|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 3, 2023 6:46:09 GMT
Incidentally. Busines as usual was the prediction if the world did nothing and Co2 emissions continued on their rising path, but the world has not done nothing and while we are nowhere near where we want to be the reductions made so far do have an effect. Here's the IPCC business as usual report. Though I suspect only you and I would actually read it. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf Not according to bumburgh as you well know. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 3, 2023 7:37:53 GMT
Incidentally. Busines as usual was the prediction if the world did nothing and Co2 emissions continued on their rising path, but the world has not done nothing and while we are nowhere near where we want to be the reductions made so far do have an effect. Here's the IPCC business as usual report. Though I suspect only you and I would actually read it. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf Not according to bumburgh as you well know. Personally I would just let them argue with themselves, they have been given the options, which in fairness to everyone else, they have ignored them while they are desperate to create a situation of constant argument until they have nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 3, 2023 7:46:13 GMT
Not according to bumburgh as you well know. Personally I would just let them argue with themselves, they have been given the options, which in fairness to everyone else, they have ignored them while they are desperate to create a situation of constant argument until they have nothing. I agree mate anyone would accept the results of a poll they started rather than hire a JCB. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 3, 2023 8:37:14 GMT
The comment has legs. Proving the evidence upon which one bases one's hypothesis seems like a reasonable requirement. The evidence currently has so many holes and false prophesies then we are entitled to be sceptical. In 1986 "Global Temperatures are predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020". About 0.5 is the current increase 1990 Warming is predicted to be 0.3C per decade. So far it is no more than 0.19 and could be 0.12 per decade. 1990 Business as usual forecast temperature increases about 1C above existent. So far it is no more than 0.49 and could be 0.32 Then we have storm, hurricane, wildfire, arctic sea ice, increased local rainfall, typhoons, West Antarctic giant melt, seal level rise to 15ft, three feet by 2000, food shortages, climate refugees, umpteen time running out predictions.. Time and again the consensus has proved itself incapable of making even a half decent prediction of what is going to happen. Crying wolf once gets our attention, calling it twice gets our attention, calling it 15 to 20 times with no wolf appearing means at best we would be idiotic to carry on believing. It is not that sceptics create false scenarios it is that those false scenarios have been boosted time and again to galvanise us into action and now we no longer accept the narrative. It is the warmists who have destroyed a possible consensus in the world population by overegging the pudding time and time again. Sandy, not you as well. Evidence is not proof, evidence is evidence. As for the rest of your post. For a moment lets assume your claims above are accurate. What is to be done, we know the earth is warming and we know its due to man. But we cannot accurately predict the rate. many things we didn't know about, such as the current solar maunder, are constantly changing the effects. So far most of these have been in the right direction but could easily have made the predictions too low. The deniers use these errors as evidence that global warming isn't happening, but you know better, you know its happening. So what do we do? Do we downgrade the predictions and hope they don't jump the other way and catch us out? Do we kick the can down the road, slow down the cuts in Co2 emissions and hope the increased temperatures predicted by various tipping points don't catch us out as well? Is your argument that its more important to please the crowd than to prepare for the worst? Well OK change proving a hypothesis to testing a hypothesis. Testing is supposed to be what is happening all the time and so far the hypothesis is that a multitude of xs will happen but so far almost none have . That type of testing the hypothesis throws the hypothesis into doubt. The problem is the 'errors' are manifold. I repeat again 'the deniers' (what a world there is in a description eh) do not say the planet is not warming they say that what is happening is mostly down to natural factors. So far all the tipping points have either not occurred or we are past them and we should have tipped. Placing another final/ultimate/irreversible tipping point a few more years in the future just joins the long line of final/ultimate/irreversible tipping points that have been and gone. There comes time when wolf no longer scares people. Preparing for the worst is not a problem but no one knows what the worst is and the worst so far has been pretty benign. The sandwich board of doom has been paraded too often round the streets and there was a time the warmists had the crowd with them. It is the fault of the warmists that they are losing the crowd not of those who point out the glaring and frequent errors in the doom laden forebodings of doom. They have been like the Roman just too often and shown to be wrong |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 3, 2023 8:54:48 GMT
Incidentally. Busines as usual was the prediction if the world did nothing and Co2 emissions continued on their rising path, but the world has not done nothing and while we are nowhere near where we want to be the reductions made so far do have an effect. Here's the IPCC business as usual report. Though I suspect only you and I would actually read it. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf Not according to bumburgh as you well know. Not according to others as well. We have the 1990 Business as usual and predictions for 2025. The emissions reached the Business as usual levels in 2019 yet the temperatures were somewhat lower. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 3, 2023 16:34:03 GMT
Not according to bumburgh as you well know. Not according to others as well. We have the 1990 Business as usual and predictions for 2025. The emissions reached the Business as usual levels in 2019 yet the temperatures were somewhat lower. So its not as simple as 2+2=4, there are variations that are inevitable given the complicated equation offered. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 3, 2023 17:59:37 GMT
Sandy, not you as well. Evidence is not proof, evidence is evidence. As for the rest of your post. For a moment lets assume your claims above are accurate. What is to be done, we know the earth is warming and we know its due to man. But we cannot accurately predict the rate. many things we didn't know about, such as the current solar maunder, are constantly changing the effects. So far most of these have been in the right direction but could easily have made the predictions too low. The deniers use these errors as evidence that global warming isn't happening, but you know better, you know its happening. So what do we do? Do we downgrade the predictions and hope they don't jump the other way and catch us out? Do we kick the can down the road, slow down the cuts in Co2 emissions and hope the increased temperatures predicted by various tipping points don't catch us out as well? Is your argument that its more important to please the crowd than to prepare for the worst? Not from the IPCC, maybe from the some zealots. . Deniers tells exactly what they are. People denying that current global warming is man made. They repeat endlessly that its natural and we've seen it before. What they never do is say what's causing it this time. If they ever do (which has stopped recently) it was always with things that could not possible generate the sort of heat energy needed to heat the whole planet. They offer no numbers to back up the claims, just its Tarmac etc. I was unaware we have reached any tipping point as yet? Don't know made that claim? But its kind of true. Its well known that if all the sea ice melts the amount of sunlight reflect back into space will fall and accelerate warming. Its well known that trapped methane under permafrost will escape if temperatures reach a certain level and this will also accelerate warming. I assume you don't deny these facts? The expected and the worst are clearly laid out in the IPCC reports. Whether you see it as benign depends really on what you consider important. If its just you and your life, then so far so good. If you are a British deciduous tree or live in Pakistan, not so good. They've always been there, every week at hyde park corner since forever there's been someone warning the world is about to end. When did you start thinking they represented scientific opinion or government action? Absolutely agree. I have said this for years about the woke with their ever moving targets on what's acceptable. Causing more harm to their cause than those they oppose. But the things the warmists (just stop oil etc) are saying are not either what the scientists are saying nor what the government are doing. You argument to date has been that the warmists are making false claims and that this is proven by minor anomalies in what the scientists are claiming. I suggest there is no connection between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 3, 2023 18:06:38 GMT
Not according to others as well. We have the 1990 Business as usual and predictions for 2025. The emissions reached the Business as usual levels in 2019 yet the temperatures were somewhat lower. So its not as simple as 2+2=4, there are variations that are inevitable given the complicated equation offered. No one has said any of it is simple but two things there; they made a business-as-usual prediction back in 1990 for what would occur in 2025 and what the emissions would be at that time as well as the predicted temp rise. We reached those emissions in 2019, we are no where near the temp increase; the second point that in order to take the public with the programme they have to simplify cause and effect and leave all the complicated calculations in the background. This makes the tendency to be secretive about how results were achieved very noticeable. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 3, 2023 18:19:58 GMT
So its not as simple as 2+2=4, there are variations that are inevitable given the complicated equation offered. No one has said any of it is simple but two things there; they made a business-as-usual prediction back in 1990 for what would occur in 2025 and what the emissions would be at that time as well as the predicted temp rise. We reached those emissions in 2019, we are no where near the temp increase; the second point that in order to take the public with the programme they have to simplify cause and effect and leave all the complicated calculations in the background. This makes the tendency to be secretive about how results were achieved very noticeable. Again taking your claim as accurate and that warming is slower than predicted. Mostly because of the unexpected solar maunder? What do you think we should do? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 3, 2023 18:21:42 GMT
Not from the IPCC, maybe from the some zealots. . Deniers tells exactly what they are. People denying that current global warming is natural. They repeat endlessly that its natural and we've seen it before. What they never do is say what's causing it this time. If they ever do (which has stopped recently) it was always with things that could not possible generate the sort of heat energy needed to heat the whole planet. They offer no numbers to back up the claims, just its Tarmac etc. I was unaware we have reached any tipping point as yet? Don't know made that claim? But its kind of true. Its well known that if all the sea ice melts the amount of sunlight reflect back into space will fall and accelerate warming. Its well known that trapped methane under permafrost will escape if temperatures reach a certain level and this will also accelerate warming. I assume you don't deny these facts? The expected and the worst are clearly laid out in the IPCC reports. Whether you see it as benign depends really on what you consider important. If its just you and your life, then so far so good. If you are a British deciduous tree or live in Pakistan, not so good. They've always been there, every week at hyde park corner since forever there's been someone warning the world is about to end. When did you start thinking they represented scientific opinion or government action? Absolutely agree. I have said this for years about the woke with their ever moving targets on what's acceptable. Causing more harm to their cause than those they oppose. But the things the warmists (just stop oil etc) are saying are not either what the scientists are saying nor what the government are doing. You argument to date has been that the warmists are making false claims and that this is proven by minor anomalies in what the scientists are claiming. I suggest there is no connection between the two. It is the IPCC that are presenting the hypothesis that AGW is caused by Greenhouse gas emissions and if we do not do something x will happen. No one knows for sure what is causing it this time. The planet is a law unto itself. British deciduous trees are creeping t ever higher altitudes. Pakistan's problem is population and corruption. Weather events there are in line with past records and the Indian sub continent has excellent records going back well over one hundred years ( I wonder why that was). The doomsayers are now in the world of science and influence the world of politics. So to be clear I am not saying they have made false claims I am saying their predictions have been erroneous and demonstrably so not as 'minor' anomalies but as pretty large inconsistencies and most decidedly do not test effectively their hypothesis. If your hypothesis does not stand up to testing, and broadly it does not, then you do not double down and claim something worse. I do not know if their current claims are erroneous but judging by their past claims and outcomes we should indeed be sceptical. EDIT you seem to take the metaphors too literally my fault perhaps I shall try and refrain |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 3, 2023 18:28:14 GMT
No one has said any of it is simple but two things there; they made a business-as-usual prediction back in 1990 for what would occur in 2025 and what the emissions would be at that time as well as the predicted temp rise. We reached those emissions in 2019, we are no where near the temp increase; the second point that in order to take the public with the programme they have to simplify cause and effect and leave all the complicated calculations in the background. This makes the tendency to be secretive about how results were achieved very noticeable. Again taking your claim as accurate and that warming is slower than predicted. Mostly because of the unexpected solar maunder? What do you think we should do? Not march inexorably to net zero in some unattainable near future. Take sensible steps to go for alternative energies. It is not and does not have to be an emergency |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 3, 2023 18:57:25 GMT
And what the IPCC say is true, but you keep switching between what warmists claim and what the IPCC claims. I disagree Dodge. Thousands of deciduous trees are succumbing to diseases they have not protection from. Which apparently only happened when the weather changed and the flooding started. No one is climatology agrees with you. So now we are back from blaming warmists and to claiming you know better than the scientists. And back to the warmists. Have you considered why there are errors? Aside from assuming it must mean Co2 doesn't cause warming or that somehow the earth knows the temperature we like and will somehow maintain it for us. Not sure where you used metaphors. Perhaps label them as such, so I don't miss them. I recognise that I do have ADHD and this means can can misunderstand what people mean. Often used to think I'm on the wrong planet, got better at it as I've aged.  |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 4, 2023 8:44:43 GMT
I have to say the “flaming June” splashed over the media is the propaganda it surely is,a news presenter solemnly saying this is the hottest June for over 130 years,fascinating stuff but how relative is that to the existence of the earth.
They then wheeled out some woman from the care industry who proclaimed she’d never known it so hot and they’d had to watch out for people in their care suffering dehydration (that is their job) I have to say I’ve never known a winter so cold and extended as the winter of 1963 the eggs froze in the larder,canals as commercial carriers were finally killed off but as far as climate history proves nothing.
Saw a local paper piece that if proof were ever needed that there’s a climate emergency this was it and a picture of a bus and van stranded in water in the dip in the road under a bridge.
No what it proved was that the councils have cabinets and policies on international affairs but fail to do what is their purpose and regularly clean the road grids.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 4, 2023 12:24:11 GMT
And what the IPCC say is true, but you keep switching between what warmists claim and what the IPCC claims. I disagree Dodge. Thousands of deciduous trees are succumbing to diseases they have not protection from. Which apparently only happened when the weather changed and the flooding started. No one is climatology agrees with you. So now we are back from blaming warmists and to claiming you know better than the scientists. And back to the warmists. Have you considered why there are errors? Aside from assuming it must mean Co2 doesn't cause warming or that somehow the earth knows the temperature we like and will somehow maintain it for us. Not sure where you used metaphors. Perhaps label them as such, so I don't miss them. I recognise that I do have ADHD and this means can can misunderstand what people mean. Often used to think I'm on the wrong planet, got better at it as I've aged. Do the sheep not realise net zero is just importing all our energy and letting other countries do all the dirty stuff just for the woke to believe they are carbon neutral.... its better for the environment for the UK to be energy self sufficient. North Sea oil, shale gas, coal and nuclear. All available in the UK.
NADINE DORRIES: Why I handed my electric car back
One Sunday last December, it was snowing when I finally admitted it to myself: I had made a dreadful mistake in buying an electric car.
I was driving through a blizzard in heavy traffic on the M6 to collect my mother, who was coming to stay with us for Christmas.
My middle daughter had insisted we listen to an audiobook throughout the interminable journey — on the motorway I hate most in the world.
The wipers on my Renault Zoe were struggling against the snowfall — and even though it was 2pm, the headlights were on.
The farther north we travelled towards Mum's home in Lytham St Annes, the lower the temperature outside dropped. The car's heater was on full blast — and its battery was draining before my eyes.
NADINE DORRIES: One Sunday last December, it was snowing when I finally
admitted it to myself: I had made a dreadful mistake in buying an electric car (stock image)
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 4, 2023 15:11:52 GMT
I have to say the “flaming June” splashed over the media is the propaganda it surely is,a news presenter solemnly saying this is the hottest June for over 130 years,fascinating stuff but how relative is that to the existence of the earth. They then wheeled out some woman from the care industry who proclaimed she’d never known it so hot and they’d had to watch out for people in their care suffering dehydration (that is their job) I have to say I’ve never known a winter so cold and extended as the winter of 1963 the eggs froze in the larder,canals as commercial carriers were finally killed off but as far as climate history proves nothing. Saw a local paper piece that if proof were ever needed that there’s a climate emergency this was it and a picture of a bus and van stranded in water in the dip in the road under a bridge. No what it proved was that the councils have cabinets and policies on international affairs but fail to do what is their purpose and regularly clean the road grids Did you see the thousands of dead fish starved of oxygen by the continuous high temperatures. Do you know why it was so cold in 1963?  |
|
