Climate Change

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

wow considering the earth is 4.543 billion years old thats a lot of data

0.000004%

And the continuous rise has been for 0.0000003%

The Earth is doing what the Earth does, 99% of everything that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct.

Our time on this planet has been minuscule. The last dinosaur lived closest to us than it did to the first dinosaur.

To think that it’s us and cows that are driving climate change, and that we’ve managed to do it in the last 260 years.

To think We’ve managed to destroy the planet in the last 0.000006% of the planets existence, is very efficient, combined with a lot of Hubris.

The planet will be just fine, life on Earth will continue for another 5-8 billion years. Our descendants may, or may not, not be part of it.

Originally Posted by Paul

In the grand scheme, we are still cooler than most of the life of the earth.
However, in recent history, its about the warmest its been in the last 12,000 years.

It's the speed that's the problem. Most warming periods, at least since life has been around, were so gradual they are imperceptible in a human lifetime. Even in a civilisation lifetime.

The last increase took about 20,000 years to rise 6c. We've done that 1c in about 100 years. It's dramatically faster.

[tweetiepooh]

It is also that us humans have spread out and populated areas that are vulnerable to small climate changes and have also put in boundaries so populations can't simply relocate.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's the speed that's the problem. Most warming periods, at least since life has been around, were so gradual they are imperceptible in a human lifetime. Even in a civilisation lifetime.

The last increase took about 20,000 years to rise 6c. We've done that 1c in about 100 years. It's dramatically faster.

There have also been periods of more sudden climate change, the Little Ice Age being one of them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There have also been periods of more sudden climate change, the Little Ice Age being one of them.

This was a regional phenomenon which only affected the North Atlantic Ocean and neighbouring land masses. Its effect on global average temperatures was extremely modest and really not sudden at all in comparison to what’s happening now.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

This was a regional phenomenon which only affected the North Atlantic Ocean and neighbouring land masses. Its effect on global average temperatures was extremely modest and really not sudden at all in comparison to what’s happening now.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect.

source the unreliable wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ly%20incorrect.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect.

source the unreliable wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ly%20incorrect.

OK. Here’s the northern hemisphere dataset presented by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.



https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/...1/figspm-1.htm

The same dataset is presented by the Open University:

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/natur...-section-2.2.2

At some point it’d be great if you could ditch the tiresome quips and engage with the subject.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time.time.

Wikipedia is a reliable source, edits are monitored, and vandalism or incorrect information generally gets fixed pretty quickly, especially on popular subjects/pages. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe any information is incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, you can of course edit/correct it yourself.

That article is simply to discourage using another wikipedia article as a citation.

This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.

This page is about using Wikipedia as a citation in another Wikipedia article and not about using Wikipedia in general.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Paul

Wikipedia is a reliable source, edits are monitored, and vandalism or incorrect information generally gets fixed pretty quickly, especially on popular subjects/pages. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe any information is incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, you can of course edit/correct it yourself.

That article is simply to discourage using another wikipedia article as a citation.

So if i don't like the "truth" i can edit "the truth " to reflect the truth as i see it

Originally Posted by papa smurf

So if i don't like the "truth" i can edit "the truth " to reflect the truth as i see it

Yes, you can be as big an ass as you want.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

So if i don't like the "truth" i can edit "the truth " to reflect the truth as i see it

Yes. And then you can watch as people who are suitably qualified undo your edits. Often within an hour.

All decent Wikipedia entries, especially in the sciences and traditional arts subjects, are well referenced and maintained by people who know what they’re doing.

You could try editing it to reflect your truth but you’d just end up looking like a clown.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------

So, just because the graphics are nice and clear and it obviously reflects data used by respected organisations, here’s the global temperature graph once more, demonstrating that the ‘little ice age’ was a mere polar bear’s fart compared to the rapid warming occurring now.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Incidentally, the Wikipedia graph uses a dataset first presented by Prof. Ed Hawkins, climate scientist at Reading University. I’d take his “truth” over yours on this topic any day.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

So if i don't like the "truth" i can edit "the truth " to reflect the truth as i see it

Why don't you check the sea levels at Cleethorpes beach ( whilst it's still there)?
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...h-lost-3764128

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Why don't you check the sea levels at Cleethorpes beach ( whilst it's still there)?
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...h-lost-3764128

Well

How Cleethorpes beach could be swallowed up forever by rising sea levels

The word “could” working overtime in that headline.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well



The word “could” working overtime in that headline.

It supposedly was being swallowed up a long long time ago,but it's still here covered in yorkies every day in the summer

[Dude111]

Someone posted a thread (POLL) on City-data asking ppl which is more real. Climate Change or the Bible and I picked CLIMATE CHANGE on the poll because the bible is made up BS for control!!!

The last I looked the poll was tied 9 to 9