Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

If we are having an effect then we need to balance up what the effect will be against what the cost to us will be by changing how we operate and live.

By doing what and to whom
Might be more productive to worry about the end of the next Solar Cycle when the sun starts to get agitated a bit more again and could unleash a nice burp like the theoretical one that possibly fried the megafauna off of North America and Australia around the middle of the Younger Dryas Period.

Next time, if there is a next time, it could be Europe and Western Russia, or Africa and the ME, or China and Eastern Russia that get obliterated, but it will definitely fry everyones' satellites and electronics. And it will be after the current solar minimum we are entering which could last longer than our remaining oil reserves. In any case, it is going to be getting colder for a while, before it heats back up a little, or a hell of a lot for some.
 
Couldn't get much colder here it was -10C last night and worse to come.
 
@anglo and @SOCALSapper

I do not disagree that the extremist message is flawed and puts people off.
Which extremist message?

my point is, if humans are having an effect then AGCC is not a myth, a hoax or conspiracy but something to discuss seriously.
Your point is incorrect. And pick an acronym to stick with, or spell it out. There is no measurable effect. So what does that make it?

It is akin to anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.
"Climate scientists" are exactly like anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers using flawed technique and pseudo-science to push their agenda. But the latter two categories are otherwise not germane to the discussion.

Are vaccines 100% safe? No.

should we question orthodoxy? Yes?

That doesn’t meant the Earth is flat and we vaccines cause autism
Again, irrelevant straw men are irrelevant, except for their technique matching those of the priests of your apparent personal religion.
 
Last edited:
Plus they show different things. the black and white version shows an annual and 5 year mean whereas the colour version shows the annual means and Lowess Smoothing (no idea what that is).

I would bet if you compared the data points for the annual means they would be the same.

Edit - fugginell, did redshift just contribute something useful?
That would be the statistical rounding to "define" a more smooth trend line in the data, unfortunately that means it is an excuse to round up the representative lower temperature rural areas to match the larger cities (smaller areas) that have their own higher thermal imprint, grossly misrepresenting actuality.

No, they also adjust start points to force the trend line in the direction they prefer (up).

No, he rarely, if ever, contributes anything remotely useful.
 
Couldn't get much colder here it was -10C last night and worse to come.
Yes, it is going to get colder everywhere for a while... we have been sliding into the solar minimum for a while now. It might be a long one.
 
As is the suggestion that the increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration and humans burning lots of fossil fuels has no link at all.
Volcanoes and other natural vents release more CO2 every minute than we do for years.
The human contribution has never been measured, just like the natural vents have never been measured. There is no link between the unmeasured output of either.

They haven't even come close to being properly estimated, and those estimations that do exist attribute more of the unmeasured CO2 to human activity instead of vents where it belongs. They "sample" to estimate the human contribution in Hawaii, where there are plenty of vents and a small relative population of humans without a large energy consumption, not a lot of cars, not a lot of need for heating, much smaller demand for electricity. Think about that for a minute. Oh... right, never mind. We understand, it is wrong of us to expect you to extend yourself beyond your capabilities.
 
Volcanoes and other natural vents release more CO2 every minute than we do for years.
The human contribution has never been measured, just like the natural vents have never been measured. There is no link between the unmeasured output of either.

They haven't even come close to being properly estimated, and those estimations that do exist attribute more of the unmeasured CO2 to human activity instead of vents where it belongs. They "sample" to estimate the human contribution in Hawaii, where there are plenty of vents and a small relative population of humans without a large energy consumption, not a lot of cars, not a lot of need for heating, much smaller demand for electricity. Think about that for a minute. Oh... right, never mind. We understand, it is wrong of us to expect you to extend yourself beyond your capabilities.
Interesting ..... I spent a year in the Solomons where there are shore installations built by the US / allied forces during WW2 and noted that there didn't seem to have been a rise in seawater levels since then. Same in Funafuti, where some of the islands have suffered land loss but, although I am no expert, the loss seemed to be from long term erosion that started a long time before human carbon-producing activities have affected them.
 
Interesting ..... I spent a year in the Solomons where there are shore installations built by the US / allied forces during WW2 and noted that there didn't seem to have been a rise in seawater levels since then. Same in Funafuti, where some of the islands have suffered land loss but, although I am no expert, the loss seemed to be from long term erosion that started a long time before human carbon-producing activities have affected them.
Exactly. Erosion is a bitch, but it is a nice bitch when it brings you a job by uncovering UXO/UXB/ERW.
 
Plus they show different things. the black and white version shows an annual and 5 year mean whereas the colour version shows the annual means and Lowess Smoothing (no idea what that is).

I would bet if you compared the data points for the annual means they would be the same.

Edit - fugginell, did redshift just contribute something useful?
From a cursory glance at the 1930s not quite. A data point seems to have moved from just under 1.5 to just over 1. This is one of the changes the climate warriors are trying to make. Get rid of the very hot 1930s because it makes the current period look worse.
 
Plus they show different things. the black and white version shows an annual and 5 year mean whereas the colour version shows the annual means and Lowess Smoothing (no idea what that is).

I would bet if you compared the data points for the annual means they would be the same.

Edit - fugginell, did redshift just contribute something useful?
Now I’ve had a better look on a bigger screen they also seem to have increased the temp of the last data point on the top 1999 graph from just under 1.0 (and very similar to about 1952) to well over 1.0 (and significantly higher than 1952)on the 2017 graph. All the cooler temps below the line from 1979 to 1995 have increased by about 0.5. This appears to be their current means of showing a temp rise, mess about with the data presented only 20 years ago and pivot the graph to cool the distant past and warm the recent past and present.

There have been some videos on here from a guy called Tony Heller. While CC disciples will rubbish him and try to discredit him, he digs out the old data and compares to what is presented now and there are huge discrepancies without much in the way of explanation why it changed. He is also very good at digging out old news stories from virtually every decade back to the mid 1800s which show the media has been jumping on the “we’re doomed‘ bandwagon all that time and just like Al Gore and James Hansen none of the predictions transpire. We are unfortunate enough to live in a period where the scientists, media and politicians are all aligned because it suits them. The media sells stories and get clicks, the scientists get funding (we have a kind of scientific industrial complex to rival the military one) and the politicians get to tax the hell out of us. Oh and they all get to go to nice places for climate conferences on big jets (or Davos) while telling us to cancel our one overseas holiday a year.
 
People might also wonder why the US Temperature is important and why changing the record means as much as it does. The thing is that, although there are more weather and temperature recording stations than ever, there are still big gaps in the coverage. The US and Europe has the best coverage and the US historically has. The US data effectively becomes a proxy for all the data that isn’t necessarily available. So if you tweak the US data to show current warming and reduce the effect of historic warming or cooling you can use that as a big stick to beat the populace with.

Here is a map that maybe gives an idea of how important the US data is. Some fairly large gaps in places claiming hottest years etc.

1579807566091.png

This map shows where climate stations are and how long they’ve been there. The redder the older. In Africa and South America and much of Asia there are barely any older than 50-70 years old.
1579807715254.png
 
Interesting ..... I spent a year in the Solomons where there are shore installations built by the US / allied forces during WW2 and noted that there didn't seem to have been a rise in seawater levels since then. Same in Funafuti, where some of the islands have suffered land loss but, although I am no expert, the loss seemed to be from long term erosion that started a long time before human carbon-producing activities have affected them.
Interesting....


 
Interesting....


Global warming is a natural cyclic event to which human activity contributes little. In some areas of the world land is rising and in some areas land levels are falling. Sea levels are rising somewhat due to the melting ice caps and Glaciers. If it were true that those villages in the Solomons are being threatened by GW the sea level would be increasing all around the island on which the villages are located, however, this is not the case. I have lived on the Solomons and have visited many of the islands. Some areas are subject to natural erosion. Some areas are not. Some are increasing in landmass. Islands do arise and some disappear from time to time due to natural geophysical eventt.


The town of Munda on the Western Province -where I lived - has the same sea level now as it had during WW2, as evidenced by the water level at shore installations built by the US military after the island was recaptured from Japanese occupying forces in 1943.

Around 120,000 years ago part of the UK was covered in ice. The ice then receded and that was certainly not due to human activity, it was a natural event.

1579869370024.png


When UK was joined to Europe:
 
Last edited:
Anyone know how the Ozone layer is performing? Succinct compared to these posts. ;)
Much better since CFCs were banned. Not the same thing as global warming before someone conflates the two ideas.
 

craven50

Old-Salt
Much better since CFCs were banned. Not the same thing as global warming before someone conflates the two ideas.
Conflated? So the depletion of the Ozone layer does not contribute to GW! Never knew that must tell my ex university professor that. :D
 
Much better since CFCs were banned. Not the same thing as global warming before someone conflates the two ideas.
Although reduction in the ozone layer has been linked with ice caps meting, but of course as it’s not CO2 linked it doesn’t get talked about.

so we have Ozone depletion warming up the artic


But ozone depletion masking global warming in the antartic.

 
Last edited:
Conflated? So the depletion of the Ozone layer does not contribute to GW! Never knew that must tell my ex university professor that. :D
If you wouldn't mind getting him to explain it to me at the same time that would be good.

Not a pisstake (and most of my information is about a decade out of date) but I was under the impression that the ozone layer and temperatures at the surface weren't related. Destruction of the ozone layer was mainly due to chlorine free radicals and the subsequent chain reactions whereas global warming is due to the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface. As far as I understand it anyway.
 

anglo

LE
If you wouldn't mind getting him to explain it to me at the same time that would be good.

Not a pisstake (and most of my information is about a decade out of date) but I was under the impression that the ozone layer and temperatures at the surface weren't related. Destruction of the ozone layer was mainly due to chlorine free radicals and the subsequent chain reactions whereas global warming is due to the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface. As far as I understand it anyway.
"Not a pisstake (and most of my information is about a decade out of date) but I was under the impression that the ozone layer and temperatures at the surface weren't related."

Ozone (O3) depletion does not cause global warming, The stratospheric ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet (UV) radiation, ..
 

Latest Threads

Top