Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It was a joke, Den, in line with Mr K's recent posts, which have made me chuckle!

Actually, there is a grain of truth in this. Modelling of orbital variations back in 1980 (Milankovitch Cycles) seems to show that we should be 6000 years in to a 23000 year cooling cycle and yes, heading towards an ice age. However, the modelling only took into account orbital variation and nothing else.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by denphone

And that cancels out climate change according to your logic....

It highlights the fact that the predictions are not exactly reliable. At one point the talk was all about acid rain. Then they discovered the predictions didn't come true(eg half of New York state's forests were going to disappear) and that most of it came from natural sources.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It highlights the fact that the predictions are not exactly reliable. At one point the talk was all about acid rain. Then they discovered the predictions didn't come true(eg half of New York state's forests were going to disappear) and that most of it came from natural sources.

The predictions are coming true, record increases in global temperature, melting ice sheets, increased extreme weather events, flooding, drought, forest and moorland fires. If anything they under estimated the rate of change. However some will scream fake news even when the water comes through their front doors....
However it does seem it's too late now.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The predictions are coming true, record increases in global temperature, melting ice sheets, increased extreme weather events, flooding, drought, forest and moorland fires. If anything they under estimated the rate of change. However some will scream fake news even when the water comes through their front doors....
However it does seem it's too late now.

l somehow doubt homeowners or those who rent will be screaming fake news if it comes through their own front door but of course l suspect their thinking is it ain't going to to be happening to them which of course is a false delusion.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The predictions are coming true, record increases in global temperature, melting ice sheets, increased extreme weather events, flooding, drought, forest and moorland fires. If anything they under estimated the rate of change. However some will scream fake news even when the water comes through their front doors....
However it does seem it's too late now.

The climate has always changed. If it wasn't for a "tipping point" in the past, we would still have an ice age.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The climate has always changed. If it wasn't for a "tipping point" in the past, we would still have an ice age.

I think everyone knows what it means, just like if a doctor says to you "you're running a temperature", you don't reply "I've always had a temperature, othewise I'd be dead"...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The predictions are coming true, record increases in global temperature, melting ice sheets, increased extreme weather events, flooding, drought, forest and moorland fires. If anything they under estimated the rate of change. However some will scream fake news even when the water comes through their front doors....
However it does seem it's too late now.

I think we can all see that the climate is currently undergoing changes. But what we don't know is whether these changes are temporary and whether mankind is responsible.

All sorts of factors impact on climate, and I retain a healthy scepticism as to whether carbon is the cause. The atmosphere currently comprises 0.04% of carbon and some people are making a fortune out of carbon trading, etc.

Go figure.

[denphone]

l would say its pretty obvious that mankind is mostly responsible even to those who are sceptical..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

l would say its pretty obvious that mankind is mostly responsible even to those who are sceptical..

We've certainly been brainwashed into thinking so, Den. We all just need to bear in mind that the scientists have not proved this theory of theirs yet.

For all we know, it might be that with the cleaner air we are breathing following the industrial revolution, more sunlight is getting through, allowing the recovery from the mini-ice age to resume.

By the way, the mini-ice age was not our fault - it was absolutely natural. So why is 'global warming' our fault?

More questions than answers, as usual.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We've certainly been brainwashed into thinking so, Den. We all just need to bear in mind that the scientists have not proved this theory of theirs yet.

For all we know, it might be that with the cleaner air we are breathing following the industrial revolution, more sunlight is getting through, allowing the recovery from the mini-ice age to resume.

By the way, the mini-ice age was not our fault - it was absolutely natural. So why is 'global warming' our fault?

More questions than answers, as usual.

Funny how people believe scientists when it comes to health (anti-vaxxers excepted), air travel, computers, but not climate change...

You seem to be confusing "scientific theory" with "an idea that someone had" - a scientific theory is " an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.".

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We've certainly been brainwashed into thinking so, Den. We all just need to bear in mind that the scientists have not proved this theory of theirs yet.

For all we know, it might be that with the cleaner air we are breathing following the industrial revolution, more sunlight is getting through, allowing the recovery from the mini-ice age to resume.

By the way, the mini-ice age was not our fault - it was absolutely natural. So why is 'global warming' our fault?

More questions than answers, as usual.

Absolutely. Unless we had another Earth to test, we have to work with models and proxies and the big issue is that nothing like this has happened before. Sure, there have been climate changes in the past but the evidence of causes of these changes are generally not related to carbon emissions but rather changes in solar radiation.

CO2 levels do cause a greenhouse effect, that is basic physics but I guess the question is do the amounts of atmospheric CO2 contribute to warming and, if yes, how much is needed to have an effect? There is also a good correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures but correlation does not always indicate causation. There are studies using new information sciences which do show a one way linkage - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691 but it can be argued that this is just another type of statistics...

I guess the big questions are;

1. Does CO2 cause a greenhouse effect in general?
2. Does atmospheric CO2 cause a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere and if the answer to above is yes and this is no, why?
3. How much CO2 is needed to cause an effect?
4. If CO2 is not the cause of climate change, where is the heat from a greenhouse effect going?
5. What else could cause a rise in global temperatures?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Funny how people believe scientists when it comes to health (anti-vaxxers excepted), air travel, computers, but not climate change...

You seem to be confusing "scientific theory" with "an idea that someone had" - a scientific theory is " an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.".

I take their health advice with a pinch of salt as well. Advising people to cut calories rather than carbohydrates, advising that certain foods are bad for you, then changing their minds some 30 years later and admitting that their advice actually caused health problems....the examples are endless.

Don't get me wrong, we should take notice of what scientists say, but then apply the common sense test.

I don't know what you mean by testing climate theory. There are too many variables as to how climate works for anyone to be sure, and climate models are designed with certain assumptions added in which might be false. Rubbish in, rubbish out, as they say.

Climatologists have been caught out a few times about their alarmist predictions and we need to think about these things before we blindly accept what they say. I'd like to be able to believe scientists without question, but I'm afraid they no longer have my trust.

[Taf]

I read an interview somewhere recently where a prominent "scientist" claims there are only abut 100 "true scientists" worldwide, whilst the rest are statisticians, lab techs, collators, etc.

And then there is this:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

Originally Posted by Taf

I read an interview somewhere recently where a prominent "scientist" claims there are only abut 100 "true scientists" worldwide, whilst the rest are statisticians, lab techs, collators, etc.

And then there is this:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

Not sure you read that properly - it was debunking the letter that states "there is no climate emergency"...

This letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.

The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.

And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I take their health advice with a pinch of salt as well. Advising people to cut calories rather than carbohydrates, advising that certain foods are bad for you, then changing their minds some 30 years later and admitting that their advice actually caused health problems....the examples are endless.

Don't get me wrong, we should take notice of what scientists say, but then apply the common sense test.

I don't know what you mean by testing climate theory. There are too many variables as to how climate works for anyone to be sure, and climate models are designed with certain assumptions added in which might be false. Rubbish in, rubbish out, as they say.

Climatologists have been caught out a few times about their alarmist predictions and we need to think about these things before we blindly accept what they say. I'd like to be able to believe scientists without question, but I'm afraid they no longer have my trust.

A lot of this is failure of science communication rather than science itself. It's not glamorous to talk about p-values and error bars so information is given in absolutes rather than certainties and ranges and this can lead to misleading conclusions. If you read the underlying reports, there are loads of uncertainties reported but these rarely get into the public domain. For example, look at the graphs from a recent IPCC report here - https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/su...-policymakers/

Common sense is good filter but it should be backed up by good data and even then surprises can pop up