Climate Emergency

jimmymelrose said:

Chizz said:

TD_Addick said:

cantersaddick said:

TD_Addick said:

bobmunro said:

jimmymelrose said:

TD_Addick said:

Chizz said:

It's good to have different viewpoints on a thread like this. Everyone comes at this subject from their own perspective and/or armed with evidence from the worlds of science, government and business. It's a great sharing of knowledge. 

In fact, no two posters share exactly the same thought process and deliver their messages in identical styles. Because, if two people did, that would look very suspicious indeed. 

Chippycafc said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

People are entitled to their opinions its called a forum.

Perhaps you can list what we shall talk about and which side of the fence to sit on. And your contribution on any thread 90% of the time is always to abuse others. 

TD_Addick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

It's called discussion mate, what people do on forums.You're entitled to your opinions and people are allowed to think differently if you don't like don't read the thread simple as that, should be easy to figure out for someone with superior intelligence like yourself. Good Lord. 

Lol how pathetic honestly, because me and Chippy said something similar its suspicious, great work Sherlock you've cracked the case. Maybe we both share the same viewpoint that the Climate Change enthusiasts are nothing but aggressive angry people who throw insults at people for people thinking differently. I've been called every name under the sun for saying it's hot outside because it's the summer (shocking isn't it hot in the summer you wouldn't think that). 

Thinking differently does not necessarily mean thinking straight.

How about: ' Shit, it’s 45 degrees outside, the trees are burning, we have to evacuate, but it’s summer’ 

Try saying that to the people around Bordeaux. If it hasn’t sunk in yet, it will as it moves northwards and if you’ve got another 50 years to live.

100%

Nobody is using the argument that one hot summer or an extended few weeks of high temperatures is cast iron proof of global warming/climate change. But maybe there is evidence with 200 plus years of exponentially accelerating average global temperature, a similar accelerating rise in average ocean temperatures, and the melting of the ice caps - i.e.

Earth's polar ice sheets and caps are losing massive amounts of mass rather than completely disappearing. Greenland loses about 266 billion tons of ice per year and Antarctica loses roughly 135 billion tons per year. Meanwhile, Arctic September sea ice area has halved since satellite records began in 1979 

We can discuss and argue about the causes and whether or not we have time and the ability to do something about it, but denying the earth is warming is just idiocy. 

Maybe the planet is warming but it also did in the medieval warming period for a few hundred years and that was caused by many factors not burning fossil fuels. If you think weather/climate is just a straight line then you're wrong. It changes and has changed throughout history for many different reasons. 

Ding ding ding ding! That's a full house on the climate denier spurious arguments!!

The MWP saw global temperatures rise only around 0.2 to 0.4°C above previous centuries, and the warming was largely concentrated in the North Atlantic — Europe and Greenland — not the entire globe. Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times in different regions, confirming it was not a globally uniform event. 

Now compare that to today. The top eleven hottest years ever recorded have all occurred in the last eleven years. For the first time in recorded history, the annual global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. That's not a regional quirk. That's the whole planet. If you look separately at the summer temperature changes for the Northern and Southern hemispheres you'll see that warming actually exceeds 3.5°C its just that winters are getting more extreme in places too.

https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/2024-global-and-us-review

https://sigmaearth.com/medieval-warm-period-vs-modern-global-warming/

And the climate had been stable for 12,000 years before the last 150years with movements of less than half a degree above or below the mean (so a total 1 degree variation window). 

Daily records began in 1770 not sure how you know about the last 12,000 years.  

You should be congratulated for admitting, this deep into the thread, that you don't understand how climate measurements are taken.  It's an astonishing level of ignorance, and may well have been difficult to admit to.  

1770 is roughly when widespread instrumental weather records begin; it isn't when our knowledge of climate begins.

We can reconstruct climate much further back using natural “proxy” records such as ice cores, tree rings, lake and ocean sediments, corals and cave deposits. These contain chemical, biological and physical evidence of past temperature, rainfall and atmospheric conditions.

They can be dated and cross-checked against one another, allowing scientists to reconstruct climatic fluctuations over thousands of years - including the last 12,000 years.  

I genuinely hope this helps.  

I think you should give up. 
He's clearly not listening.

This is why we're fucked as the dominant species on this planet.

bobmunro said:

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? - NASA Science

ME14addick said:

cantersaddick said:

swordfish said:

jimmymelrose said:

Chizz said:

TD_Addick said:

cantersaddick said:

TD_Addick said:

bobmunro said:

jimmymelrose said:

TD_Addick said:

Chizz said:

It's good to have different viewpoints on a thread like this. Everyone comes at this subject from their own perspective and/or armed with evidence from the worlds of science, government and business. It's a great sharing of knowledge. 

In fact, no two posters share exactly the same thought process and deliver their messages in identical styles. Because, if two people did, that would look very suspicious indeed. 

Chippycafc said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

People are entitled to their opinions its called a forum.

Perhaps you can list what we shall talk about and which side of the fence to sit on. And your contribution on any thread 90% of the time is always to abuse others. 

TD_Addick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Why do you all fall for it? Every time? Every single fucking time? 

Good Lord. 

It's called discussion mate, what people do on forums.You're entitled to your opinions and people are allowed to think differently if you don't like don't read the thread simple as that, should be easy to figure out for someone with superior intelligence like yourself. Good Lord. 

Lol how pathetic honestly, because me and Chippy said something similar its suspicious, great work Sherlock you've cracked the case. Maybe we both share the same viewpoint that the Climate Change enthusiasts are nothing but aggressive angry people who throw insults at people for people thinking differently. I've been called every name under the sun for saying it's hot outside because it's the summer (shocking isn't it hot in the summer you wouldn't think that). 

Thinking differently does not necessarily mean thinking straight.

How about: ' Shit, it’s 45 degrees outside, the trees are burning, we have to evacuate, but it’s summer’ 

Try saying that to the people around Bordeaux. If it hasn’t sunk in yet, it will as it moves northwards and if you’ve got another 50 years to live.

100%

Nobody is using the argument that one hot summer or an extended few weeks of high temperatures is cast iron proof of global warming/climate change. But maybe there is evidence with 200 plus years of exponentially accelerating average global temperature, a similar accelerating rise in average ocean temperatures, and the melting of the ice caps - i.e.

Earth's polar ice sheets and caps are losing massive amounts of mass rather than completely disappearing. Greenland loses about 266 billion tons of ice per year and Antarctica loses roughly 135 billion tons per year. Meanwhile, Arctic September sea ice area has halved since satellite records began in 1979 

We can discuss and argue about the causes and whether or not we have time and the ability to do something about it, but denying the earth is warming is just idiocy. 

Maybe the planet is warming but it also did in the medieval warming period for a few hundred years and that was caused by many factors not burning fossil fuels. If you think weather/climate is just a straight line then you're wrong. It changes and has changed throughout history for many different reasons. 

Ding ding ding ding! That's a full house on the climate denier spurious arguments!!

The MWP saw global temperatures rise only around 0.2 to 0.4°C above previous centuries, and the warming was largely concentrated in the North Atlantic — Europe and Greenland — not the entire globe. Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times in different regions, confirming it was not a globally uniform event. 

Now compare that to today. The top eleven hottest years ever recorded have all occurred in the last eleven years. For the first time in recorded history, the annual global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. That's not a regional quirk. That's the whole planet. If you look separately at the summer temperature changes for the Northern and Southern hemispheres you'll see that warming actually exceeds 3.5°C its just that winters are getting more extreme in places too.

https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/2024-global-and-us-review

https://sigmaearth.com/medieval-warm-period-vs-modern-global-warming/

And the climate had been stable for 12,000 years before the last 150years with movements of less than half a degree above or below the mean (so a total 1 degree variation window). 

Daily records began in 1770 not sure how you know about the last 12,000 years.  

You should be congratulated for admitting, this deep into the thread, that you don't understand how climate measurements are taken.  It's an astonishing level of ignorance, and may well have been difficult to admit to.  

1770 is roughly when widespread instrumental weather records begin; it isn't when our knowledge of climate begins.

We can reconstruct climate much further back using natural “proxy” records such as ice cores, tree rings, lake and ocean sediments, corals and cave deposits. These contain chemical, biological and physical evidence of past temperature, rainfall and atmospheric conditions.

They can be dated and cross-checked against one another, allowing scientists to reconstruct climatic fluctuations over thousands of years - including the last 12,000 years.  

I genuinely hope this helps.  

I think you should give up. 
He's clearly not listening.

This is why we're fucked as the dominant species on this planet.

I made the mistake of signing up to X a year or so ago, mainly to debate a non related topic of interest to me.

However, having dipped my toe in the water of the climate change debate raging on there, I'm shocked by the numbers of out and out deniers out there ridiculing anyone who doesn't think climate change science is "woke ideology" made up by the BBC.

These people will never believe our actions influence the climate, even if they live to see the Valley permanently underwater due to rising sea levels, so they aren't going to make any lifestyle changes that aren't forced on them. They'd have to go elsewhere to watch football for a start.

That possibility seems a long way off for now.

The majority of users on twitter - particularly ones spouting these views - are proven to be bots. And the ones that aren't have simply been taken in by the echo chamber they operate in. 

Your last sentence is bang on, far too many don't obtain their information from anything, but sources that promote outright lies about climate change, either straight denial that it's happening or alternative reasons for climate change, that can easily be de-bunked. I've seen how these sites operate and the lies are repeated over and over. If you dare to challenge them you're called a lefty or  tree hugger.

I've kept my X account, much as it pains me to line the pockets of Musk (I don't pay to use it) but it is sometimes useful to keep abreast of the mis/disinformation that is promoted on the site.

It's the same with newspapers, I'll admit I have been taken in my some in the past. Most are right leaning and owned by billionaires with their own agenda.

Burning fossil fuels is almost certainly not the sole reason for global warming and any reasoned argument can involve other reasons - population growth, intensive arable and livestock farming, the loss of rain forests sea grasses and mangroves, cyclical changes and sun activity - all man made apart from the last two.

I will listen to all of those arguments with an open mind, what I won't countenance is idiots claiming that global warming isn't happening at all.

I'm not convinced we can stop it - if there was any chance that point in time has almost certainly passed. We may be able to slow it down to give mankind time to put in place mitigation, which will be expensive. Reducing emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels can only help, not hinder, and besides it makes absolute long-term economic sense to move away from reliance on a finite resource. Expensive to start with but renewables in the long run have many benefits aside from maybe slowing down global warming - long term energy security, cheaper energy and so on. Governments don't do long term though!

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 270 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.2

What natural climate cycles can do

• Milankovitch cycles — slow orbital changes over 21,000, 41,000, and ~100,000‑year periods. These cycles have historically driven ice ages and warm periods, with CO₂ ranging 180–300 ppm. Today CO₂ is over 420 ppm, rising far faster than any natural cycle ever produced.

• Ocean oscillations — El Niño, La Niña, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. These shift heat around within the system but do not create new heat. They can make individual years warmer or cooler but cancel out over decades.

• Solar cycles — the Sun brightens and dims slightly on an 11‑year cycle. Maximum effect: about 0.1°C of warming, which reverses when the cycle dips. This is far too small to explain the observed trend.

• Volcanic activity — eruptions can cool the planet temporarily by injecting aerosols. They do not cause sustained warming.

• Why cyclical changes cannot explain current climate change

1. Timescale mismatch Natural cycles operate over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. The current warming has occurred over 150 years, with most of it in the last 40. Geological records show today’s rate is far faster than any natural change.

2. Magnitude mismatch Past natural CO₂ peaks never exceeded 300 ppm. Today’s levels are 420+ ppm, rising at a rate ten times faster than the fastest natural event in the geological record.

3. Energy imbalance Natural oscillations redistribute existing heat. Human‑emitted greenhouse gases trap additional heat, creating a persistent energy imbalance measured directly by satellites.

4. Fingerprint evidence The pattern of warming — faster over land, faster in the Arctic, cooling in the upper atmosphere — matches greenhouse gas forcing, not solar or orbital cycles.

Bottom line

Natural cycles absolutely exist and shape Earth’s long-term climate rhythm. But none of them can produce the speed, size, or pattern of warming observed since the industrial revolution. The only factor that fits all evidence is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

MuttleyCAFC said:

Venus once had a climite like Earths. Volcanic activity caused greenhouse gasses to take over and now it is as harsh as it is possible to be.

bobmunro said:

swordfish said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Venus once had a climite like Earths. Volcanic activity caused greenhouse gasses to take over and now it is as harsh as it is possible to be.

That's something we can all look forward to then 🤣

None of us will ever see it!

MuttleyCAFC said:

I don't know enough about Fauci and he may well be a a*hole. But the evidence for climate change doesn't rest on one scientist, it rests on thousands. Discrediting one, rightly or wrongly proves what exactly?

Redskin said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I don't know enough about Fauci and he may well be a a*hole. But the evidence for climate change doesn't rest on one scientist, it rests on thousands. Discrediting one, rightly or wrongly proves what exactly?

Fauci's hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee had nothing to do with 'Climate Change'.
It concerned his role as central physician-scientist, public health administrator, and presidential advisor, acting as the primary public face of the U.S. scientific response during the Covid pandemic.

ShootersHillGuru said:

Stig said:

I'm sceptical of nuclear. Not because it wouldn't produce sufficiently cheap electricity, but because of the security implications. What happens should a rogue state or terrorist group decide to attack or what if there was some unforeseen natural disaster? Can we really be sure that we can safely contain all that radioactive material for all times under all circumstances? Frankly, I don't trust the powers that be to keep some tap water in a pipe without losing a good percentage of it. Why should I have any greater trust in their ability to contain radioactive material. 

We have the capability and wherewithal to make Nuclear Power Plants as safe as is possible. The technology is 70 years old. We might not have the capability to slow or reverse climate change. Use of nuclear is absolutely essential for both energy security and climate. 

ME14addick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

In case ol' Chipolata is wondering I have taken the train to the valley today as I always do, even though it would have been much quicker and cheaper to drive. 

If your that concerned about the environment you could have walked or got an eco bus from where you live. But you didnt as its all fake. 

We still don't know what it is you think that humans do, that causes climate change. It's quite a simple question.

We know that you believe that the increase in the population is the cause, because you agreed with another poster on that, so you must have a reason for believing . We would really like to know.