Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And in the past, the climate in Norway was conducive to growing grape vines. It takes 7 years to get them to the point of producing grapes. In the past Greenland had a climate where there was little snow or ice, hence the "Green" in Greenland

Greenlands ice sheet is about half a million years old so when exactly was it a green land, certainly not when Erik the red was trying to establish a settlement there

Remember the earth is 4.5 billions of years old. Our recorded history is about 6,500 years old. Modern humans, i.e us, 200,000 years. Our history, mindset and lifespan has no concept of a geological ages which last a long, long time. The warming since the industrial revolution might seem slow measured by human life but is literally nothing, not even a minor blip, in the timescales off the earth. So this is a very sudden, very abrupt, change.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

Remember the earth is 4.5 billions of years old. Our recorded history is about 6,500 years old. Modern humans, i.e us, 200,000 years. Our history, mindset and lifespan has no concept of a geological ages which last a long, long time. The warming since the industrial revolution might seem slow measured by human life but is literally nothing, not even a minor blip, in the timescales off the earth. So this is a very sudden, very abrupt, change.

Yes, nothing natural about this climate change. The rate of warming, is far far faster than anything that has happened before. The danger is by the we all time we all realise and agree somthing drastic needs doing, it might be out of control whatever we do. That point might have passed already, but doesn't mean we shouldn't try or ignore the issue, and concentrate on insignificant things like making the rich richer, border walls and Brexit.

If it was me I'd make all public transport free and double tax on private transport. Also not trade with any country ignoring the issue. Lots won't agree, but it requires drastic measures. If only we were part of some Union that acts together we'd have a lot more impact...

Wake up folks, this is the no1 issue facing us all, but you wouldn't know it.

[jfman]

We need to solve the biggest problem the planet faces. Population.

There’s simply too many people to support (at a worldwide level). Every human being contributes to the problem to a greater or lesser degree.

Believing the planet can tolerate 7, 8, 9 or 10 billion people is part of the problem. Cutting emissions by percentages here and there aren’t going to provide a long term solution.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Yes, nothing natural about this climate change. The rate of warming, is far far faster than anything that has happened before. The danger is by the we all time we all realise and agree somthing drastic needs doing, it might be out of control whatever we do. That point might have passed already, but doesn't mean we shouldn't try or ignore the issue, and concentrate on insignificant things like making the rich richer, border walls and Brexit.

If it was me I'd make all public transport free and double tax on private transport. Also not trade with any country ignoring the issue. Lots won't agree, but it requires drastic measures. If only we were part of some Union that acts together we'd have a lot more impact...

Wake up folks, this is the no1 issue facing us all, but you wouldn't know it.

We are it's called the Uk, if i were you i'd ditch the allotment and invest in a fish farm

Originally Posted by jfman

We need to solve the biggest problem the planet faces. Population.

There’s simply too many people to support (at a worldwide level). Every human being contributes to the problem to a greater or lesser degree.

Believing the planet can tolerate 7, 8, 9 or 10 billion people is part of the problem. Cutting emissions by percentages here and there aren’t going to provide a long term solution.

Logan's Run anyone?:

China tried to limit numbers of births but seem to have abandoned that somewhat recently. I can't see just how population can easily be controlled without getting draconian about birth control.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Logan's Run anyone?:

China tried to limit numbers of births but seem to have abandoned that somewhat recently. I can't see just how population can easily be controlled without getting draconian about birth control.

If the situation is as critical as is being made out (and on balance I’m inclined to think it is) then draconian measures will be necessary. We are skimming round the edges without drastically reducing the sum of human consumption of almost all of the resources available on the planet.

There’s two ways of doing that and convincing everyone to consume a bit less isn’t the answer.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Windy lately, isn't it ? And the snow thread has been quiet ....

Yes, March winds, April showers bring forth May flowers. Or so I recall my Mum telling me.

And did you notice how far back those temperature records in your post went? The graph clearly shows how temperatures have been steadily rising for at least two centuries as they were before that (remember the 'little ice age' in the 17th century?).

The mantra of the scientists should always be questioned, and only when they come up with conclusive prove should we believe what they say.

For example, in the 1960s they were telling us we were moving into another ice age. But look at that graph. Where is the proof there? The temperatures were moving in the opposite direction!

Now it's global warming. Well, as long as we can rely on those reported temperatures (and after the 'hockey stick graph' fiasco, I wouldn't put any manipulation of the figures past them), it does appear that temperatures are on the up. But there are other reasons than carbon emissions that could explain that.

A couple of examples.

1. If we were plunged into a mini-ice age a few centuries ago, how do we know that the climate is not simply still recovering from that? The current bunch of scientists would probably have blamed mankind for that as well, although looking at it, that seems an unlikely argument.

2. There was a tremendous amount of pollution in the atmosphere from industry during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even in recent times (the 1960s) I still remember those awful sooty smogs we used to get. What if its the cleaner air that is letting in more sunlight and producing this warming trend?

You should also be sceptical of scientist claims that another few degrees increase and it will be 'irreversible'. How can that be, when temperatures have been quite a lot higher in the past?

I do think that logging may have affected climate, almost certainly in fact, but I still don't buy the idea that increasing carbon emissions are the cause of any warming that may be taking place. Where is the evidence for that when the atmosphere only absorbs a small amount of carbon? The amount of carbon in the atmosphere the last time I looked stood at 0.04% of the atmosphere. Yes, 0.04%. Think about what a small proportion of the atmosphere that is. Most of the carbon is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

So I don't think we should be unquestioningly following the advice of the scientists. We should listen, but then give it the reality treatment.

Having said all that, I agree that we should do our best to clean up the air rather than continue to pollute it. I have believed that since childhood.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

2. There was a tremendous amount of pollution in the atmosphere from industry during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even in recent times (the 1960s) I still remember those awful sooty smogs we used to get. What if its the cleaner air that is letting in more sunlight and producing this warming trend?

On this point there was a jump in temperature in North America on September 12th, 2001 that could be attributed to the empty skies.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/e...ge-experiment/

The opposite argument would be it evidencing that it’s already too late, and any action we take will still accelerate warming.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The mantra of the scientists should always be questioned, and only when they come up with conclusive prove should we believe what they say.

And what is conclusive proof of global warming to you?

Obviously scientists should be questioned but that is done so with further science. The people questioning the 'scientists' are people with hardly any knowledge of the underlying science, more often than not it's people with art degrees pontificating in a magazines like the Spectator as if we're meant to take them as seriously as the people who have knowledge of geology and climate patterns.

It just ignorance to dismiss experts in a field so casually.

For example, in the 1960s they were telling us we were moving into another ice age. But look at that graph. Where is the proof there? The temperatures were moving in the opposite direction!

It's the same thing. Global cooling, which is not ruled out by the way, can be a result of global warming. There are climate mechanisms at play which can be disrupted by increasing temperatures causing some areas to actually become colder as well as the weather becoming more unpredictable. Part of the reason 'climate change' was used instead of global warming is because it's a more accurate observable observation of the impact of global warming.

Now it's global warming. Well, as long as we can rely on those reported temperatures (and after the 'hockey stick graph' fiasco, I wouldn't put any manipulation of the figures past them), it does appear that temperatures are on the up. But there are other reasons than carbon emissions that could explain that.

So I don't think we should be unquestioningly following the advice of the scientists. We should listen, but then give it the reality treatment.

Maybe not but I don't see who else is qualified to be giving 'advice' on these matters.

So I don't think we should be unquestioningly following the advice of the scientists. We should listen, but then give it the reality treatment.

To have a valid "reality treatment", it would need to be checked by someone who knew what they were talking about - you know, like a scientist*...

When you ask for a second opinion when you’ve been to the doctor’s, it’s not usually from an electrician.

When I get two quotes for decorating my house, the second one isn’t from a dog walker.

*it’s called "peer review", and it’s what currently happens.

[papa smurf]

Stove is full of coal and going like the clappers ,what does science say about that?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Stove is full of coal and going like the clappers ,what does science say about that?

You have no grasp of what we’re talking about?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You have no grasp of what we’re talking about?

Or the weather and temp are normal for march.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Or the weather and temp are normal for march.

Bless...

It’s not Rocket Science.