Greta Thunberg

[joe123]

Climate Change is a political movement, not just a scientific one. There's all sorts of reasons why scientists are bigging up the issue - peer pressure; funding pressure; desire to see action; career opportunity... as well as genuine beliefs of course. I am not saying all scientists are bent. And then you have the issue of how does the very complex scientific data get translated into a format which the layman can understand? By jounalists and politicians, all with their own agendas, and many of whom who have no scientific background whatsoever.

Here's the Earth's temperature record, going back millions of years, courtesy of the British Geological Survey:

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/climateThroughTime/map.html

Note the Permian period, 298.9-252.2 million years ago, when temperatures were much higher than they are now. Note the Cretaceous, 145-66 million years ago, when sea levels were much higher. Much higher in fact than they are event predicted to rise under the current IPCC predictions.

And yet I read the other day that the IPCC is suggest all coral reefs will be destroyed unless we constrain temperature rises to 1.5C or less. (And 90% will be lost at 1.5C). Really? I wonder where the present day coral reefs have come from given they must have all been wiped out previously?

I'm by no means an expert on this at all, but it goes without saying that the planet was a very different place 100's of millions of years ago, and not needing to sustain the population and infrastructures we've put in place. I'd make a reasonable guess that whilst undoubtedly using emotive language to land their point, scientists are describing the problem as it faces us now. I bow to their expertise on the matter, and whilst some may well have ulterior motives, I'm gonna take the expert view rather than someone like trump who thinks a cold breeze is evidence they're lying.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm by no means an expert on this at all, but it goes without saying that the planet was a very different place 100's of millions of years ago, and not needing to sustain the population and infrastructures we've put in place. I'd make a reasonable guess that whilst undoubtedly using emotive language to land their point, scientists are describing the problem as it faces us now. I bow to their expertise on the matter, and whilst some may well have ulterior motives, I'm gonna take the expert view rather than someone like trump who thinks a cold breeze is evidence they're lying.

I don't think they are lying mate. On the whole; probably some are on both sides of the argument. Like when the IPCC frigged the data in 2010 because the real data didn't support their arguments.

But I do think a sense of proportion is needed. Is it serious? Yes. Do we need to take action? Yes, absolutely. Are we all facing extinction? Absolutely not under any circumstances. And yet this latter nonsense is banded around all over the place, including on this very thread.

 

[Ban-jani]

This climate change can't come quickly enough for me, I'm taking my grandaughter to the park
this afternoon.

I know this is a joke but to confirm there’s every chance our weather will get shitter as a result.

Britain will be warmer but wetter in the future.

 

[KS55]

Climate Change is a political movement, not just a scientific one. There's all sorts of reasons why scientists are bigging up the issue - peer pressure; funding pressure; desire to see action; career opportunity... as well as genuine beliefs of course. I am not saying all scientists are bent. And then you have the issue of how does the very complex scientific data get translated into a format which the layman can understand? By jounalists and politicians, all with their own agendas, and many of whom who have no scientific background whatsoever.

Here's the Earth's temperature record, going back millions of years, courtesy of the British Geological Survey:

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/climateThroughTime/map.html

Note the Permian period, 298.9-252.2 million years ago, when temperatures were much higher than they are now. Note the Cretaceous, 145-66 million years ago, when sea levels were much higher. Much higher in fact than they are event predicted to rise under the current IPCC predictions.

And yet I read the other day that the IPCC is suggest all coral reefs will be destroyed unless we constrain temperature rises to 1.5C or less. (And 90% will be lost at 1.5C). Really? I wonder where the present day coral reefs have come from given they must have all been wiped out previously?

If you study the map, you will see that Stretford has been a swamp for a very long time.

 

[grunge]

I don't think they are lying mate. On the whole; probably some are on both sides of the argument. Like when the IPCC frigged the data in 2010 because the real data didn't support their arguments.

But I do think a sense of proportion is needed. Is it serious? Yes. Do we need to take action? Yes, absolutely. Are we all facing extinction? Absolutely not under any circumstances. And yet this latter nonsense is banded around all over the place, including on this very thread.

While I agree that humans will survive climate change, there is no reason we as a race we wont, im more concerned by the inevitable wars shrinking land masses or drought/famine will cause. doesn't take much imagination to see the likes of Pakistan + India going nuclear if a conflict happens, a 2m rise sees large chunks of Mumbai underwater, currently thats 20m people, if say half have to move thats 10m displaced.

 

[Chippy_boy]

While I agree that humans will survive climate change, there is no reason we as a race we wont, im more concerned by the inevitable wars shrinking land masses or drought/famine will cause. doesn't take much imagination to see the likes of Pakistan + India going nuclear if a conflict happens, a 2m rise sees large chunks of Mumbai underwater, currently thats 20m people, if say half have to move thats 10m displaced.

Sure, and if sea rises by 55 cm then it won't be anything like that bad.

From the 2018 IPCC report on sea level rise:

"For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from processbased models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m"

Predictions beyond 2100 are meaningless, since (a) forecasting further out is increasingly more difficult, and (b) since who knows what technology will be at our disposal by then. If we have cracked nuclear fusion, we'll have effectively limitless, carbon-free energy. Not only would this bring made-made CO2 output down to near zero, more important is what we could do with such "free" energy. For example, we could construct enormous ice-making machines and start to rebuilt the ice sheets artificially. Who knows what sort of technical capabilities we'll have in 100 or 200 years time.

 

[grunge]

Sure, and if sea rises by 55 cm then it won't be anything like that bad.

From the 2018 IPCC report on sea level rise:

"For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from processbased models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m"

Predictions beyond 2100 are meaningless, since (a) forecasting further out is increasingly more difficult, and (b) since who knows what technology will be at our disposal by then. If we have cracked nuclear fusion, we'll have effectively limitless, carbon-free energy. Not only would this bring made-made CO2 output down to near zero, more important is what we could do with such "free" energy. For example, we could construct enormous ice-making machines and start to rebuilt the ice sheets artificially. Who knows what sort of technical capabilities we'll have in 100 or 200 years time.

Yep, I was going by worst case which suggests planning for 2m+ by 2100.

Agreed about fusion, its absolutely key to how we progress as a race.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yep, I was going by worst case which suggests planning for 2m+ by 2100.

Agreed about fusion, its absolutely key to how we progress as a race.

I think we can safely assume things will be a whole lot less damaging than the IPCC predict, and they are predicting between 26cm and 55cm with a 95% confidence level. Anything else is just (even more) scaremongering.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think we can safely assume things will be a whole lot less damaging than the IPCC predict, and they are predicting between 26cm and 55cm with a 95% confidence level. Anything else is just (even more) scaremongering.

Are they basing that on current levels of consumption and C02 generation or are they adjusting it to allow for the exponential rises we're now looking at?

 

[joe123]

I think we can safely assume things will be a whole lot less damaging than the IPCC predict, and they are predicting between 26cm and 55cm with a 95% confidence level. Anything else is just (even more) scaremongering.

Whilst this may well be true, from my perspective, i don't see the harm in assuming the worst might happen and adjusting our habits accordingly. I'm not suggesting this of you, but my worry is there a danger that once people do see it as scaremongering, its a license to assume it's okay to do nothing. Hopefully that's just my natural City-borne pessimism coming through though.