Scientists weigh up stratospheric sunlight barrier to curb warming

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Tropical forests use to grow in the Arctic.  How did 'man' cause that?  Answer?  Man didn't. 

This isn't the first time the Earth has been around the global warming block.  However, this time around the block there is big, big money to be made in the global warming business so it's beneficial to keep the masses terrified and feeling helpless.  Modifying the atmosphere on purpose - Lordy - some folks out there have a serious God-complex.

I think you perhaps  meant to say  tropical  forests in Ant .arctica?

And  yes...warming/cooling plus  geographical  movements and upheavals  area matter of  demonstrable fact. 

What we humans  have done in the course of  less than 2 centuries is  to have decimated the  natural recycling system of  carbon dioxide at the same time as releasing millions of years of storage of hydrocarbons nature  put aside. To not believe that has not had a massive accelerative impact on natural cycles in climatic conditions in spite  of the obvious let alone the majority of valid scientific research  conclusion is denialistic. 

Even so if it is accepted  that climate change is occurring  rapidly regardless of human activity the fact remains that  it is becoming urgent  to make rational  decisions about  how to  cope and maintain 

worldly existence as we currently  know it.

At this point in time there is  no real shortage of food production  for the total  human population.

But as has been  for  decades  now  a  major  problem in the  distribution and waste of food. 

Climate  change is increasingly demonstrating the potential to  make food production in itself insufficient.

Not a pretty  picture for  humanity  when that  occurs!

[Franko666]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You're lying.

Prove it!!!

[Dumbastheycome]

15 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

What really matters is that you agree with the rest of my post...

I  can not say that I do because I am  too lazy to refer  back to it. But even if I did I think I would  have  reservations. lol

[connda]

29 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I think you perhaps  meant to say  tropical  forests in Ant .arctica?

No, I meant the Arctic. 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, connda said:

No, I meant the Arctic. 

Oh ? Is there some evidence to show a land  mass capable of  supporting a tropical forest has existed in the Arctic? Or do you refer to land  masses within the Arctic  circle?

[Srinivas]

wel well the UN environment chief resigned after an audit showed he was flying back n forth unnecessarily too much maybe trying to prove global warming is caused by man himslef.

by one man actually

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/climate/erik-solheim-travel-expenses.html

note: if link takes you to paywall, try opening it in another browser. 

is is any wonder why people don't trust these bureaucrats to regulate the entire earths weather much the less believe their "scientific" doctored data

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

some humor from the late George Carlin 

https://youtu.be/uHgJKrmbYfg

 

[Brunolem]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Oh ? Is there some evidence to show a land  mass capable of  supporting a tropical forest has existed in the Arctic? Or do you refer to land  masses within the Arctic  circle?

Anyway, going back millions of years, it is meaningless to talk about the Arctic, since the landmasses were not in the same positions as today.

 

What Connda means, I suppose, is that the climate was warm all the way up North were today is the Arctic, which is right.

 

Actually, we are going back to these conditions at full speed...last year, in WINTER, there were days when temperatures in the Arctic were above freezing!

 

Over there, we are not talking about a 1 or 2 degrees C temperature increase, but a 10 to 20 degrees C increase!

 

[attrayant]

34 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

is is any wonder why people don't trust these bureaucrats to regulate the entire earths weather much the less believe their "scientific" doctored data

 

It's not the bureaucrats that produce data or "doctor" it.  Bureaucrats are often clueless about science, as we might expect they would be.  This is why we (in the USA) have the National Science Foundation.  The NSF is supposed to digest the results of scientific research and then explain its implications to Congress, so that politicians can act on it without having to understand every technical detail of science behind the research.

 

It used to work fair well, until we got politicians like Jim Inhofe, who thinks the existence of a snowball disproves global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by attrayant

[Srinivas]

37 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

 

It used to work fair well, until we got politicians like Jim Inhofe, who thinks the existence of a snowball disproves global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

True. One even thought Guam could tip over and flip????

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/

 

 

[Grouse]

I don't think genuine scientists will be impressed with much of the chat here

[bristolboy]

51 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I don't think genuine scientists will be impressed with much of the chat here

That's a bold statement.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Brunolem said:

Anyway, going back millions of years, it is meaningless to talk about the Arctic, since the landmasses were not in the same positions as today.

 

What Connda means, I suppose, is that the climate was warm all the way up North were today is the Arctic, which is right.

 

Actually, we are going back to these conditions at full speed...last year, in WINTER, there were days when temperatures in the Arctic were above freezing!

 

Over there, we are not talking about a 1 or 2 degrees C temperature increase, but a 10 to 20 degrees C increase!

 

Can not accept that supposition.

 

. There is  no land  mass under the Arctic. Perhaps millions of years  before there was. So how to claim tropical  forests  existed on a now non existent patch of dirt  ?

In Antarctica it has been found from  drilling beneath the ice into the seabed  that  cycles of cold and warm water have supported and then  killed off shellfish (which theoretically supported other life forms such as fish) over periods of  millions of years.

That climate  change has occurred in repeated cycles before  humans had even the  potential to  effect is  undeniable.

The  real  cause  is a matter of conjecture but measurable factual data shows it has not occurred as  rapidly or sustained increments  as it is  currently. 

The only co incidental  factor attributable to that is the level of  CO2 that humans have  added to the atmosphere which even simplistic  science  can demonstrate the exacerbating effect on climate change.

The pigheaded preoccupation  with  profiteering as the consequence

of  global degradation will  not end until last vapours of petrochem are belched forth. So be it. Love your descendants to death.

 

 

 

[StreetCowboy]

42 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That's a bold statement.

The time for timidity is past.  Bold action is required if we are to maintain the stable society that we enjoy today.  No doubt if we don't take such bold action, some of us may survive, perhaps including humans, but unlike previous mass extinctions, this one may happen quickly enough that my own children or grandchildren may be involved. 

 

I am not sure how much they will thank us for our cautious and cynical approach to the risk of global warming.

[mogandave]

The time for timidity is past.  Bold action is required if we are to maintain the stable society that we enjoy today.  No doubt if we don't take such bold action, some of us may survive, perhaps including humans, but unlike previous mass extinctions, this one may happen quickly enough that my own children or grandchildren may be involved. 
 
I am not sure how much they will thank us for our cautious and cynical approach to the risk of global warming.

So what are you ready to give up?

[StreetCowboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

So what are yo

u ready to give up?

 

A tenner.  I'll stay in on Tuesday night and fund some experiments.

I'd be tempted to sacrifice some misery-extending medical care for the terminally ill, but I can imagine that others will still want me to fund that. 

I wouldn't mind sacrificing fuel subsidies, and I'd go along with a carbon tax.

 

 

[mogandave]

A tenner.  I'll stay in on Tuesday night and fund some experiments.
I'd be tempted to sacrifice some misery-extending medical care for the terminally ill, but I can imagine that others will still want me to fund that. 
I wouldn't mind sacrificing fuel subsidies, and I'd go along with a carbon tax.
 
 

That’s what I thought

[DoctorG]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So in other words if just 2 scientists had written one paper espousing global cooling your remark would have been true and not misleading at all. Give us a break.

Instead of being a leftist zealot you could perhaps take a glance at all the newspaper reports of the coming ice age in the newspapers of the 70's. Consensus in science does not mean truth.

 

[Srinivas]

19 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Instead of being a leftist zealot you could perhaps take a glance at all the newspaper reports of the coming ice age in the newspapers of the 70's. Consensus in science does not mean truth.

 

 

this is from 60 years ago but I remember seeing some from over a hundred years ago too. "Dont Scoff"  these scientists are quite serious, this time

[Becker]

US government climate change report just released

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, Becker said:

US government climate change report just released

Climate report warns of grim economic consequences, worsening weather disasters in US

 

The White House on Friday released a federal report that found that the impacts of climate change are being felt across the country, and “extreme weather and climate-related events” are going to worsen in the years to come -- with a significant impact on the economy.

The National Climate Assessment finds that extreme weather disasters “"have already become more frequent, intense, widespread or of long duration and have cost the the U.S. nearly $400 billion since 2015.”

The report is mandated every four years and is based on previous research. Its aim is to detail how climate change is affecting the U.S. and how it is impacting the economy. It is written by outside scientists and officials from 13 federal agencies.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/climate-report-warns-of-grim-economic-consequences-more-weather-disasters-in-us

[attrayant]

6 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Instead of being a leftist zealot you could perhaps take a glance at all the newspaper reports of the coming ice age in the newspapers of the 70's. Consensus in science does not mean truth.

 

Instead of being a gullible fool who believes whatever you read in newspapers you could perhaps take a glance at all the actual research from that time period.  

 

Quote

Consensus in science does not mean truth.

 

But newspaper articles do?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by attrayant

[DoctorG]

5 hours ago, attrayant said:

But newspaper articles do?

Newspapers of the day quote the "experts" of the day. 

Predictions cannot even be correct for a ten year period yet we are expected to believe 30/50/100 year predictions.

I don't know why I bother with you people.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Newspapers of the day quote the "experts" of the day. 

Predictions cannot even be correct for a ten year period yet we are expected to believe 30/50/100 year predictions.

I don't know why I bother with you people.

Aren't you the person who claimed earlier that just because he didn't use "some" in conjunction with scientists, that doesn't mean he didn't mean some. Now you're claiming that newspapers quote 'the "experts"' of the day. Do you mean some experts or all the experts? Were all the "experts" of the day claiming that the earth was cooling? Wasnt there a chart that showed that was a minority opinion even back then?

In addition the opinions of those experts you're citing are from 50 years ago when data processing was still in its infancy. According to Moore's law processing power doubles every 2 years. So data can now be crunched at 2 to the 25th power times as much as back when. And of course, there are now satellites and land and ocean based devices that didn't exist back then which feed those present day computers.

If you asked geologists before about 1965 if continents were moving you'd get a mostly sceptical response. So I guess the theory of plate tectonics is just the fashionable thing now, too.

[Brunolem]

31 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Newspapers of the day quote the "experts" of the day. 

Predictions cannot even be correct for a ten year period yet we are expected to believe 30/50/100 year predictions.

I don't know why I bother with you people.

The top experts, like James Hansen, have been working on the issue since the 1970s (and so has the fossil fuel industry, but with different objectives).

 

There are no "experts of the day", just more and more scientists who get involved because it happens that Hansen was right, something that even the fossil fuel industry has admitted.

 

Now, I am not convinced that having too many people involved is helping, on the contrary, it is creating confusion.

 

Personally, I rely for the most part on the old wise men, such as Hansen or James Lovelock, because being retired, they have no dog in the fight, and have been involved since the early days.

 

If one reads Lovelock's books, one realizes that things are much more alarming than what the official discourse would let us think.

 

In other words, scientists, notably those working for the IPCC, are told to present severely watered down versions of their internal reports.

 

This is why every other year or so, they have to say that their previsions were too optimistic and that things are changing faster than even in their worst case scenario.

 

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

The top experts, like James Hansen, have been working on the issue since the 1970s (and so has the fossil fuel industry, but with different objectives).

 

There are no "experts of the day", just more and more scientists who get involved because it happens that Hansen was right, something that even the fossil fuel industry has admitted.

 

Now, I am not convinced that having too many people involved is helping, on the contrary, it is creating confusion.

 

Personally, I rely for the most part on the old wise men, such as Hansen or James Lovelock, because being retired, they have no dog in the fight, and have been involved since the early days.

 

If one reads Lovelock's books, one realizes that things are much more alarming than what the official discourse would let us think.

 

In other words, scientists, notably those working for the IPCC, are told to present severely watered down versions of their internal reports.

 

This is why every other year or so, they have to say that their previsions were too optimistic and that things are changing faster than even in their worst case scenario.

 

 

Well, whatever the reasons, every time a new IPCC report is released, the findings are grimmer.

[BritManToo]

6 hours ago, attrayant said:

Instead of being a gullible fool who believes whatever you read in newspapers you could perhaps take a glance at all the actual research from that time period.  

Or I could just look out of my window, the weather is fine and sunny.

No need to worry (today).

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Or I could just look out of my window, the weather is fine and sunny.

No need to worry (today).

Yep.  Finer  and sunnier than ever...except when it is  not. Th predictable  seasons are  becoming  vague. Extremes are becoming the norm.

All part  of earthly  nature.

Live with  it. 

Or  not.

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Yep.  Finer  and sunnier than ever..

2

I only have long-term experience of 2 countries.

England, a bit wetter with less sunny days than 55 years back, but about the same temperature.

Sea level, not measurably different where I lived. Same crops being grown.

Thailand, a bit wetter this year, but the same temperature as the last 10 years.

 

I can't see any consistent trends in weather patterns, that would worry me.

Can't help thinking if something significant was happening, 55 years would be enough for us to see a change without 'scientists' needing to tell us.

Edited November 24, 2018 by BritManToo

[JimmyJ]

On 11/22/2018 at 11:33 PM, DoctorG said:

Or I could have just written it as I did without saying, or even implying, it might be "all".

 

The way you wrote it clearly implies "all".

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I only have long-term experience of 2 countries.

England, a bit wetter with less sunny days than 55 years back, but about the same temperature.

Sea level, not measurably different where I lived. Same crops being grown.

Thailand, a bit wetter this year, but the same temperature as the last 10 years.

 

I can't see any consistent trends in weather patterns, that would worry me.

Can't help thinking if something significant was happening, 55 years would be enough for us to see a change without 'scientists' needing to tell us.

English sparkling wine will be better than Champagne as climate warms, says Michael Gove

 

English sparkling wine is becoming better than Champagnebecause of climate change, the Environment Secretary has claimed.

Michael Gove, said that British vineyards were now being rated higher than French wineries and that the warming climate could see the industry boom.

Speaking at the BBCs Countryfile Live at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, Mr Gove said that Britain’s heatwave summer could become ‘the new normal’ as our traditional rainy holiday season was replaced by more continental conditions.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/02/english-sparkling-wine-will-better-champagne-climate-warms-says/