|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 9, 2024 19:14:49 GMT
So to be clear, you think "most people" (more than 50%) accepted years ago that humans were causing global warming, mainly with CO2 emissions, but that since then more than 50% have discovered that this science was wrong? You actually believe that the tide is turning away from this scientific orthodoxy, towards skepticism that CO2 emissions are causing warming? I expressed an opinion as regards my personal experience. If one refers to the science behind the narrative now in any casual conversation there is far more cynicism as regards the findings. 30 years ago people accepted science much more readily but they see propaganda for what it is. If science is settled and is an orthodoxy it does not need to protect itself with denigration of those who find different or try and close down those who will not accept the orthodoxy. Science says the earth is a globe of sorts, that has been proven time and again by asking the hard questions and exploring the reality and always, and I mean always, the hard questions indicate a globe. AGW theory finds the hard questions difficult and instead tries to denigrate those who ask them instead of dealing with the questions and that is by no means science, it is religion and/or politics. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 9, 2024 20:24:49 GMT
I expressed an opinion as regards my personal experience. Then you need to broaden your experience. I have been debunking climate denialism online ever since the days of the first bulletin boards, so I have direct experience of exactly how prevalent it is. I'd say it was still going quite strong 10 years ago, but since then it has dwindled to almost nothing. Doubtless there are still plenty of people like you out there, but nearly all of them have gone very quiet over the last few years, especially the last 2 or 3. In fact, I had begun to assume that it was, at least in public, extinct. There are plenty of people who are publicly resisting actually doing anything about it, but that's a completely different argument -- one which is openly political, instead of pretending to be scientific. Science has always denigrated those who continue to deny scientific reality long after it has been settled, and always will. That battle is over. You may still be fighting it here with people like me who turn up and then rapidly conclude most of the people posting here are bonkers and leave again, but in sphere of mainstream politics the debate is over now. It was over in the scientific community more like 20 years ago. If I thought there was any chance of it catching on again then I'd be quite concerned, but there isn't, so I'm not. And they all lived happily ever after. I'm out of here. Have a nice day.:-) |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 9, 2024 20:57:51 GMT
I expressed an opinion as regards my personal experience. Then you need to broaden your experience. I have been debunking climate denialism online ever since the days of the first bulletin boards, so I have direct experience of exactly how prevalent it is. I'd say it was still going quite strong 10 years ago, but since then it has dwindled to almost nothing. Doubtless there are still plenty of people like you out there, but nearly all of them have gone very quiet over the last few years, especially the last 2 or 3. In fact, I had begun to assume that it was, at least in public, extinct. There are plenty of people who are publicly resisting actually doing anything about it, but that's a completely different argument -- one which is openly political, instead of pretending to be scientific. Science has always denigrated those who continue to deny scientific reality long after it has been settled, and always will. That battle is over. You may still be fighting it here with people like me who turn up and then rapidly conclude most of the people posting here are bonkers and leave again, but in sphere of mainstream politics the debate is over now. It was over in the scientific community more like 20 years ago. If I thought there was any chance of it catching on again then I'd be quite concerned, but there isn't, so I'm not. And they all lived happily ever after. I'm out of here. Have a nice day.:-) Just in case you pop back. Broadening my experience was what brought me to question the climate narrative. Interesting that in debunking climate denialism for so many years you found it singularly difficult to refer to any scientific research or published data that supported the 'consensus'. Your debunking consists of several distinct strands loosely summarised as 1) No it isn't. 2) It is so. 3) I know what I am talking about. 4) Anyone who disagrees is bonkers. 5) Disdain I hope you are not being paid for your contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 9, 2024 21:25:10 GMT
U.S Surface Temperature March 2024 | 1.49°F (0.83°C) US Climate Reference Network (data updated 10-15th of month) The US Climate Reference Network record from 2005 shows no obvious warming during this period. The graph is created monthly by NOAA. The graph shows the Average Surface Temperature Anomaly for the contiguous United States since 2005. The data comes from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) which is a properly sited (away from human influences and infrastructure) and state-of-the-art weather network consisting of 114 stations in the USA. These station locations were chosen to avoid warm biases from Urban Heat Islands (UHI) effects as well as microsite effects as documented in the 2022 report Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed. Unfortunately, NOAA never reports this data in their monthly or yearly “state of the climate report.” And, mainstream media either is entirely unaware of the existence of this data set or has chosen not to report on this U.S. temperature record. The national USCRN data, updated monthly as shown in the graph can be viewed here and clicking on ClimDiv to remove that data display in the graph: www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/024-hour precipitation and temperature data for individual stations can be viewed with graphs, by clicking ‘PLOT’ on the Current Observations page: ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/current-observations  |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 10, 2024 6:49:17 GMT
Anthropoz said: "Science has always denigrated those who continue to deny scientific reality long after it has been settled, and always will".
This encapsulates your misunderstanding of science. Maybe you'd like to give me an example of "scientific reality" or "settled" science. The only "real" or "settled" things about science are the observations of the natural world that it uses to formulate its theories. And these observations are subject to error and can be revised when we get better technology (massive telescopes and very powerful microscopes for example).
The "theories" that science makes in an attempt to explain the relationships between various observations are NEVER settled - and they're NEVER reality. They're always subject to change. So newton's theory of gravity was that there was an attractive force between masses - and this worked well on the medium scale. On the macro scale it failed and Einstein's theory of relativity takes over, which relies on an entirely different theory with no forces assumed. But Quantum theory approaches it from a different angle again. NONE of them represent "reality". However they do provide equations (models) that give accurate predictions in areas that they cover.
So the CO2 theory of global warming is just a first (and very simplistic) stab at guessing the cause of warming. However the major problem with it is that its predictions are consistently WRONG - and wrong in the direction of exaggeration. In fact they're so badly wrong that the IPCC have taken to manipulating the data (collected by various means since 1850) by filtering it through its models (which assume CO2 causes warming). This is NOT science.
By the way I think you mean Nigel Lawson (not Leon Brittan). He used to be allowed to give an opinion on AGW on the BBC, but people began complaining that he shouldn't be given a platform to air his views because he's not a scientist. SO the BBC no longer gives him a platform - though they seem happy to talk to the likes of Emma Thomson. It's always a bad sign when people start objecting to alternative views on science. Science has always evolved (and progressed) by people who criticise it and propose alternative theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 10, 2024 7:30:54 GMT
Summer heatwaves 2022. Remember those?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 10, 2024 8:18:27 GMT
Summer heatwaves 2022. Remember those? I think we all do. What matters is why you think they are important, what causes them and in reality can we do anything about them. That is leaving aside the obvious question did we measure them properly. For most people 1976 was hotter and longer even if it was not. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 10, 2024 8:21:56 GMT
A lot hotter than 1976. Hottest I've ever experienced.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 10, 2024 8:28:02 GMT
A lot hotter than 1976. Hottest I've ever experienced. Not as long and not as consistent in its daily temps though. There is little doubt things are a little warmer, the big questions are by how much, what is causing it and can it be stopped. I would say the answers are not much, we do not know and no. In the main we have to deal with weather. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 10, 2024 8:33:26 GMT
* Deforestation of the rainforests is a big one.
* Industrial scale use of fossil fuels is a big one.
* Arctic and Antarctic sea ice melt is a big factor.
CFC's in the atmosphere for decades above the poles are still causing problems and those are also greenhouse gases.
* There are ocean habitats which have even better sequestration of CO2 than rainforests, but overfishing, for example by EU super trawlers, has had a devastating effect.
What we can do about it?
Reforestation.
Nuclear power.
Carbon capture and fuel synthesis to recycle atmospheric CO2 without adding to net CO2.
World wide ban on factory fishing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 10, 2024 9:10:44 GMT
* Deforestation of the rainforests is a big one. * Industrial scale use of fossil fuels is a big one. * Arctic and Antarctic sea ice melt is a big factor. CFC's in the atmosphere for decades above the poles are still causing problems and those are also greenhouse gases. * There are ocean habitats which have even better sequestration of CO2 than rainforests, but overfishing, for example by EU super trawlers, has had a devastating effect. What we can do about it? Reforestation. Nuclear power. Carbon capture and fuel synthesis to recycle atmospheric CO2 without adding to net CO2. World wide ban on factory fishing. That does not consider the 'how much'. Most of our record temps are in areas of urban development. We always have up to 5 degrees C difference between rural and urban areas. Why is industrial scale of fossil fuels a big factor? That only works if you consider CO2 important and 'the science' is far from convincing that it is a problem. The only real solution is a declining population otherwise all of the above are needed for the increasing population. We will never all agree on what to do so best idea is to pull up the drawbridge and prepare for the long siege ahead and be brutally independent. Some supra government along lines of the WEF I am sure have plans to reduce the world population to manageable levels by dictat and force. Like the Roman...etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 10, 2024 9:56:36 GMT
Summer heatwaves 2022. Remember those? I think we all do. What matters is why you think they are important, what causes them and in reality can we do anything about them. That is leaving aside the obvious question did we measure them properly. For most people 1976 was hotter and longer even if it was not. I remember the winters and summer of the 70's were very different to the winters and summer of now; everyone I know, from wherever in the world they are, says the same. So it would IMO be utter lunacy (on a scale of denying heliocentrism or claiming the earth is flat) to deny that the climate is changing. So we have to ask ourselves what is driving that change. In truth man's impacts are only one of a series of "causal factors" for Global Climate Change. However, as the human population of the planet increases they are an increasing factor. Not just because of the CO2, but also because of all the other things that come with an increasing human population. More urban sites, that are prone to create hotspots. More destruction of natural habitats to provide land for those urban sites. More water usage. More sewerage. Decreasing biodiversity. that limits local, regional and global environments' abilities to adapt to climate change. The root cause of man's increasing evident climate impact is all down to one thing: overpopulation. The reason global governments are super wary of a) committing to meaningful change, b) enacting meaningful change, and c) telling us about those meaningful changes is because all of those are utterly pointless unless we address the real herd of elephants in the room Overpopulation. There's reason no one is seriously discussing Overpopulation: because the people who own and pay for Governments the world over want, and need MORE consumers, MORE cheap labour and so MORE population - because that drives MORE profit. Until we are ready to have a truly holistic discussion about Population and Climate Change all were are doing is pissing into the increasingly strong wind. But we MUST have that holistic conversation; because if we do not find a solution then nature will find that solution for us. Thinking about any of these issues in isolation not only ensures no solution will be found, but also that we leave a very, very bleak future for our children and grand children. Does anyone here really think Covid 19 would have been such an global issue had we had a global population of half of what we did have, if international movement of goods and people were half of what they are? We are sleep-walking into another Pandemic (and it is a WHEN not an if) and Global Resource Wars (fresh water being the likely key resource) simply because no major global government is prepared to tell Big Business they have to accept lower profits, lower numbers of consumers and more expensive labour. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 10, 2024 10:14:37 GMT
* Deforestation of the rainforests is a big one. * Industrial scale use of fossil fuels is a big one. * Arctic and Antarctic sea ice melt is a big factor. CFC's in the atmosphere for decades above the poles are still causing problems and those are also greenhouse gases. * There are ocean habitats which have even better sequestration of CO2 than rainforests, but overfishing, for example by EU super trawlers, has had a devastating effect. What we can do about it? Reforestation. Nuclear power. Carbon capture and fuel synthesis to recycle atmospheric CO2 without adding to net CO2. World wide ban on factory fishing. You've left out the most important factor - over population. The Earth obviously can't support the current population - but it's still growing fast. But the politicians don't want to talk about - they'd rather talk about non-issues like CO2. But there is one emerging technology that can help us. We can put solar panels on the moon and beam the energy back to Earth using microwaves. Elon Musk has always rubbished this because the conversion of electricity to microwaves - and back - loses a lot of energy. But who cares. There's so much energy that can be harvested because it's 12 hours a day full Sun all year round. All we need to do is crack the problem of being able to build the panels on the moon. With the advances in solar panel design this can be done. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 10, 2024 10:42:33 GMT
* Deforestation of the rainforests is a big one. * Industrial scale use of fossil fuels is a big one. * Arctic and Antarctic sea ice melt is a big factor. CFC's in the atmosphere for decades above the poles are still causing problems and those are also greenhouse gases. * There are ocean habitats which have even better sequestration of CO2 than rainforests, but overfishing, for example by EU super trawlers, has had a devastating effect. What we can do about it? Reforestation. Nuclear power. Carbon capture and fuel synthesis to recycle atmospheric CO2 without adding to net CO2. World wide ban on factory fishing. You've left out the most important factor - over population. The Earth obviously can't support the current population - but it's still growing fast. But the politicians don't want to talk about - they'd rather talk about non-issues like CO2. But there is one emerging technology that can help us. We can put solar panels on the moon and beam the energy back to Earth using microwaves. Elon Musk has always rubbished this because the conversion of electricity to microwaves - and back - loses a lot of energy. But who cares. There's so much energy that can be harvested because it's 12 hours a day full Sun all year round. All we need to do is crack the problem of being able to build the panels on the moon. With the advances in solar panel design this can be done. If the energy required to build, transport, convert to microwave, covert back to electricity makes this system less efficient than, for example, CO2 we'd be better off using CO2. In fact it would need to significantly more energy efficient than CO2 to justify spending CO2 on the project in the first place. This may be a solution 20, 50, 100 years from now. We need NOW solutions, not future solutions. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 10, 2024 10:48:10 GMT
Overpopulation is a problem, but short of genocide (which is not an option) we're stuck with it.
The idea of space based solar power stations and microwave relays on earth, was proposed in the 1970's, I remember reading about it in one of my childhood books.
But Thorium nuclear power works, cannot melt down the way conventional nuclear power can, and does not provide weapons grade isotopes for thermonuclear bombs either.
Fusion shows promise, and if that can be developed into industrial power plants, we've cracked cheap electricity for the developed world.
BUT we need carbon capture.
And the best thing to do with captured CO2 is to make fuel for motorcars.
We also need re forestation.
|
|
