

OLD BOY 01-08-2026 15:07
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem (Post 36220548)
Yes I watched that documentary, its conclusions are somewhat contested thought. :)

In an earlier post I mentioned what happened on Earth some 150 years ago, Battle of the Little Big Horn and patenting of the telephone were mentioned. Realistically I should have said 200 years ago, my bad. The start of wide spread industrialisation, originating in the UK but then spreading globally.

If you deny that climate change is happening, and is real, then please have an alternative explanation for why the Earth’s mean temperature had risen so much over the past few decades. By definition that is a change in the climate.

OK some may claim that human activities are not responsible, increased solar activity etc have all been cited. Carbon Dioxide is absolutely a ‘greenhouse gas’ (ask Venus what is happening there, it’s a case of a runaway greenhouse effect), I don’t think anyone can deny the physics and chemistry here. So even if you don’t believe that the rise in temperature is entirely due to human activity surely it makes sense to at least not make the situation worse!
But now we are hearing that increased sunlight hitting the Earth with cleaner air has had a dramatic effect on temperature rise latterly. I don’t personally believe that the incredibly small increase in what is already a tiny proportion of the atmosphere comprising carbon explains the global warming that we are experiencing.

In my opinion, it is several different factors, including deforestation, which is, of course, undeniably our fault.

Carth 01-08-2026 18:44
Re: Climate Change
 
Sting was wailing about deforestation many years ago, mind you, he also wailed about messages in bottles ;)

papa smurf 01-08-2026 22:00
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220605)
Sting was wailing about deforestation many years ago, mind you, he also wailed about messages in bottles ;)
governments shut down coal powered power stations and chop down forests to burn instead of coal

Carth 02-08-2026 09:38
Re: Climate Change
 
We are also (allegedly) much healthier now because we're chopping trees down to grow crops for vegetable oil.

There's also money to be made from it too, so that's not about to change is it :erm:

1andrew1 02-08-2026 10:04
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220595)
But now we are hearing that increased sunlight hitting the Earth with cleaner air has had a dramatic effect on temperature rise latterly. I don’t personally believe that the incredibly small increase in what is already a tiny proportion of the atmosphere comprising carbon explains the global warming that we are experiencing.

In my opinion, it is several different factors, including deforestation, which is, of course, undeniably our fault.
You're right to be sceptical on this. As an aside, it's also a bit of a hard ask for us to ask others to not do what we did - cut down our forests.

Anyway, back to declining air pollution and European hot summers.

Quote:
Amid widespread media coverage of the number of deaths and the influence of climate change, the UK’s Daily Telegraph reported on new research with the incorrect headline: “Heatwaves caused by fall in pollution.”

GB News followed up with its own article, incorrectly headlined: “Britain’s scorching heatwaves caused by falling pollution levels, researchers find.”

Scientists tell Carbon Brief that the framing of heatwaves being “caused” by declining air pollution is “wrong”.

While a drop in pollution has reduced the cooling impact it has had in the past, the scientists say, Europe’s summer heatwaves are primarily becoming more extreme “as a result of greenhouse-gas-induced warming”.

Another scientist adds that “any attempt” to link this research to net-zero policies is “simply wrong”.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution

papa smurf 02-08-2026 10:42
Re: Climate Change
 
who's filling these greenhouses with gas eh eh that's what i want to know

Hugh 02-08-2026 10:53
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36220623)
You're right to be sceptical on this. As an aside, it's also a bit of a hard ask for us to ask others to not do what we did - cut down our forests.

Anyway, back to declining air pollution and European hot summers.

Quote:
Amid widespread media coverage of the number of deaths and the influence of climate change, the UK’s Daily Telegraph reported on new research with the incorrect headline: “Heatwaves caused by fall in pollution.”

GB News followed up with its own article, incorrectly headlined: “Britain’s scorching heatwaves caused by falling pollution levels, researchers find.”

Scientists tell Carbon Brief that the framing of heatwaves being “caused” by declining air pollution is “wrong”.

While a drop in pollution has reduced the cooling impact it has had in the past, the scientists say, Europe’s summer heatwaves are primarily becoming more extreme “as a result of greenhouse-gas-induced warming”.

Another scientist adds that “any attempt” to link this research to net-zero policies is “simply wrong”.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution
As did the author of the original research paper, as posted earlier in this thread (24th July)…

Quote:
Study lead author Dr Pedro Roldán‐Gómez, an associate researcher at the Barcelona Supercomputer Centre, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph saying that “most” of the “excess warming” in Europe, beyond that of comparable regions in the northern hemisphere, can be linked to declining aerosols.

But, earlier in the article, the newspaper interprets this as, simply, “most of the extra heat experienced in Britain and Europe” is down to air pollution.

GB News uses a similar phrasing, reporting that “much of the additional warming across Britain and western Europe since the 1980s is linked to the sharp decline in airborne particles known as aerosols”.

This is “misleading”, says Fischer, while Roldan-Gomez tells Carbon Brief that this is a “tricky point”, which “could lead to wrong interpretations if not properly explained”. He adds:

“The contribution of greenhouse gases is, in any case, the most important factor.”

Carth 02-08-2026 11:25
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36220624)
who's filling these greenhouses with gas eh eh that's what i want to know
It's probably the usual suspects mate, either Russian bots, Reform voters or Brexit :D

Hugh 02-08-2026 11:53
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220627)
It's probably the usual suspects mate, either Russian bots, Reform voters or Brexit :D
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2026/08/1.gif

;)

Dingbat 02-08-2026 15:12
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220627)
It's probably the usual suspects mate, either Russian bots, Reform voters or Brexit :D
Or the beans.

Taf 02-08-2026 18:42
Re: Climate Change
 
It's nice when someone reads all the headlines and spots the impossible contradictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9cDpdTlQrc

Carth 02-08-2026 19:35
Re: Climate Change
 
I don't often follow links on here, but glad I looked at that one.
Many of the comments posted are absolutely brilliant :D

Taf 03-08-2026 14:48
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36220639)
I don't often follow links on here, but glad I looked at that one.
Many of the comments posted are absolutely brilliant :D
Sabine attracts a wide range of viewers and supporters, and some have a wicked sense of humour. :D

OLD BOY 03-08-2026 21:08
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36220623)
You're right to be sceptical on this. As an aside, it's also a bit of a hard ask for us to ask others to not do what we did - cut down our forests.

Anyway, back to declining air pollution and European hot summers.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution
Whatever happened to ‘Plant a Tree in ‘73’?

Hugh 03-08-2026 21:10
Re: Climate Change
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36220702)
Whatever happened to ‘Plant a Tree in ‘73’?
That was in response to the die-back from Dutch Elm disease, and 160,000 were planted…

Carth 03-08-2026 21:23
Re: Climate Change
 
We had a beautiful silver birch in the front garden . . until disease got it.

I really miss that tree :(


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:49.
Page 7 of 7 « First 3456 7
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum