British lawmakers urge May to tackle Trump on climate change

[RickBradford]

Quote

Whether not humanity is the primary cause of climate change, it seems an irrefutable fact that the climate is changing and that does not bode well for humanity.  Are we going to stand by and watch things go to hell in a hand basket or does humanity get off its collective backside and do something about it?

Excuse me, if we are not the "primary  cause" of climate change, how do we "do something about it"?

 

One prominent alternative view is that certain aspects of the Sun's behaviour (including solar maximum, sunspot numbers) may be important in the minor changes in the climate we are seeing now. How do we "do something" about that?

[johng]

we could by a very "carefully calculated" use of some old to be decommissioned nuclear weapons cause a "controlled" nuclear winter to counter the "man made global warming" !!

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Equally, if you found out that those doctors had only checked your temperature, and found a tiny rise, which might or might not be caused by a mild infection, then you would be a fool to throw yourself off a high building in a fit of despair.

 

The fabled 97% of climate scientists agreed that a ) the earth has warmed since 1850 and b ) human activity has probably played some part in that rise.

 

Nowhere was it stated in the Doran study that came up with the 97% figure, that this situation was dangerous, or threatening, or even likely to be a minor inconvenience. So there is really no point in committing economic suicide by relying on expensive and unreliable energy sources like solar or wind at the expense of tried and trusted fossil fuels.

 

It's amazing that parliamentarians in the UK are still trying to make mileage over climate change; they wore that toy out years ago.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. There have been many polls and not just the Doran Study. The 97% number has been reached in at least 5 different studies with high 90s in several others. Virtually every climatologist agrees that not only is climate change happening but that man is making it worse. .  The image I personally like which showcases it the best is this one from NASA:

 

 

15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened in the past 16 years. This will affect a lot of things, the obvious is the melting of ice causing sea levels to rise. And it should be noted that the more this grows the faster it will happen. As the ice melts it stops reflecting sunlight, which gets absorbed by the ground below, which then causes the ice to melt faster. But this also affects heat related deaths (both directly in things like sun stroke, and indirectly due to mosquito spread disease). It is important.

Edited January 27, 2017 by jcsmith

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. There have been many polls and not just the Doran Study. The 97% number has been reached in at least 5 different studies with high 90s in several others. Virtually every climatologist agrees that not only is climate change happening but that man is making it worse. .  The image I personally like which showcases it the best is this one from NASA:

 

 

15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened in the past 16 years. This will affect a lot of things, the obvious is the melting of ice causing sea levels to rise. And it should be noted that the more this grows the faster it will happen. As the ice melts it stops reflecting sunlight, which gets absorbed by the ground below, which then causes the ice to melt faster. But this also affects heat related deaths (both directly in things like sun stroke, and indirectly due to mosquito spread disease). It is important.

The misrepresentation is yours. That is only based on one set of estimates of atmospheric CO² in pre-history.  The variations between estimates for this one factor alone render any interpolations made useless.  Records just don't go back very far and beyond that the scientists are guessing.  It's informed, intelligent guessing, but liable to the pressures from scientific peers and commercial paymasters. 

 

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, jpinx said:

That's a bit like asking all the SNP MP's if promoting independence is a good thing for Scotland -- their jobs depend on it

That's like saying police encourage crime because their jobs depend on it.

[bannork]

Evidence of climate change in The White House.The heat is rising and Donald is melting.

At least it was only her hand.

[RickBradford]

Quote

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. There have been many polls and not just the Doran Study. The 97% number has been reached in at least 5 different studies with high 90s in several others. Virtually every climatologist agrees that not only is climate change happening but that man is making it worse.

 

1. Science is not conducted by "polls". You're confusing it with the Eurovision Song Contest.

2. Of course climate change is happening. It always does. Just as the earth cooled between 1945 and 1971, causing alarm and despondency, it warmed up quickly between 1975 and 2000 and somewhat slower since then.

3. How do we know that the current climate is getting "worse"? What is the ideal average temperature of Planet Earth, do you know?

 

In fact, many studies have been performed which suggest that the mild warming we are experiencing now will have a net global benefit until 2070 or 2080, despite what experts like Bob Geldof and Prince Charles say. And 60 years is a very long time away.

 

There are only a few people left who take dangerous global warming seriously - they're like those bewildered Japanese soldiers who were found hiding in jungles on remote Pacific Islands, unaware that the war had ended years before.

[jpinx]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

That's like saying police encourage crime because their jobs depend on it.

Errant freelance firemen certainly do the equivalent.

[Ace of Pop]

I still don't know what caused the Ice Age Yet. Was It Global Raining , or farting Dinosaurs acting like Diesel Engines and Nasty Airplanes making the Sky Dirty.Get over it,just stop chopping down rain forests


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[jcsmith]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

1. Science is not conducted by "polls". You're confusing it with the Eurovision Song Contest.

2. Of course climate change is happening. It always does. Just as the earth cooled between 1945 and 1971, causing alarm and despondency, it warmed up quickly between 1975 and 2000 and somewhat slower since then.

3. How do we know that the current climate is getting "worse"? What is the ideal average temperature of Planet Earth, do you know?

 

In fact, many studies have been performed which suggest that the mild warming we are experiencing now will have a net global benefit until 2070 or 2080, despite what experts like Bob Geldof and Prince Charles say. And 60 years is a very long time away.

 

There are only a few people left who take dangerous global warming seriously - they're like those bewildered Japanese soldiers who were found hiding in jungles on remote Pacific Islands, unaware that the war had ended years before.

1. Of course it isn't. However, as I noted virtually every climatologist will agree that climate change is happening and that man is contributing to it happening. That is undeniable and in the polls among scientists the 97% number has been reached on at least 5 different occasions. That type of consensus is very rare in science. Now of course if you want to buy into the propaganda that it isn't you can find some reports funded by none other than the companies in the coal or oil industry who are directly profiting by denying this. But it's rather telling that both Tillerson and Pruitt admitted that climate change was happening though, and we know Exxon is currently being sued for their role in trying to intentionally cover it up through a disinformation campaign. 

2. Yes of course climate change happens naturally. Nobody is debating that. There's been a natural cycle between ice ages on the planet throughout it's existence. Using historical predictions the next ice age would be on average over 50,000 years away, the last one only ended about 13,000 years ago. In a natural cycle of ice ages the temperature rises roughly 5-7 degrees celsius over the course of 5000 years. It's risen over one degree celsius in the past 120 years, and that rate is growing. To put that in perspective at the current rate we would be warming 10 times faster than the natural cycle.

3. 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have been recorded since 2000. Each of the last three years has been the hottest we've ever recorded. The CO2 levels are higher than they have been in hundreds of thousands of years. That isn't enough evidence for you? As far as having a net benefit, there are some cases where it will benefit areas during this process, but it will be a negative in other areas. Climate change of course isn't just warming, it is extreme events such as the strength of hurricanes. Heat causes deaths though, not just from the obvious things like heat stroke, but also from diseases which are spread by mosquitos which thrive in these environments. The rise in surface and ocean temperatures affects many species and it happening at an accelerated rate makes it more difficult for them to adapt. 

Let's for a minute assume though that the effects are neglibible at this rate until at least 2150. Sea levels will rise, temperature will rise, these will have small effects during that time. Why not put things off until then and then try to deal with things? There is a point of no return in regards to ice melts, and if we wait too long to address these issues we will reach it. The goal here is to keep CO2 levels under 600 ppm, we're at over 405 ppm now, and that has risen roughly 125 ppm in the past 150 years. That number continues to grow at an accelerated rate. The worlds population is growing, as is the standard of living. Both of these contribute to man needing more space and energy which both contribute to the CO2 level rise. As the ice melts at an increasing rate, this also accelerates the warming process. 

Now the real question here is that if we know all of this, the real question becomes why we aren't doing more about this now. Many countries are. China is making huge strides there. The Paris agreement was meant to ensure that all nations do their parts as this is a serious issue. Yeah, we're mostly older people here on ThaiVisa, these changes aren't going to have much affect on us. If we don't address them though our children and grandchildren will pay the price. The scary thing though is that the U.S. is now lifting restrictions. Why? For profit. Plain and simple. This is silly because clean energy solutions will create more jobs so the jobs argument is not valid. The truth though is that fossil fuel companies realize their days are limited. They invest billions of dollars into trying to convince the public otherwise. They lobby with the politicians to do the same. If we invested the same money into clean energy it is something that is sustainable, will create jobs, and will aid in stabilizing these rises. Instead we're moving backwards, undoing the regulations that were already in place so these companies can reap the rewards... at the expense of everyone else.

I'd ask that same question of you or jpinx or anyone else who comes on here to try to defend those moves: What is the benefit to you of lifting these restrictions? Why do you personally prefer that to investing in clean energies? That's an important question to ask because I think many people simply buy into the party line. Obviously if you own stock in an oil or coal company this is probably good news to you. But that doesn't make it a valid reason to argue for it as you could just as easily move that money into solar or wind energy. We know why the coal and oil industries are willing to invest money into misleading the public. They have a lot to lose. But what do you have to lose?

Edited January 28, 2017 by jcsmith

[puck2]

19 hours ago, doctormann said:

 

Allegedly, Mark Twain had something to do with the quote as well.  Seems to be attributed to several people.

 

To get back on topic though, I think that problem is that there is evidence that cyclical climate shifts have been going on for hundreds of thousands of years.  The evidence for that is locked in the antarctic ice cores and elsewhere.  I don't believe that there is too much disagreement that the global climate, overall, is currently in a warming phase.  The issue really is in deciding if the man-made contribution to this is significant and, if it is, whether we can do anything about it.  I suspect that the answers are 'not really' and 'very little, if anything'.

 

I don't have any problem with trying to reduce man-made pollution levels - must be awful in China - but we shouldn't assume that by so doing we are going to cure 'global warming' or have any significant effect on 'climate change'.

 

19 hours ago, jpinx said:

Climate Change is NOT Global Warming -- and therein lies the confusion.  Of course the climate is changing, but whether it is heading for some catastrophe is not predictable.  Man likes to think he is in control of his world, but that has been disproved so many times now it's laughable that people believe the 1% or so that man is adding makes any significant difference...

The USA has some religious, science denying groups still believing the earth is not older than 7.000 years or so. In the middle ages scientists have been blistered by the Roman Church for their believe that the earth is not the center of the world. Nowadays people with a childish IQ deny global warming although there are strong signs for it.

 

 

Cyclical climate shifts!? Maybe.

But was the last cyclical climate shift (– at that time -) caused by human activities

• sending large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

• burning fossil fuels to produce energy, from which the majority of greenhouse gases come from

• from deforestation,

• industrial processes,

• some agricultural practices also emitting gases into the atmosphere.

or by an asteroid????????

 

There have been different reasons for a shift. For example, when an asteroid has hit the planet earth.  Was the last one  a cyclical one?