53 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

fThere are many studies which reveal that far more people die from unusual cold weather than hot weather, globally. This implies that a warmer climate is better than a colder climate.

But it's not only about temperature is it. What about the effect of burning fossil fuels on human health?

 

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide

 

The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, which aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death.

The research, led by Harvard University in collaboration with UCL, the University of Birmingham and the University of Leicester has been published in the journal Environmental Research.

Co-author and UCL Associate Professor Eloise Marais (UCL Geography) said: “Burning fossil fuels produces fine particles laden with toxins that are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs. The risks of inhaling these particles, known as PM_2.5, are well documented.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide

20 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

The climate of the earth has been changing for millions of years without the existence of man:

Says it all really. 

3 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Says it all really. 

Nowhere near.

20 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

The climate of the earth has been changing for millions of years without the existence of man:

What is it about denialists that keeps them from understanding the concept of "rate of change". If you were to choose between 2 equally guaranteed accounts to park your cash in,  one of which offered a rate of return of 1% and other which offered 5%, would you think that there was no significant difference between the 2? That rates don't matter?

30 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

What science would that be then? The science you read about in the popular press?

No, it's the science that can be read in scientific journals.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. 

https://philpapers.org/rec/POWCSV

 a TikTok video depicting a motorbike spontaneously combusting in the heat.

 

A TikTok video says it all. If anything did explode it was the petrol. End-Of

1 hour ago, paul1804 said:

The ever increasing number or Solar panels is contributing to global warming given how much heat they reflect back into the atmosphere!  Can you imagine how much hotter the atmosphere is above a solar farm!

The largest solar farms in the US are located in the southwestern deserts.  What do you think happens to the heat from the sun that strikes the barren desert ground?

 

Your logic is so flawed that it can't even be called merely wrong!

5 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

NOBODY here is talking about LOCAL Climate change.

Where have you been during the past 40 or 50 years?

 

We are destabilizing what has, for over 10,000 years, been a stable climate system.

 

Instabilities such as this can easily lead to famine when crops lose productivity at temperatures only slightly warmer than they are now.

 

We are already losing productivity due to rising mean temperatures....

 

 

You can't have educated conversations with clueless uneducated people who don't want to learn anything.

3 hours ago, Roo Island said:

Stick with the science. Not dodgy bs on social media sites.

Science is saying the extra hot weather in Asia is due to the el nino affect and that is not man made .

4 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

is the main greenhouse gas

correct..and therefore its the sun that warms our earth predominantly ..more co2 is good for us..alarmist behaviour is NOT

11 minutes ago, itsari said:

Science is saying the extra hot weather in Asia is due to the el nino affect and that is not man made .

You'll have to put up a credible link proving the increase in temperature is ONLY due to El Nino/La Nina.

 

Best of luck.

3 minutes ago, Zapitapi said:

correct..and therefore its the sun that warms our earth predominantly ..more co2 is good for us..alarmist behaviour is NOT

You can't really believe that....ugh....

Posts with trolling images contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

Don't eat those pork sausages from Tescos.  I have been <deleted>ting through the eye of a needle for 2 days now.  I think the heat was the reason.  I bought them out of date then gf put them in the microwave for a few seconds, then left on the counter all day, then reheated on the cooker, then reheated in microwave this morning.

Edited May 3, 20242 yr by Chris Daley

7 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

You'll have to put up a credible link proving the increase in temperature is ONLY due to El Nino/La Nina.

 

Best of luck.

I have read often what I stated the last few weeks  You must of read the same.

 

 

3 minutes ago, itsari said:

I have read often what I stated the last few weeks  You must of read the same.

 

 

No proof? Ok. The answer is, yes. El Nino and La Nina are part of a warmer then cooler cycle. I'm from California. Know about this very well.

 

Unfortunately, it's being influenced by climate change. Who would have guessed.

 

https://environment.uw.edu/news/2024/01/el-nino-shows-us-the-true-face-of-climate-change/

 

An important detail to note about El Niño and La Niña is that they are measured against a rolling average of sea-surface temperatures. That means that when researchers say the tropical Pacific is 2 degrees C warmer than normal, they mean 2 degrees C warmer than the average from 1991-2020 — a period that was already significantly warmer than pre-industrial times. The actual sea surface temperatures may well be record-setting, even if the El Niño event itself is not.

 

“If you look at a chart of global average surface temperatures over time, you’ll see a steady rise due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, but then you see ups and downs every few years,” McPhaden said. “The ups are El Niño and the downs are La Niña.”

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

Yes there are expansion joints, but there are limits to how much expansion they can compensate for. Even in the milder weather in the UK, they sometimes have this problem and have to close lines or limit the speeds on them.

 

Buckled rails in the UK

 

I was one of the men (no women or transsexuals) who repaired that type of damage.

 

It's part of regular maintenance, except in Britain where they let everything crumble around them.  Good people hamstrung by bad government.  

4 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

yes you can change the size of the image/object!

 

Yes.

However, this seems to have zero impact on the image as it appears AFTER being copied and pasted into the TV Comment one is composing, at least USING THE SOFTWARE that I use.

 

So solly, Fella.

 

Note:  Why do you guys always feel the need to DEBATE everything?  I have already told you the way reality works.  Sort of like overgrown teenagers, IMHO, because teenagers never accept anything, not ANYTHING when their parent try to tell them nothing.

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 20242 yr by GammaGlobulin

1 hour ago, sidneybear said:

Lots of scientists cast doubt on the climate change hoax, or is your definition of a "serious" scientist only one who follows the media accepted view? That's the problem with scientific method these days: it's become politicised. Many great scientific advances originated from dissenting views.

95% of scientists accept climate change as reality. Those who do not are usually funded by the fossil fuel industry, just as the tobacco industry employed scientists to prove the product was not harmful. Your vague claim "Lots of scientists " is utter BS.

 

Insurance companies accept climate change as fact, and are adjusting their premiums accordingly.

 

Do you have formal training in thermodynamics? Only then is it possible to understand why climate change is real. It's an inevitable consequence of the First and Second Laws.

 

Minds far brighter than yours have attempted to beat said laws, no-one has succeeded.

1 hour ago, itsari said:

Science is saying the extra hot weather in Asia is due to the el nino affect and that is not man made .

False. The earth has experienced strong el nino years in 1978-79 and in 2016. That first el nino meant that the global average temperature was the hottest ever recorded. Now, it doesn't even make the top 10. It's gotten so hot because the El Nino occurred over an already higher baseline.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

No, it's the science that can be read in scientific journals.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. 

https://philpapers.org/rec/POWCSV

But Cook et al. (2013) refuted that by pointing out that the apparently almost unanimous consensus determined by Powell (2012) included only those scientists who mentioned global warming or global climate change as keywords in the abstracts of their academic publications. Another way of looking at this apparent unanimity is that this consensus was assumed simply by reading abstracts and not the publications themselves, while excluding from the count the 64% of publications that failed to mention the popular labels "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts.

 

Add to this the much more mundane aspect: funding that favours those scientists who fall onto line, and the career ending denunciation of anyone who is sceptical by the kind of zealotry that were seeing here, and it's easy to understand why groupthink is the order of the day. Scientists have families to support, and funding is only available to those who believe, with those that don't ostracised and labelled. 

2 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

But Cook et al. (2013) refuted that by pointing out that the apparently almost unanimous consensus determined by Powell (2012) included only those scientists who mentioned global warming or global climate change as keywords in the abstracts of their academic publications. Another way of looking at this apparent unanimity is that this consensus was assumed simply by reading abstracts and not the publications themselves, while excluding from the count the 64% of publications that failed to mention the popular labels "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts.

 

Add to this the much more mundane aspect: funding that favours those scientists who fall onto line, and the career ending denunciation of anyone who is sceptical by the kind of zealotry that were seeing here, and it's easy to understand why groupthink is the order of the day. Scientists have families to support, and funding is only available to those who believe, with those that don't ostracised and labelled. 

Impossible to deny that a majority of climate scientists think that the earth is warming and people are mostly to blame.

 

We'll wait for a credible link

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Do you have formal training in thermodynamics? Only then is it possible to understand why climate change is real. It's an inevitable consequence of the First and Second Laws.

 

Minds far brighter than yours have attempted to beat said laws, no-one has succeeded.

Please explain 

1 minute ago, Roo Island said:

Impossible to deny that a majority of climate scientists think that the earth is warming and people are mostly to blame.

 

We'll wait for a credible link

Read the publications I made reference to. It's easy to fiddle the numbers.

Edited May 3, 20242 yr by sidneybear

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

But Cook et al. (2013) refuted that by pointing out that the apparently almost unanimous consensus determined by Powell (2012) included only those scientists who mentioned global warming or global climate change as keywords in the abstracts of their academic publications. Another way of looking at this apparent unanimity is that this consensus was assumed simply by reading abstracts and not the publications themselves, while excluding from the count the 64% of publications that failed to mention the popular labels "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts.

 

Add to this the much more mundane aspect: funding that favours those scientists who fall onto line, and the career ending denunciation of anyone who is sceptical by the kind of zealotry that were seeing here, and it's easy to understand why groupthink is the order of the day. Scientists have families to support, and funding is only available to those who believe, with those that don't ostracised and labelled. 

This is nonsense. It's like claiming that biologist don't support the theory of evolution because mostly it's not mentioned in their research. Lots of climatological research has nothing to do with global warming. So the research papers were chosen that in some way addressed that issue.

What's more, Cook would be greatly amused to learn that his research from 2013 undermined Powell's from 2015. According to Cook, in 2013 the consensus was at 97%.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821#:~:text=Introduction-,Cook et al.,real and largely human-made.

All of them are smarter than most of us. Science.

 

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2022/10/27/scientists-warn-of-earths-unequivocal-climate-emergency.html

 

To date more than 14,700 scientists from 158 countries have signed. 

 

The warning comes five years after Professor Ripple published World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice in BioScience, which has been co-signed by more than 15,000 scientists in 184 countries.

2 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Read the publications I made reference to. It's easy to fiddle the numbers.

No it isn't

8 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

But Cook et al. (2013) refuted that by pointing out that the apparently almost unanimous consensus determined by Powell (2012) included only those scientists who mentioned global warming or global climate change as keywords in the abstracts of their academic publications. Another way of looking at this apparent unanimity is that this consensus was assumed simply by reading abstracts and not the publications themselves, while excluding from the count the 64% of publications that failed to mention the popular labels "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts.

 

Add to this the much more mundane aspect: funding that favours those scientists who fall onto line, and the career ending denunciation of anyone who is sceptical by the kind of zealotry that were seeing here, and it's easy to understand why groupthink is the order of the day. Scientists have families to support, and funding is only available to those who believe, with those that don't ostracised and labelled. 

I should also point out to you that the criticism of Powell's method which you claim Cook levelled at Powell (he didn't) was exactly the same criticism that denialists level at Cook.

Sad to say, the changes that the world leaders struggle, but fail, to achieve are simply too little too late. I guess nature will have it's way. 

 

For the average older Brit/American, etc, who doesn't have to be here, the best advice would be go home. Doubly quick if you are not very healthy, or not backed by truly substantial assets.

 

If you can't go home, don't just get fit- get very very fit. 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

But it's not only about temperature is it. What about the effect of burning fossil fuels on human health?

 

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide

 

The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, which aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death.

The research, led by Harvard University in collaboration with UCL, the University of Birmingham and the University of Leicester has been published in the journal Environmental Research.

Co-author and UCL Associate Professor Eloise Marais (UCL Geography) said: “Burning fossil fuels produces fine particles laden with toxins that are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs. The risks of inhaling these particles, known as PM_2.5, are well documented.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide

 

This refers to air pollution, not the nebulous "climate change" the article was written about. 

 

Nice deflection and strawman!