B
B
Climate Change is here and man made
- Thread starter SWP's back
- Start date
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
whichever is the elder means the other wears hand me downs - either way that explains a lot Lol !!
kas_tippler
Well-Known Member
But you're never up for a discussion, always confrontation, anger and argument. F'ing this bollocks that, it's a modern trend to speak to someone on forums etc differently than you would in real life.
Yaya_Tony
Well-Known Member
Don't be fucking stupid. You started it!
kas_tippler
Well-Known Member
I started climate change?!
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Are these the graphs that Piers Corbyn claims are just propaganda based on bogus satellite data?Plots of time series of globally and regionally averaged time series of temperature anomaly for each dataset can be viewed using a time series browse tool. Several examples of the plots available are shown below.
Figure 5. Globally averaged temperature anomaly time series for the Lower Tropospheric Temperature (TLT). The plot shows the warming ot the troposphere over the last 3 decades which has been attributed to human-caused global warming. (Click on the figure to go to the time series browse tool.)
Figure 6. Globally averaged temperature anomaly time series for the Lower Tropospheric Stratosphere (TLS). The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades. This cooling is caused by a combination of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases. During the most recent decade, the rate of cooling has reduced substantially. (Click on the figure to go to the time series browse tool.)
Might as well have a few more non photoshopped ones
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
No, i found them in a proverb.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Messages
- 4,619
It's not 200 years short, and it IS relevant to the point you were making.
If you look at global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels:
Global CO2 from fossil-fuel emissions by source:
And cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels:
You can see that anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels did not become potentially consequential factor until approximately 1950, and then grew rapidly thereafter. Per the Economist, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.’”
The large increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels since 1950 is quite clear in this global per capita carbon emissions graph:
It's apparent that the majority of the increase occurred after 1950, and the change between 1900 and 1950 was de minimis. The graph I posted demonstrated that one-third of man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997, yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all.
The whole climate change scare is nothing but a political scam. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences published this graph and warned of dramatic global COOLING.
The National Science Foundation warned of the same thing.
Never mind the actual history of the planet. The IPCC has a dirty job to do and has wiped out most of 20th century history with this graph, that shows no 1940s warmth and no 1970s global cooling scare. There is no “ominous world-wide cooling” shown in the IPCC graph from 1953 to 1973:
The next graph overlays the IPCC graph in red on the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph at the same scale. Our scumbag friends have knocked half a degree off most of the 20th century.
They will protest that the NAS graph is just for the Northern Hemisphere, trying to make the absurd case that from 1890 to 1910 the NH was warming rapidly while the SH was cooling even faster. Polarity divergence like that can’t happen, because both hemispheres are driven by ENSO.
Also note that the (scam) artist who created the IPCC graph forgot to put in the late 1930s peak.
The IPCC in conjunction with NASA and NOAA has completely rewritten Earth’s history, because they are criminally minded political organizations, not scientific ones.
kas_tippler
Well-Known Member
I am dyslexic.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
That's pretty impressive JTU, but surely the 1st graph proves my original point that temperatures have risen sharply since the start of the IR.
kas_tippler
Well-Known Member
The IPCC are a bunch of con artists, sorry I haven't got a graph to prove it .
I
I
inbetween
Guest
It isn't climate change we need to worry about but rather energy. Right now we are reliant on fossil fuels and at some point they will run out and it will certainly happen before the world's ice caps decide to melt or the world warms up a degree or two. Any idiot can draw a graph of our exponentially rising demands for energy and our exponentially decreasing capacities to produce it.
Draw your cross in the middle of that and that is the biggest threat to humanity right there. Couple this with aggravating factors like the rapidly increasing population and it doesn't take much to work out that sooner or later we will be in a lot of trouble. Let us hope we didn't waste all the money, talent and effort trying to prove or solve climate change instead of solving the biggest problem facing mankind today.
What do we do then? Well we can't lower our usage or lower the population so we need to build more nuclear reactors for a start and to funnel more money for research into new forms of energy. Obviously this will never happen because the green agenda is against the cleanest form of fuel we have access to right now which is completely ridiculous!
Just think, only a couple of hours of the sunlight that hits the Earth every single day could power every household on the planet for a year if it was harnessed properly.
This is what we really need to do instead of pussyfooting around building wind turbines and arguing over whether some ice is going to melt or we might all have to go to work in shorts. The real problem is staring at us directly in the face and unfortunately it goes largely ignored because ignorance is bliss really.
Draw your cross in the middle of that and that is the biggest threat to humanity right there. Couple this with aggravating factors like the rapidly increasing population and it doesn't take much to work out that sooner or later we will be in a lot of trouble. Let us hope we didn't waste all the money, talent and effort trying to prove or solve climate change instead of solving the biggest problem facing mankind today.
What do we do then? Well we can't lower our usage or lower the population so we need to build more nuclear reactors for a start and to funnel more money for research into new forms of energy. Obviously this will never happen because the green agenda is against the cleanest form of fuel we have access to right now which is completely ridiculous!
Just think, only a couple of hours of the sunlight that hits the Earth every single day could power every household on the planet for a year if it was harnessed properly.
This is what we really need to do instead of pussyfooting around building wind turbines and arguing over whether some ice is going to melt or we might all have to go to work in shorts. The real problem is staring at us directly in the face and unfortunately it goes largely ignored because ignorance is bliss really.
lazza
Well-Known Member
Man-made climate change is real, of that I have no doubt.
The biggest problem, as alluded to by shenmel, is that this is an immensely complex science, and it is therefore easy to select any single piece of data or any single graph to illustrate ones own point-of-view without having to understand it or explain it.
Single points of data shown out of context can show anything, but a graph such as the one below is more useful (it shows 11-year averages of surface temperature from three different sources, with the 11-year average being critical to ironing out the peaks and troughs, as for each year's data-point, the average temperature is calculated for that year and all the years +/-5 years)
Show me a graph of land-temperatures that appears flat, I'll show you a graph of deep-sea temperatures that shows a startling rise (such as the one below); show me a graph of ice-shelf surface area increasing, I'll show you a graph of a dramatic loss of global ice-volume (which takes into account thickness and surface area).
Two simple truths:
- the greenhouse effect is a very simple physical phenomenon, and is supported by incontrovertible science
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution due to human activity
It's not logical to argue that climate has always changed and so we shouldn't be worried. Of course it has always changed, but never at the rates of change we see now (man-made CC is - at most - a 150 year phenomenon, whereas previous comparable changes in climate took place over much longer timescales). And this also rather misses the point that controlling CC is not about "saving the Earth"....our planet will survive whether we are on it or not; it is about saving our current place on Earth. Of course, we can keep emitting greenhouse gases, and the planet's climate will change, and as humans, we may even be able to adapt to this change; but we can't expect our own lives to remain the same, or the ecosystems we live in to survive intact.
The biggest problem, as alluded to by shenmel, is that this is an immensely complex science, and it is therefore easy to select any single piece of data or any single graph to illustrate ones own point-of-view without having to understand it or explain it.
Single points of data shown out of context can show anything, but a graph such as the one below is more useful (it shows 11-year averages of surface temperature from three different sources, with the 11-year average being critical to ironing out the peaks and troughs, as for each year's data-point, the average temperature is calculated for that year and all the years +/-5 years)
Show me a graph of land-temperatures that appears flat, I'll show you a graph of deep-sea temperatures that shows a startling rise (such as the one below); show me a graph of ice-shelf surface area increasing, I'll show you a graph of a dramatic loss of global ice-volume (which takes into account thickness and surface area).
Two simple truths:
- the greenhouse effect is a very simple physical phenomenon, and is supported by incontrovertible science
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution due to human activity
It's not logical to argue that climate has always changed and so we shouldn't be worried. Of course it has always changed, but never at the rates of change we see now (man-made CC is - at most - a 150 year phenomenon, whereas previous comparable changes in climate took place over much longer timescales). And this also rather misses the point that controlling CC is not about "saving the Earth"....our planet will survive whether we are on it or not; it is about saving our current place on Earth. Of course, we can keep emitting greenhouse gases, and the planet's climate will change, and as humans, we may even be able to adapt to this change; but we can't expect our own lives to remain the same, or the ecosystems we live in to survive intact.
lazza
Well-Known Member
One other reply to an earlier comment about a burning a tree being the same CO2 output as natural decay. Sorry to say, but this is nonsense! In simple terms, burning a tree releases as CO2 all the carbon that has been captured by that tree throughout its lifetime in one go; a decaying tree however keeps much of the carbon locked up for a far longer period. Some of the carbon is not released at all as it remains locked up in other organisms that feed off the decaying plant such as fungi or insects, keeping the carbon part of complex molecules that enter the foodchain.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Climate change and what to do about it represents a threat to the global establishment , that's why they have politicized it into the argument 'left wingers want to tax you more' ( witness the comments made by assorted RWNJs on this thread).
Unfortunately in their favour is the fact that the threat is not immediate and it is only human nature to pay more attention to more present dangers.
Our grandchildren and succeeding generations will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction.
Unfortunately in their favour is the fact that the threat is not immediate and it is only human nature to pay more attention to more present dangers.
Our grandchildren and succeeding generations will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction.
lazza
Well-Known Member
That hits the nail on the head. There is a huge amount of political- and corporate weight behind the scepticism on climate change because the pay-offs from ignoring the issue are short-term, which benefits politicians (they get re-elected) and corporations (they make more money). Doing something about it only benefits the next generation.
Yaya_Tony
Well-Known Member
No you're being stupid agian. You started the argument.