Slightly OT: this is also the numbers game that put a lot of politicians in power. So there must be something to it
'56% of voters voted for me!' without telling that only 40% of eligible voters turned out.
Jan
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, please see https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...MIke3iwMib5AIVhoXVCh0elQhMEAAYAiAAEgKi7fD_BwE
where they have kindly gathered a number of graphs. The neatest one is that which stacks projections over actual observed temperature increases. Australia’s temperature increases did not decline, but had leveled off up until the point at which the data was used (2000) so I have no source later than this.
The IPCC and other alarmist groups have much to answer for, but the anti-AGW crew have more in my view. NASA have had their issues (Shuttle, late projects), as has NOAA (initially alarmist), but when measurements from multiple data sets from multiple platforms (satellite, ground based etc) show increases and it is ignored, or better still the data is manipulated (through averaging windows, or rate of change interpretations) to indicate little or no warming, I am skeptical.
But the biggest question of all here is why would these agencies (NASA, NOAA, IPCC) deploy a massive conspiratorial scam on the populace which is what anti-AGW people claim? To what end and what purpose? Why would responsible governments all over the planet be trying to move away from fossil fuels (and especially for example here in the EU where most collect huge tax revenues from gasoline sales) and towards renewables.
I get the question ‘but look at China and India. How about sanctions duties to force compliance then rather than a zero sum divisive trade war.
The simple question remains, after 10 000 years of extraordinarily stable temperatures humans pumped 100 cubic kilometers of a potent GHG - CO2 - into the atmosphere and we’ve seen a concomitant rise in global temperatures. Some of us say the science says they are linked and it is therefore of concern, the others say humankind has nothing to do with it, keep on pumping it out bud.
Worst of all, I saw a presentation by someone with graphs that looked nothing like NASA’s, the IPCC or NOAA’s supporting this view that at the end said ‘look what’s happened over the last 40 years - poverty down, calorific intake up, disease down’ blah blah. Of course what he failed to say is that inequality had grown and of course limiting GHG emissions would stymie the ability of corporations and their shareholders to keep making money at the expense of the environment. The oil industry has its hands all over governments with lobbyist groups in just about any major Western capital you care to name.
Blackrock invested $90 billion over the last decade in coal mining and other fossil energy enterprises. It so happens that they have had to take huge write-downs (losses) on those investments because alternative zero emissions technologies have plummeted in costs and the uptake has been far faster than their original investment thesis projected (another forecast that did not meet expectations . . . ).
I leave you with these
Interactive: 100 years of temperatures in Australia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Interactive: Climate time machine – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (select ‘Average Global Temperatures’ icon on the RHS)
===
Both India and China’s population growth has peaked. India is sitting at about 1.2% for example. Both countries populations will decline over the next 100 years and by 2150 China will be at 900 million people, India about the same.
All countries go through the demographic transition and global population will peak at 9 billion before slowly declining back down to 7 billion (depends on who forecasts it, but the DT has been shown to be a very robust theory).
Demographic transition - Wikipedia
If you read it, you will see why education and economic development (and especially for women) is so important for reducing birth rate.
So yes, we probably do have too many ‘hoomans’ on the spaceship, but the good news is it won’t go on rising for ever. The biggest elephant in the room is the 5kWh people consume every day in the developed world. Getting efficient and to zero carbon emissions through renewables, electric, nuclear is where have to head IMV.
The other alternative is another ice age which would quickly sort all this stuff out and halve human population pretty quickly.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Have you guys participated in Veganism thread here? This particular subject was discussed recently.
It's hard to debate that without getting political and there are "filters" on this forum so it's not feasible. There are other fourms which had this subject debated to death with much less restrictions.
Who are those others and where are they?
Why is it necessarily ice age when the warm age is said to be already on its way to do the dirty deed?
“the others say humankind has nothing to do with it, keep on pumping it out bud.”
Who are those others and where are they?
The Amazon is currently ablaze thanks to policies introduced by that country’s current administration. If you care to dig around some of the climate science sites out there, there are plenty of people who don’t believe in AWG and point to the benefits of liberal environmental policy.
“Why is it necessarily ice age when the warm age is said to be already on its way to do the dirty deed?”
Pick your poison. An ice-age is not due for many milenia is in any event (depends primarily on earths orbital eccentricity and obliquity with secondary mechanisms related to Gaia processes ). I fear either will do the job, but the ice age would be quicker and more brutal: how about an ice sheet in some places 2 miles thick all the way down to New York’s latitude across North Amercia and much of Eurasia west of the Urals. For some reason east of the Urals was not covered in an ice sheet, but mid-summer temperatures were rarely above 4 or 5 Celsius.
Who are those others and where are they?
The Amazon is currently ablaze thanks to policies introduced by that country’s current administration. If you care to dig around some of the climate science sites out there, there are plenty of people who don’t believe in AWG and point to the benefits of liberal environmental policy.
“Why is it necessarily ice age when the warm age is said to be already on its way to do the dirty deed?”
Pick your poison. An ice-age is not due for many milenia is in any event (depends primarily on earths orbital eccentricity and obliquity with secondary mechanisms related to Gaia processes ). I fear either will do the job, but the ice age would be quicker and more brutal: how about an ice sheet in some places 2 miles thick all the way down to New York’s latitude across North Amercia and much of Eurasia west of the Urals. For some reason east of the Urals was not covered in an ice sheet, but mid-summer temperatures were rarely above 4 or 5 Celsius.
Last edited:
Take a look here (and wonder why nobody referred to it, yet):
Sea Ice Index | National Snow and Ice Data Center
It’s nonsense. There is no conspiracy. Period. It’s a place where trolls and people who Are too lazy to research the science go
There are up to now diverging trends from the westantarctis and the eastantartic ice, but it seems that there is a mass loss overall:
Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature
"Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017"
Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature
"Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017"
It shows ups as well as downs in Antarctica.
There is a conspiracy, period.
Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia
Seems the way to go. I read an article about it in Natgeo (IIRC) quite a few years ago. Seems a pity that more money was not spent on research while everyone is chasing the fusion holy grail. They been saying it will be in the 'next 10 years' for 50 years now and I would not hold my breath on that one.
No there is not. Next we'll be saying is the 'Club of Rome', the illuminati are involved and Nostradamus warned of it - 666 and all that stuff.
We are screwing up the natural order (Gaia) in the name of profits and if we dial it down it will affect big business and shareholders and that's the only reason you see all this anti-AGW garbage going on, instead of scientific debate on the subject. This is still a young science and the subject is seriously complex - like trying to tease a needle out of a haystack so expect plenty of bumps along the way.
Do you believe the US landed on the moon in 1969?
Much worse, unfortunately ...!
La catastrofe del pinguino emperador: murieron mile... | Pagina12
The population of emperor penguins has been in clear decline for years and a study published in the scientific journal Antarctic Science gives an account of the reason: penguins are dying because their habitat melts.
The study describes as "catastrophic" what has been happening in the Halley neighborhood, of the second emperor penguin settlement. Located in a bay on the Weddell Sea, that colony received up to 25,000 couples who went there every year to reproduce.
What has changed in recent years is that the ice on the platform where the penguins nest melts ahead of time. Bays like the Halley, protected from the harsh Antarctic climate, used to have enough ice during the summer to ensure the penguins' reproduction. If the ice breaks before they have moved their feathers and also strengthened their lungs, the chicks die when they fall into the water because they cannot swim.
According to the research, the behavior of the frozen layer of Halley Bay began to vary in the beginning of spring 2015. Peter Fretwell and Philip Trathan, the scientists of the British Antarctic Survey authors of the study, associate the change with the phenomenon El Niño, whereby the greatest stormy weather of the last 60 years was recorded, with strong winds and a record reduction in sea ice. The year after that phenomenon, the ice broke in October, before the penguin chicks were strong to survive. The same happened in 2017 and 2018.
The difficulties for reproduction in the Halley have led to a tenfold increase in the population of the emperor penguin colony of Dawson-Lambton, located 55 kilometers south.
The study by Fretwell and Trathan confirms what other investigations anticipated about the risks facing emperor penguins from climate change. Already in 2014 in the journal Nature Climate Change, a study of the Oceanographic Institution of Woods Hole was published, which warned that this species would be drastically reduced as a result of global warming.
Attachments
There is something called "trend" and there happens to be a branch of mathematics called "statistics". Never forget that global warming wasn't discovered by meteorologists but by statisticians from an insurance company.
The above are both opinion expressed on this forum.
Someone said the debate on climate change is settled. It was a politician, not big business and shareholder. There goes your theory "only reason you see all this anti-AGW garbage going on".
Thank you to everyone who made kind comments about my posts.
Sorry to have been gone so long. One of our elderly cats had been very sick for some weeks. Her kidneys were slowly failing, and the moment all pet-owners dread arrived yesterday, the moment when you have to make the decision whether to put your pet to death, or allow it to continue to suffer.
I was not in the frame of mind to contemplate and discuss death on a massive scale, which is what is in our collective future, and part of what we have been discussing on this thread.
Incidentally, the record heat-wave of 2003 caused an estimated thirty thousand deaths in Europe alone ( European heat wave of 2003 | Britannica.com ). The collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001 caused about three thousand deaths, and that was sufficient to engulf thirty-nine nations in a bloody war.
In other words, in 2003 alone, and in Europe alone, global climate change claimed ten times as many human lives as the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers did.
Mass-scale human deaths due to climate change are not a problem for the future. They have already been happening for at least a decade and a half. One study estimated that at the present time, four hundred thousand deaths annually are caused by climate change - far more than deaths caused by terrorism ( Map: Climate Change Kills More People Worldwide Than Terrorism | The New Republic ).
-Gnobuddy
Sorry to have been gone so long. One of our elderly cats had been very sick for some weeks. Her kidneys were slowly failing, and the moment all pet-owners dread arrived yesterday, the moment when you have to make the decision whether to put your pet to death, or allow it to continue to suffer.
I was not in the frame of mind to contemplate and discuss death on a massive scale, which is what is in our collective future, and part of what we have been discussing on this thread.
Incidentally, the record heat-wave of 2003 caused an estimated thirty thousand deaths in Europe alone ( European heat wave of 2003 | Britannica.com ). The collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001 caused about three thousand deaths, and that was sufficient to engulf thirty-nine nations in a bloody war.
In other words, in 2003 alone, and in Europe alone, global climate change claimed ten times as many human lives as the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers did.
Mass-scale human deaths due to climate change are not a problem for the future. They have already been happening for at least a decade and a half. One study estimated that at the present time, four hundred thousand deaths annually are caused by climate change - far more than deaths caused by terrorism ( Map: Climate Change Kills More People Worldwide Than Terrorism | The New Republic ).
-Gnobuddy
The basic human sentiment is not to give a **** about much. Smoking, obesity...who gives a ****. Clean air and water...who gives a ****. Extinction...who gives a ****. Land preservation...who gives a ****. Population..who gives a ****. The basic attitude: "Unless you show me beyond the shadow of a doubt that something will kill me by tomorrow, I don't really give a ****."
Just like that link shows, it was called "European heat wave", not "global warming".
There are many other causes of human deaths and yet you point out climate change. It sure does look like a personal bias.
If you eat a very large meal, it isn't called "obesity", it's called "a very large meal".
If you eat a thousand very large meals in quick succession, you will indeed be obese.
And when you have a thousand heat-records in quick succession, you are living with drastic climate change.
You have to understand a little about statistics to really "get" this. But common sense will at least get you partway: what would you do if you were at a Las Vegas card table where one person kept winning every round? After one thousand wins in a row, would you still believe this was a fair game? Of would you know that this guy was cheating somehow?
By the same token, after thousands of heat records in a decade (and far, far fewer cold records), how can you still believe this is normal weather? (If you do, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.)
Yes, of course there are many causes of death. Old age, for example. Everything dies eventually. Any sane human being accepts that.
But I'm much more bothered by things that needlessly kill people long before old age does. Babies that die of starvation, for example, because their mothers are too malnourished to produce breast-milk. Or the four hundred thousand people who now die before their time each year of causes related to climate change.
Answer me this: even if I was obsessed with deaths caused by climate change, what does that have to do with any of the FACTS I've provided links to in almost every one of my posts? "Aha, you have a bias!" does not alter "The glaciers are melting at alarming rates", or "Anchorage, Alaska, just hit 90 degrees Fahrenheit, at a time of year when it would normally be about 55 - 60 F." ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...ers-states-hottest-days-record/?noredirect=on )
Once again, that is exactly why science works: the results it produces are correct, regardless of individual human bias. Nobody believed Einstein's Special Relativity when he published it (eveyone was biased against something so outrageous), but nobody could find a fault, either, and eventually, mounting experimental evidence clinched it; he was right, and there's no doubt any longer, because we now have a century's worth of proofs and supporting data.
You know your car gets hotter than the outside air when you park it in the sun; you know this is caused by the greenhouse effect; so why is it so hard to understand that the same physics that applies to your car also applies to the entire planet?
-Gnobuddy
Thanks, I appreciate the thought.Hi Gnobuddy, sorry to hear you lost a beloved pet
Tony.
We had her for fourteen years. Her death leaves quite a void.
-Gnobuddy
- Status
- Not open for further replies.