ukclique > sci.* > sci.weather

Norman Lynagh (29.07.2019, 23:35)
This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!



Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.
Keith Harris (29.07.2019, 23:51)
On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
[..]
> 303m a.s.l.
>
> twitter: @TideswellWeathr


Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)

Keith (Southend)
Norman Lynagh (30.07.2019, 00:23)
Keith Harris wrote:

> On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
> Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter
> :-)
> Keith (Southend)


I saw the following very telling statement on Twitter this evening:

"The planet we think we're living on no longer exists."

That sums it up perfectly :-(
Bernie (30.07.2019, 00:28)
On 29 Jul 2019 21:35:48 GMT
"Norman Lynagh" <invalid> wrote:

> This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!


I think he's talking to you, Burt; you should put him straight.
[..]
Spike (30.07.2019, 11:34)
On 30/07/2019 01:51, Keith Harris wrote:
> On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:


>> This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!


>>


>> Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
>> Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
>> locked into the system.


> Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)


It's an old technique in the 'global warming' industry that's been used
before - and it's about as authoritative as 'hide the decline' was in
its day.

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons. Perhaps NASA should practice what they preach?

JAAMOI, what is the correct level for atmospheric CO2 on which we should
be spending our trillions trying to attain?
JGD (30.07.2019, 12:56)
On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

> As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
> requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
> terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
> comparisons.


You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about climate
change is about what happens on human timescales, not geological
timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western countries -
are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in
2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important -
food to eat, water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea
level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say, a
million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the past
4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your family, the
answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping what is
happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50
million years. Think human timescales!
Norman Lynagh (30.07.2019, 13:10)
JGD wrote:

[..]
> family, the answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping
> what is happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one
> million or 50 million years. Think human timescales!


Indeed. We hear a great deal about 'save the planet' these days. I
understand the sentiment but what is really meant is 'save the human
race'. The planet is very capable of looking after itself and will do
so long after human life is gone. Even 100-200 years may be an
optimistically long time-span. The next 50 years or so may well see
nature causing some very big problems for what we consider to be our
'civilisation'. Whatever changes are already locked into the climate
system as a result of the increased concentration of CO2 look to me
very likely to happen. I doubt if there's now any chance of stopping
them. The lifestyle changes that would be necessary are almost
certainly politically and socially unacceptable.
newshound (30.07.2019, 13:13)
On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:
> On 30/07/2019 01:51, Keith Harris wrote:
> It's an old technique in the 'global warming' industry that's been used
> before - and it's about as authoritative as 'hide the decline' was in
> its day.
> As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
> requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
> terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
> comparisons. Perhaps NASA should practice what they preach?
> JAAMOI, what is the correct level for atmospheric CO2 on which we should
> be spending our trillions trying to attain?


+1, although IMHO any decent scientist would not just be looking at data
back to 1800, they would be looking at 10,000 year and million year (and
longer) timescales as well.

What I find profoundly depressing is that so much of the media coverage,
which presumably comes from press releases aimed at something like the
average IQ, only ever looks at a few decades.

An advantage that many of us here have, with our ~70 year perspective,
is that we knew people in the 50's and 60's who themselves had a 70 year
perspective. So, in the cold grey damp summers around 1960, all my great
aunts and uncles would tell us how much better the summers were when
they were our age. But anecdotal evidence from a single lifetime
supports the monotonic model which, conveniently, correlates with CO2
levels.

Your final point is a good one. The way I put it is this.

Fossil fuel use has put up carbon dioxide levels

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but we don't really know the right "curve")

We're talking about targets of 1.5 degrees (but we don't really know
what effect this will actually have).

We don't know what CO2 level will lead to 1.5 degrees

We don't know how much CO2 we need to emit to reach that level.

So the only science that is really settled is the first one and the
first part of the second.
The Natural Philosopher (30.07.2019, 13:50)
On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
> Most children born today - at least in Western countries - are likely to
> be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in 2100 and for
> their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important - food to eat,
> water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea level to live.


And far more important because all of the above depend on it, access to
reasonably priced energy

Which the greens would deny them absolutely.

They day I will believe advocates of climate change being man made,
believe it actually is, is the day they cease from jetting round the
world in private jets to conferences, sell all their beachfront
properties to buy farms on Alaska and endorse nuclear power stations.
Andrew (30.07.2019, 14:11)
On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
> The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
> years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
> timescales!


In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.
dennis@home (30.07.2019, 14:33)
On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
[..]
> answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping what is
> happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50
> million years. Think human timescales!


If you think in human timescales then the current increase in global
temperature is not significant.

The models used to predict what is going to happen just don't work over
human timescales as has been shown in the past..

they didn't get the predictions correct twenty years ago, they didn't
get them correct ten years ago either.

It is a requirement of science that predictions are available and are
correct to prove a theory so current climate change theory is not proven
in scientific terms.

None of the alarming predictions that have been made for several decades
have happened so what makes you think the current crop are going to happen?

It is far more likely that climate modellers just don't know what causes
things and their assumption are wrong just as they have been in the
past, after all they do keep repeating the same things.

The Russians built a climate model a number of decades ago that did
match predictions with real data but it has been ignored as it doesn't
predict the end of the world BTW.
JGD (30.07.2019, 15:45)
On 30/07/2019 13:11, Andrew wrote:> On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
> In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
> screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
> people start to listen.
> Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
> kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.


Actually, population growth is no longer that acute a problem - we've
largely missed the boat on that one. See eg:



or (the same URL shortened).

Certainly an extra 20-30% added to the world population between now and
2100 is not going to help things and if it could be limited that's all
to the good, but it's not the killer factor that climate change itself is.

Looks like Africa is main continent where efforts should be focused to
encourage smaller family sizes. If that were successful then we might
significantly undershoot the 10.9B that's currently projected for 2100
(up from nearly 8B now).
N_Cook (30.07.2019, 16:06)
On 30/07/2019 12:10, Norman Lynagh wrote:
> The planet is very capable of looking after itself and will do
> so long after human life is gone.


James Lovelock's Gaia has moved on from the hypothesis stage?
Andrew (30.07.2019, 16:53)
On 30/07/2019 14:45, JGD wrote:
[..]
> encourage smaller family sizes. If that were successful then we might
> significantly undershoot the 10.9B that's currently projected for 2100
> (up from nearly 8B now).

If the worlds population had levelled off at about 3 billion then we
wouldn't have the current media-inspired fantasy called 'climate
extinction'.

The worlds population is still going UP and will continue to do so
for some time. UP means MORE people, not fewer, even if the rate is
slowing.
Similar Threads