Climate Change

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

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).

I think the issue being tracked here, and I do take your point on isolated data points, is the incremental increase over recent time of temperatures in places like Iran.

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

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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 Mr K

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.

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.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Hopefully, and we should try, but I fear it may be too little, too late.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Is that the wrong consensus?

I don’t things are reversible, because I think we are riding in a much larger roller coaster, over which we have little leverage.

But I also believe, that we can manage these changes. We can move to a greener economy and world but this will not be achieved by dictat or force, but by making it the best economical choice and greener choice as a package.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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

What about the 140,000 year cycle graphs I put up recently? We're totally on that trajectory having brought noticeable climate change forward by 150 years.

Nothing's gonna change what's happening and was never going to..

Damien already rebutted those...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Damien already rebutted those...

... without being right.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... without being right.

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'.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

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'.

But look where they happened: right near/at the top of the 140,000 year cycle.

One thing I can do, is understand that whenever the 140,000 year change is about to tip us over the line, we have made it 150 years or so sooner.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But look where they happened: right near/at the top of the 140,000 year cycle.

One thing I can do understands that whenever the 140,000-year change is about to tip us over the line, we have made it 150 years or so sooner.

The last cycle is measured around a 20,000-year timespan. 150 years is not a relevant measurement. It's not like the earth schedules a warming period in for 2173 but we've brought it forward ahead of schedule.

You also ignore the rate of warming which is nothing like the last one which, again, is measured over 20,000 is not precise to a year because they get it from geological evidence and not someone recording a mean temperature into a spreadsheet 125,000 years ago.

The current warming period is not like the last one:

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

We don't everything about how this pans out but we do know this is an unnatural rate of warming. This isn't normal or expected.

Look beyond the graph.

This is a good explanation that I understood: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Pierre]

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.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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.

Well the cynic in me would say you immediately Googled “Bjorn Lomborg - fossil fuel funded”, or something similar, after reading my post.

And the best you could come up with is an 8 year old article, regarding a “donation” that was 10yrs ago.

That said, nothing in your link, disproves or discredits, Lomborg’s argument on the matter.

Better luck next time.