Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The graphics have a level of inaccuracy displayed on them, if you have some evidence to dispute this level of inaccuracy then lets here it, so far all you have offered is supposition, so take a leaf out of your own book and give us some real facts. 

Obviously we have a different opinion about 'real facts', so for the moment i will leave it at that.

That's not to say that i don't appreciate your contributions.

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Obviously we have a different opinion about 'real facts', so for the moment i will leave it at that.

That's not to say that i don't appreciate your contributions.

 

Science requires assumptions, unless you have some evidence to suggest why these methods would be less accurate than believed then I will keep believing them rather than you who are relying on your reckoning alone.

[Catoni]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

OK, let them make up their mind between what you have presented, which is a coal miner, some woman who doesn't understand averages and a lot of name calling of those who don't agree with you, and what I presented, which is a scientific  consensus based on data from independent climate research agencies around the world.

Yeah, sure, and pigs grow wings and fly. 

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Science requires assumptions, unless you have some evidence to suggest why these methods would be less accurate than believed then I will keep believing them rather than you who are relying on your reckoning alone.

That's a fair picture, i admit that i'm very skeptical on the accuracy of graphics and data, and honestly i have no clear evidence in this case.

Still, scientists have been proved wrong sometimes, so it's not completely foolish to doubt their claims.

[Andrew108]

You look at the evidence and you gather data and you make sophisticated predictions based on that. All evidence points to human driven climate change and all predictions show increase in average global temperatures. 

So climate change is a fact. 

What we can do about it is another issue. My guess is that older generations mostly don’t give a shit. So lets hope the younger generations can solve the problems we’ve left for them. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Andrew108

[HAKAPALITA]

2 minutes ago, Andrew108 said:

You look at the evidence and you gather data and you make sophisticated predictions based on that. All evidence points to human driven climate change and all predictions show increase in average global temperatures. 

So climate change is a fact. 

What we can do about it is another issue. My guess is that older generations mostly don’t give a shit. So lets hope the younger generations can solve the problems we’ve left for them. 

Lets hope they can become usefull, all they do at the moments is beg, cry not fair, or Study anything that avoids getting their hands dirty, like Teaching.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Science requires assumptions, unless you have some evidence to suggest why these methods would be less accurate than believed then I will keep believing them rather than you who are relying on your reckoning alone.

Really! Here are some synonyms of the word 'assumption', from the Merriam Webster dictionary

 

"Arrogance, bumptiousness, consequence, haughtiness, hauteur, high horse, huffiness, imperiousness, loftiness, lordliness, masterfulness, pomposity, pompousness, presumptuousness, pretense (or pretence), pretension, pretentiousness, self-importance, superciliousness, superiority".

 

I would say the science of 'climate-change alarmism' definitely requires assumptions, but not the true science of repeated experimentation and falsification procedures. ????

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, normally as the air and sea get hotter we see less ice, what made you think it would be otherwise?  You think it unbelievable?  It would be unbelievable the other way around, ice freezing more the hotter it got, do try to engage the brain.

I suggest you read the article I posted earlier, the cooling periods that are collectively referred to as the Little Ice Age were very localized, in the US neighboring states were having starkly contrasting weather.

 

 

Ok, I'll own that, I meant to say more ice. Was on my way out the door and didn't check what I said.

It is you who saying the that despite the cooling the ice didn't increase and during the hot period the ice didn't melt.

But when you think I said that, you say I should engage my brain. Physician, heal thyself.

[Kieran00001]

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Ok, I'll own that, I meant to say more ice. Was on my way out the door and didn't check what I said.

It is you who saying the that despite the cooling the ice didn't increase and during the hot period the ice didn't melt.

But when you think I said that, you say I should engage my brain. Physician, heal thyself.

 

You are mixing up what I am saying and producing something out of it that I have never said.  Of course there was freezing of ice during cold periods and melting during hot periods, however these cooling and heating periods of the Little Ice Age were just not all that significant globally, as I have repeatedly said, the effects were localised and the accumulation of sea ice over the whole period globally was not significant, there was less sea ice after the Little Ice Age than 100 years before it began, and that was probably due to the fact that the sea increased in temperature during that period, so any extra freezing during the cooling periods was offset by increased melting overall.

[Kieran00001]

13 hours ago, Andrew108 said:

You look at the evidence and you gather data and you make sophisticated predictions based on that. All evidence points to human driven climate change and all predictions show increase in average global temperatures. 

So climate change is a fact. 

What we can do about it is another issue. My guess is that older generations mostly don’t give a shit. So lets hope the younger generations can solve the problems we’ve left for them. 

 

The problem is in the delayed reaction, the co2 we have produced has not effected our temperature much but the fear is that it may effect the next generation a great deal, likewise reducing our co2 output might not have a quick enough reversing effect to save them, it may already be too late.

[mogandave]

 
The problem is in the delayed reaction, the co2 we have produced has not effected our temperature much but the fear is that it may effect the next generation a great deal, likewise reducing our co2 output might not have a quick enough reversing effect to save them, it may already be too late.

What should we give up to significantly reduce CO2 output?

[Kieran00001]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What should we give up to significantly reduce CO2 output?

 

 

North America.

[Catoni]

16 hours ago, Andrew108 said:

You look at the evidence and you gather data and you make sophisticated predictions based on that. All evidence points to human driven climate change and all predictions show increase in average global temperatures. 

So climate change is a fact. 

What we can do about it is another issue. My guess is that older generations mostly don’t give a shit. So lets hope the younger generations can solve the problems we’ve left for them. 

Wow! Freaking out about a 0.85 degree C increase in temperature over a 132 year period (1880 - 2012, IPCC) following the 550 years of the  colder and nastier Little Ice Age. 

      Get a grip and take a Valium. 

    

[Catoni]

55 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What should we give up to significantly reduce CO2 output?

 

The leftists/socialists/Marxist-Leninists of Gore Bull Warming Alarmism say that we have to give up capitalism and replace it with far left Socialism at the very least. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Catoni said:

The leftists/socialists/Marxist-Leninists of Gore Bull Warming Alarmism say that we have to give up capitalism and replace it with far left Socialism at the very least. 

I guess that you said that as a joke, but imo, should all the world leaders agree on a serious plan to reduce drastically the CO2, that would be the first step.

And that's the main reason why i think it's so difficult, if not impossible to do something serious about that.

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You are mixing up what I am saying and producing something out of it that I have never said.  Of course there was freezing of ice during cold periods and melting during hot periods, however these cooling and heating periods of the Little Ice Age were just not all that significant globally, as I have repeatedly said, the effects were localised and the accumulation of sea ice over the whole period globally was not significant, there was less sea ice after the Little Ice Age than 100 years before it began, and that was probably due to the fact that the sea increased in temperature during that period, so any extra freezing during the cooling periods was offset by increased melting overall.

This will be my last run at getting you to see the logical error you are making.

1) The only way they can guess at sea ice extent from hundreds of years ago is to project it from the temperature record. Which itself is projected from secondary observations such as tree rings, sediment, ice cores...

2) The temperature record says that the arctic was involved in the Little Ice Age.

3) We are not talking about global temperature. We are talking about the local temperature of the Arctic.

 

Therefore, your statement that there was more sea ice 100 years prior to the LIA then there was after the LIA, says to me that they are using some real voodoo science to come up with that assumption. Namely because all they have to go on is the temperature record which clearly shows very cold temperatures for 200 years. You are saying that the LIA produced a net loss of ice, despite the temperature record showing it was very cold.

Is there anyway for you to grasp the contradiction here? 

[Catoni]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I guess that you said that as a joke, but imo, should all the world leaders agree on a serious plan to reduce drastically the CO2, that would be the first step.

And that's the main reason why i think it's so difficult, if not impossible to do something serious about that.

It’s not a joke. All you have to do is go to YouTube and watch some of the left wing marches for climate change, occupy and anti-fa crap, and look carefully at the signs they carry. Anti-capitalism and pro-socialism/communism is what they are all about. 

   They used to hide that fact previously. But now they don’t even hide or deny the fact anymore. It’s all about smashing and bringing down capitalism and replacing it with socialism/communism. Just look at their banners and signs at these protests and marches and gatherings they have lately. 

[Catoni]

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This will be my last run at getting you to see the logical error you are making.

1) The only way they can guess at sea ice extent from hundreds of years ago is to project it from the temperature record. Which itself is projected from secondary observations such as tree rings, sediment, ice cores...

2) The temperature record says that the arctic was involved in the Little Ice Age.

3) We are not talking about global temperature. We are talking about the local temperature of the Arctic.

 

Therefore, your statement that there was more sea ice 100 years prior to the LIA then there was after the LIA, says to me that they are using some real voodoo science to come up with that assumption. Namely because all they have to go on is the temperature record which clearly shows very cold temperatures for 200 years. You are saying that the LIA produced a net loss of ice, despite the temperature record showing it was very cold.

Is there anyway for you to grasp the contradiction here? 

Do you really expect the leftist Gore Bull Warming Alarmists to grasp the contradiction? 

    I doubt they are capable of getting enough neurons firing.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Catoni said:

It’s not a joke. All you have to do is go to YouTube and watch some of the left wing marches for climate change, occupy and anti-fa crap, and look carefully at the signs they carry. Anti-capitalism and pro-socialism/communism is what they are all about. 

   They used to hide that fact previously. But now they don’t even hide or deny the fact anymore. It’s all about smashing and bringing down capitalism and replacing it with socialism/communism. Just look at their banners and signs at these protests and marches and gatherings they have lately. 

I'm not taking political sides here, in fact i don't have one.

If you re-read my short post, i was simply talking about how to address global warming.

It would be useless, for example, to have clean energy in Europe, and pay the price for it, while the rest of the world keep on using fossil fuels.

[Kieran00001]

33 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This will be my last run at getting you to see the logical error you are making.

1) The only way they can guess at sea ice extent from hundreds of years ago is to project it from the temperature record. Which itself is projected from secondary observations such as tree rings, sediment, ice cores...

2) The temperature record says that the arctic was involved in the Little Ice Age.

3) We are not talking about global temperature. We are talking about the local temperature of the Arctic.

 

Therefore, your statement that there was more sea ice 100 years prior to the LIA then there was after the LIA, says to me that they are using some real voodoo science to come up with that assumption. Namely because all they have to go on is the temperature record which clearly shows very cold temperatures for 200 years. You are saying that the LIA produced a net loss of ice, despite the temperature record showing it was very cold.

Is there anyway for you to grasp the contradiction here? 

 

You keep going on about the little cooling periods and I keep making you aware of the warming periods yet you keep ignoring it.  An example, between 1738 and 1784 the average temps in Europe rose by more than they had fallen through the prior cooling period.  It doesn't take voodoo to make ice melt more when it is hotter. 

[Kieran00001]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm not taking political sides here, in fact i don't have one.

If you re-read my short post, i was simply talking about how to address global warming.

It would be useless, for example, to have clean energy in Europe, and pay the price for it, while the rest of the world keep on using fossil fuels.

 

I am sure they are thinking the same, no point in being the first, I mean who wants to lead by example, only a fool, right?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I am sure they are thinking the same, no point in being the first, I mean who wants to lead by example, only a fool, right?

Lead by example ?

Well, as far as profit is god for almost everybody on this planet, i don't see many chances of this happening any time soon.

I am a dreamer too, but one has to cope with reality in the end.

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You keep going on about the little cooling periods and I keep making you aware of the warming periods yet you keep ignoring it.  An example, between 1738 and 1784 the average temps in Europe rose by more than they had fallen through the prior cooling period.  It doesn't take voodoo to make ice melt more when it is hotter. 

It was a freaking Ice age.

[Xonax]

As long as the 3. World countries do not stop polluting and increasing their populations, it is unfortunately useless, that civilized countries do anything about global warming.

 

First of all all burnings of forests and fields will have to stop. Burning garbage should only  be allowed in incinerators which produce energy. Plastic will make an excellent fuel.

 

Travelling by planes should be limited (specially seats with extra  space) and private jets should be totally banned.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Xonax

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Xonax said:

As long as the 3. World countries do not stop polluting and increasing their populations, it is unfortunately useless, that civilized countries do anything about global warming.

 

First of all all burnings of forests and fields will have to stop. Burning garbage should only  be allowed in incinerators which produce energy. Plastic will make an excellent fuel.

Well, i think it's just unfair to blame the so called  '3rd world' countries for trying to copy the western lifestyle.

You know, also the unwashed want a shower from time to time.

 

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It was a freaking Ice age.

 

No, it wasn't, its just referred to as the Little Ice Age, it most defiantly was not an ice age, what it was was a series of relatively minor climate anomalies.  The unseasonably warm 43 years I just referred to really should have cleared that idea for you.

[canuckamuck]

Now you are being ice-ageist

[Kieran00001]

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Lead by example ?

Well, as far as profit is god for almost everybody on this planet, i don't see many chances of this happening any time soon.

I am a dreamer too, but one has to cope with reality in the end.

 

It is happening already, the world is watching Scandinavia move into sustainable energy production, learning from them and copying them, many countries have responded to the example they are setting.

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Now you are being ice-ageist

 

Quote

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's climate,

by definition the Little Ice Age was not an ice age as it was not a period of long term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's climate, only localized reductions in temperature for short periods in sporadic locations, no overall cooling, in fact we saw a rise in temperature of the Earth's climate during this time.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is happening already, the world is watching Scandinavia move into sustainable energy production, learning from them and copying them, many countries have responded to the example they are setting.

True, but you are talking about the richest countries which happen to be the less populated.

I just read the other day that in USA they are making life difficult to the ones who try to live "off grid".