Global warming/Climate Change is so last year! We're all going to freeze by 2030!

Forums › Off topic › Global warming/Climate Change is so last year! We're all going to freeze by 2030!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1927082 30-Dec-2017 18:22

Mistenfuru:

Batman:

MaxLV:

Batman:

nobody knows for 100% sure. heck nobody can even get 99% on predicting the weather 24hrs ahead.

But 'man made' climate change believers tell us we cant use weather events as any indication of climate change, then say x, y, z weather events are indications of climate change...

Exactly.

And then you have to buy electric cars. But how much CO2 is produced buying electric cars? Oh and it turns out they drink a lot of coffee on the go. Did they know the recyclable cups are not recyclable? Oh and they buy all these stuff all the time - did they know how much packaging comes in the stuff they buy? And the shipping all the way from China is by Boeing 747 freight? I'm more worried about the slave conditions of the people who mine the ingredients and the factory workers who build them. Then some of them have holidays every other week ...

So you're saying it's too difficult and why should we even try? How dare we try leave this planet in a better condition than when we started?.....

Electric Cars throughout their life (especially in NZ) produce FAR less CO2 than an ICE equivalent, including the cost of production and transportation.

Most Coffee shops in NZ use recycled cardboard in their cups (go have a look through a few, and if they don't, then ask them to)

I understand you think "Climate Change Believers" (is that what we're called? I thought it was just intelligence to accept current scientific understandings..) are hypocrits for saying we should improve our way of life, but we're not. We're merely trying to make a change to a bad situation....

It's not just too difficult to control the planets climate, we cant. it's laughable that some (including scientists) think we can.

How much CO2 is produced making electric cars and recycled products? All this does is shift the CO2 production from usage to production and supply. What's going to happen to all the billions of obsolete fossil fuel vehicles?

You obviously dont understand what I think of 'climate change believers any more than what I think of climate change deniers. Sufficient to say hypocrites isn't a term I use. What about the current scientific understandings that that dont always show the climate is changing for the worse?

The planets climate is in a constant state of change, That is how it works, and has always worked. EOS

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1927091 30-Dec-2017 18:41

tdgeek:

MaxLV:

driller2000:

Didn't have to look far to find questions re this study - and even moreso the reporting/exaggeration therein:

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.dcf4872faf9e

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming

https://theconversation.com/no-we-arent-heading-into-a-mini-ice-age-44677

Quote:

Should we be worried?

If this link between variations in solar activity and changes in the Earth’s climate seems obvious, that’s because it is. When the amount of energy emitted by the sun changes, it has an affect on our climate.

But the real issue is just how strong this influence is compared to other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.

Like the studies referred to in the article?

As for your references about the article, thanks for doing that 'research', but IMHO the links you have provided have too much bias to be counted as anything more than some pro climate change media trying to dismiss another media press release they disagree with.

"The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC’s Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren’t careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation."
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

You are biased. If I gave you undeniable evidence, you will nit accept that. I believe in climate change via humans. I have watched many docos on that topic and many docos denying it. The former are full of science, the latter are full of rhetoric. As in the ice age comments here, so climate change is a fake. But ice ages are not caused by us, they are caused by the suns output and Earth's axis changes. One example of false information to deny climate change.

The nearest (by far) planet to the Sun in Mercury. The hottest planet is our neighbour Venus. Why? Greenhouse gases insulating the planet.

Of course I'm biased. So is everyone participating in this discussion.

We simply dont have anywhere near enough knowledge or information (individually or collectively) to have an unbiased opinion about climate change.
I dont deny it's happening, it is. The planets climate is always changing and always has, it's the way the planetary climate works.

What I am sceptical about is that we as a species can globally control or alter the climate globally. With our current scientific knowledge and/or technology we cant.

What I dont agree with is the near hysterical, quasi religious fervour of those who claim that the current scientific evidence about climate change cannot be questioned in any way at all. That's NOT science IMHO.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927096 30-Dec-2017 18:57

MaxLV:

tdgeek:

MaxLV:

driller2000:

Didn't have to look far to find questions re this study - and even moreso the reporting/exaggeration therein:

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.dcf4872faf9e

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming

https://theconversation.com/no-we-arent-heading-into-a-mini-ice-age-44677

Quote:

Should we be worried?

If this link between variations in solar activity and changes in the Earth’s climate seems obvious, that’s because it is. When the amount of energy emitted by the sun changes, it has an affect on our climate.

But the real issue is just how strong this influence is compared to other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.

Like the studies referred to in the article?

As for your references about the article, thanks for doing that 'research', but IMHO the links you have provided have too much bias to be counted as anything more than some pro climate change media trying to dismiss another media press release they disagree with.

"The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC’s Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren’t careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation."
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

You are biased. If I gave you undeniable evidence, you will nit accept that. I believe in climate change via humans. I have watched many docos on that topic and many docos denying it. The former are full of science, the latter are full of rhetoric. As in the ice age comments here, so climate change is a fake. But ice ages are not caused by us, they are caused by the suns output and Earth's axis changes. One example of false information to deny climate change.

The nearest (by far) planet to the Sun in Mercury. The hottest planet is our neighbour Venus. Why? Greenhouse gases insulating the planet.

Of course I'm biased. So is everyone participating in this discussion.

We simply dont have anywhere near enough knowledge or information (individually or collectively) to have an unbiased opinion about climate change.
I dont deny it's happening, it is. The planets climate is always changing and always has, it's the way the planetary climate works.

What I am sceptical about is that we as a species can globally control or alter the climate globally. With our current scientific knowledge and/or technology we cant.

What I dont agree with is the near hysterical, quasi religious fervour of those who claim that the current scientific evidence about climate change cannot be questioned in any way at all. That's NOT science IMHO.

The scientific evidence is huge, and its not 60/40. Its 99/1. Ice cores and so on tell a huge amount. The Earth is not that big. When the Industrial Revolution is pumping out coal like there is no tomorrow, and yes that was the a small population. Today there are coal fired power everywhere, US and China especially. There are 10,000 aircraft in the air at any one time (drops to 6000 at off peak times), the output is massive. Combine that many greenhouses gases remain for a LONG time. Add to that, melting tundra that oozes methane, Russia especially, it isn't a "latest news" issue.

The superpowers wont act until the $ talks, so essentially its already too late. It would take 50 years for the planet to resolve if greenhouse gases stopped tomorrow. Look at Venus. Hottest planet by far on the Solar System, that is due to greenhouse gases insulating the planet.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927097 30-Dec-2017 19:00

MaxLV:

Of course I'm biased. So is everyone participating in this discussion.

The difference is being able to look at everything, to form that bias. Ive watched MANY docos the are pro human induced climate change and many that are anti. The former is science, the latter is conspiracy theory, IMHO

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1927134 30-Dec-2017 20:30

MaxLV: What I am sceptical about is that we as a species can globally control or alter the climate globally. With our current scientific knowledge and/or technology we cant.

I don't see anyone here talking about controlling the climate. They are simply talking about reducing the CO2 output of human activity. There are many instances in which our civilization has found products to be harmful and has taken steps to reduce output. This instance is no different.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#1927220 31-Dec-2017 00:19

MaxLV:

What I dont agree with is the near hysterical, quasi religious fervour of those who claim that the current scientific evidence about climate change cannot be questioned in any way at all. That's NOT science IMHO.

Which part of the scientific evidence do you wish to debate?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#1927222 31-Dec-2017 00:33

MaxLV:

The planets climate is in a constant state of change, That is how it works, and has always worked. EOS

Thats not the 'end of story'. Evidence shows that the changes in the earths climate since industrialisation have greatly exceeded the changes which preceded it - as shown in the graph I posted.

MaxLV:

How much CO2 is produced making electric cars and recycled products? All this does is shift the CO2 production from usage to production and supply. What's going to happen to all the billions of obsolete fossil fuel vehicles?

I happen to agree with you there. I think if humans never emitted any CO2 after tomorrow the world is still going to be in a precarious position. What with pollution, burgeoning populations, ineffectiveness of anti-biotics and a wealth of other problems we're going to be screwed.

But I can imagine that in the future ashes of our cities as we struggle to live on grass , cockroaches and whichever corpses look like they're still safe to eat that somehow, against all odds, there will still be a sale on at briscoes.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1927226 31-Dec-2017 01:54

elpenguino:

MaxLV:

The planets climate is in a constant state of change, That is how it works, and has always worked. EOS

Thats not the 'end of story'. Evidence shows that the changes in the earths climate since industrialisation have greatly exceeded the changes which preceded it - as shown in the graph I posted.

MaxLV:

How much CO2 is produced making electric cars and recycled products? All this does is shift the CO2 production from usage to production and supply. What's going to happen to all the billions of obsolete fossil fuel vehicles?

I happen to agree with you there. I think if humans never emitted any CO2 after tomorrow the world is still going to be in a precarious position. What with pollution, burgeoning populations, ineffectiveness of anti-biotics and a wealth of other problems we're going to be screwed.

But I can imagine that in the future ashes of our cities as we struggle to live on grass , cockroaches and whichever corpses look like they're still safe to eat that somehow, against all odds, there will still be a sale on at briscoes.

What do you call the ice ages if not climate changes that greatly exceed the predicted man made global climate changes being predicted by science? And what about when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where the average temperatures were 9c-12c higher than today and the predicted man made global climate changes of 2c - 5c?

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused/influenced global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on Earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean chemistry and ocean heat content overturn cycles and related effects. The current radiative forcing levels are clearly outside of the natural cycle range.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

As to your imaginings about the 'terrible fate' we supposedly face as a result of climate change, IMHO you've been reading to manner bad science reporting headlines, and apparently spending a lot of time and money at Briscoes. sales...

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1927246 31-Dec-2017 09:35

MaxLV:

driller2000:

Didn't have to look far to find questions re this study - and even moreso the reporting/exaggeration therein:

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.dcf4872faf9e

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming

https://theconversation.com/no-we-arent-heading-into-a-mini-ice-age-44677

Quote:

Should we be worried?

If this link between variations in solar activity and changes in the Earth’s climate seems obvious, that’s because it is. When the amount of energy emitted by the sun changes, it has an affect on our climate.

But the real issue is just how strong this influence is compared to other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.

Like the studies referred to in the article?

As for your references about the article, thanks for doing that 'research', but IMHO the links you have provided have too much bias to be counted as anything more than some pro climate change media trying to dismiss another media press release they disagree with.

"The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC’s Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren’t careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation."
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

So why so snippy dude? "Research" : /

Yes it was a quick google - but I would suggest the multiple sources I linked to raise enough points to query the validity of the original article and the study author referred to - yes I looked them up too.

And my key point was that the study was questioned within the scientific community - with the lack of independent peer review being a key gap.

And furthermore the media (as they do) then completely overstate / mis-communicate the contents and robustness of the study.

Also - never presume to "know" who you are talking to, or their position on a given argument - or the rigour that they may subject any new information to eg. I have long been an AGW skeptic - in particular regarding the soundness of the massive policy decisions which are being made based on studies and models which are prone to manipulation (Ref Mann's hockey stick and the questions therein) and I still harbour concerns re the political motivations of both sides of the debate.

So me - biased ? - not so much.

But that said, as an engineer - I will always be guided by robust, credible and peer reviewed research which is underpinned by the scientific method i.e. good science is good science.

And there is an overwhelming and growing amount of good work by innumerable teams / researchers and credible organisations to suggest we humans have a significant role in climate change - and this is enough for me to agree that we need to be more proactive in dealing with this issue - and not deflecting the argument with weak studies such as the one referenced in the original article.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927248 31-Dec-2017 09:44

driller2000: And there is an overwhelming and growing amount of good work by innumerable teams / researchers and credible organisations to suggest we humans have a significant role in climate change - and this is enough for me to agree that we need to be more proactive in dealing with this issue - and not deflecting the argument with weak studies such as the one referenced in the original article.

Thing here is, you're arguing against an entrenched view rather than both sides participating in a debate centred around evidential veracity. This'll just keep going round and round in its current circles, much like all the other threads did.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927252 31-Dec-2017 09:52

Dratsab:

driller2000: And there is an overwhelming and growing amount of good work by innumerable teams / researchers and credible organisations to suggest we humans have a significant role in climate change - and this is enough for me to agree that we need to be more proactive in dealing with this issue - and not deflecting the argument with weak studies such as the one referenced in the original article.

Thing here is, you're arguing against an entrenched view rather than both sides participating in a debate centred around evidential veracity. This'll just keep going round and round in its current circles, much like all the other threads did.

100% I intend to forego threads next year where its not about a robust debate, its about venting.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1927253 31-Dec-2017 10:00

driller2000:

But that said, as an engineer - I will always be guided by robust, credible and peer reviewed research which is underpinned by the scientific method i.e. good science is good science.

And there is an overwhelming and growing amount of good work by innumerable teams / researchers and credible organisations to suggest we humans have a significant role in climate change - and this is enough for me to agree that we need to be more proactive in dealing with this issue - and not deflecting the argument with weak studies such as the one referenced in the original article.

Well stated. Applause. I also believe in scientific method and scientific consensus. Yes, there are hoaxers and corner-cutters who undermine the good work of others, but most scientists are meticulous and hard-working and the uninformed who glibly question their results are doing them a great disservice. The whole point of peer review is that it gradually weeds out those who do sloppy work or manipulate their results. This is a good thing, and when the ignorant seize on this process to call an entire body of work into question, I am reminded of hysterical witch-hunters of the past. The big problem with climate change science is the enormous vested interests that want to keep things the same. There is a lot of money tied up in preserving the status quo. The more money, the fewer politicians with courage. I am not sure we deserve to survive as a species anyway. The earth doesn't care. Maybe something better will succeed us as we all expire from heat stroke, just as we replaced the dinosaurs.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#1927254 31-Dec-2017 10:01

MaxLV:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

I dont think this organisation is a very good source. The 'team' behind this web site consists of one person - John P Reisman.

He's not a climate scientist. He's not even a doctor of anything. He used to work at the 'university of the world' ( yes thats really what it says).

He has a background in production engineering, the media industry and the department of defense.

The funding source for his foundation is not stated on the web site......(follow the money !).

This is what the web site says is his focus:

John's communication efforts focus on the relevance of understanding confluence issues related to climate change in order to highlight relevant areas of importance including what climate change means to our economy ......

On balance he sounds like a lobbyist.

But that's just him and his background. Let's ignore all that and say he had a good point. Let's say he had some evidence. I would imagine that other scientists (who generally are bright people) would recognise he had a good point and use his ideas in their own work. His ideas do not appear in any google searches related to academia that I could find (happy to be corrected if you can find any).

To go back to the logic you used in your post. Yes, we know the earth's climate has changed over the millenia. No one disputes that. The changes since industrialisation are way more rapid than the natural variations - and the changes haven't stopped yet.

When conditions change slowly , evolution occurs. When conditions change rapidly, extinction takes it place.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1927258 31-Dec-2017 10:09

Russia has a great deal of permafrost. Massive stores of methane. A doco I watched demonstrated the concerning level of the temperature there. It is in many places -0.5 degrees C He punched a hole onto it, lit a cigarette lighter, and poof, there was flame. When that thaws, it will be a big ouch, over possibly a short term, maybe just decades.

sailedpeep

83 posts

Master Geek

#1927314 31-Dec-2017 11:54

MaxLV:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/scientists-warn-mini-ice-age-that-could-hit-earth-freeze-major-rivers-by-2030-754819

And this is why I'm so sceptical about Climate Change/Global Warming...

Anything coming from the International Business Times already gives me red flags. This research is coming from a maths professor, not a climate researcher. That doesn't discredit his findings, but science isn't something where complicated details of big topics can be boiled down to basic cause and effect. Multiple other research papers have found that the effects of new sunspots won't be a major factor in affecting the overall trend of warming. This isn't a new concept to climate researchers, they intimately know how the formation of sunspots will affect their models and have factored them in.

Even if you forget warming entirely, ocean acidification will still be a major issue going into the next few decades and will drastically change ecosystems on a massive level.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9