Global Warming - So What

[buzzard1994]

The planet will go on getting hot and cold - over rather longtime periods. I dont think anyone is disbuting that, the question is what is necessary to ensure some humans might be around to see it.

As has already been said if we dont take action rapidly - and actually it may be too late anyway - parts of the earth willbe uninhabitable and there will be mass migration. It's very difficult to predict which parts may stay habitable longest - and therefore provide some need to think about the long cycles.

Bottom line is that if everyone doesnt start changing behaviour there is going to be widespread misery within your childrens lifetime.And if you are not ancient you may find pressure to kill off the old (you) because you are not sufficiently useful. The government is currently promoting the idea of generational unfairness starting a process of making that socially acceptable.

[landlord-man]

And if you are not ancient you may find pressure to kill off the old (you) because you are not sufficiently useful. The government is currently promoting the idea of generational unfairness starting a process of making that socially acceptable.

So, I was spot on with my idea of euthanasia at 80 then lol

[Macromia]

...... and I still go with the geoligical history that our planet gets hot n cold.

And I genuinely expected nothing different.

The Dunning-Kruger effect covers the phenomena where people with just a little knowledge about a subject overestimate their competence in understanding it (something that affects everyone - we just have to learn to recognise and avoid it), and 'confirmation bias', linked to the over confidence you have about how well you understand the science, prevents you even considering that you might be wrong.

[Macromia]

If anyone does want to see explanations about how people misunderstand, and misrepresent, the science about climate change (with the genuine scientific position, and the evidence that supports it, explained in a way that should make sense even to people with virtually no understanding of science), the climate change videos on the potholer54 Youtube channel can be a good starting point.

This example briefly covers some of the most common claims from 'critics' (Peter Hatfield, who is 'Potholer54', tends not to use the term 'denier'):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg


The rest of his numerous videos about the subject can be found in this playlist (you can pick and choose which ones to play by looking at the titles):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP

[jpkeates]

There's a fairly basic problem with "it's natural, let's not try and fix it, let's learn to live with it" instead as a solution.
Nothing ever changes.
It's only a good idea if the problem will heal itself left to its own devices in a viable time-frame.

[landlord-man]

And I genuinely expected nothing different.

The Dunning-Kruger effect covers the phenomena where people with just a little knowledge about a subject overestimate their competence in understanding it (something that affects everyone - we just have to learn to recognise and avoid it), and 'confirmation bias', linked to the over confidence you have about how well you understand the science, prevents you even considering that you might be wrong.

pompous tw*t

I am sorry for reading the article published by the Geological Society of London (specifically written for "non-specialists") and shall in future bow down to your professional scientific knowledge on the subject - oh yeah, you have none.

[landlord-man]

There's a fairly basic problem with "it's natural, let's not try and fix it, let's learn to live with it" instead as a solution.
Nothing ever changes.
It's only a good idea if the problem will heal itself left to its own devices in a viable time-frame.

That's the problem I'm trying to discuss.

All we are now focussing on is delaying the inevitable.

The Planet is not going to heal itself - but we CAN begin to plan for what WILL happen.

Installing heat pumps etc and reducing CO2 is a massive undertaking but is barely microscopic compared to what is coming.

[jpkeates]

That's the problem I'm trying to discuss.

All we are now focussing on is delaying the inevitable.

The science says we're not delaying "the inevitable", humanity's contribution to climate change is so huge that reversing it should stop the problem entirely.

And, the most likely alternative view is that even if reversing the effects don't 100% correct the problem, the predicted timescales are massively different.
To the point that we're potentially talking millennia, not decades.
And the margin of error is always greater the longer the time frame of prediciton.

So, to be fair, if the latter outcome is the one we end up with, we might then be trying to plan for a new way of living.
But we'd have a lot more time to adapt.

Giving up now and trying to change the Human Race in a few decades isn't really a viable option.

[Macromia]

pompous tw*t

I am sorry for reading the article published by the Geological Society of London (specifically written for "non-specialists") and shall in future bow down to your professional scientific knowledge on the subject - oh yeah, you have none.

That was another expected response.

I'm sorry if you don't like what I said.
Note though, that I have never suggested that you shouldn't try to inform yourself about scientific matters (or any other subject). The problem here is that you have learnt a small amount of what is know about climate change, i.e. that the Earth's climate has changed naturally on numerous occasions in the past, have falsely assumed that this is what is happening now, and have rigidly stuck to that misunderstanding even though it has been pointed out to you that even the sources that you are quoting don't support your position.

I know that you aren't going to accept what I say, so why don't we look at what 'The Geological Society' say about the conclusions of the 2010 'Statement on Climate Change' that you linked?

In 2013 they published "An addendum to the Geological Society Statement on Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record":
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/s...13%20Final.pdf

The first paragraph from the summary of this addendum is quoted below:

Since our original 2010 statement, new climate data from the geological record have arisen which strengthen the statement’s original conclusion that CO2 is a major modifier of the climate system, and that human activities are responsible for recent warming.

Two years later, before the 2015 United Nation's Climate Change summit in Paris (COP21), they co-signed a "Climate Communiqué" along with over 20 other UK scientific organisations:
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/s...0WEB.pdf?la=en

The first sentence of that 'communiqúe' is quoted here:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases.

Last year, they published a new statement that supersedes the 2010 statement and 2013 addendum:
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/s...2020.pdf?la=en

This is from the first paragraph of the executive statement that begins the 2020 statement:

Observations from the geological record show that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at their highest levels in at least the past 3 million years. Furthermore, the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past.

Again, the statement from 'The Geological Society' deals mostly with the details of natural climate change events from the past - but that's because that is what geologists study regarding climate.

All we are now focussing on is delaying the inevitable.

No.
The discussion is about how much of the global temperature increase and associated climatic effects can be avoided altogether - because the scientists who study the Earth's climate really do pretty much all agree that the evidence clearly shows that CO2 increases that are a result of human activity are the factor driving current warming, and that, IF we can drastically cut these emissions the vast majority of changes can still likely be avoided completely - for the foreseeable future anyway.

[landlord-man]

Science is such that it can accurately assess the last (lets be generous) 100 years in detail, but moreso the last 50.

Prior to that, we have to view what happened across huge time periods - we cannot for instance say what happened between 1480 and 1521 with any detail at all.

It is therefore impossible for anyone to compare our very recent past with anything of our climate history.

The thing youre missing is that Im not disputing man made climate is occurring.

My belief is that our recent knowledge of the last 100 years is meaningless when viewed alongside our historic temperature changes.

History is a good indicator of whats coming, especially when its naturally occurring.

Shall we keep going or simply agree that we have opposing views.

[Macromia]

I refer you back to post #63.

And bearing in mind your original response to that post, I'll also point out that what is truly pompous isn't anything that I've said, it's people like you who, even when called out on the fact that you have misunderstood the scientific position, refuse to accept that the scientists who have spent decades studying the Earth's climate know the topic far, far better than you do.

Science is such that it can accurately assess the last (lets be generous) 100 years in detail, but moreso the last 50.

Prior to that, we have to view what happened across huge time periods - we cannot for instance say what happened between 1480 and 1521 with any detail at all.

There is sufficiently accurate measured land surface temperature data to calculate global averages going back to 1880 with a reasonably narrow confidence interval - and sufficiently accurate data to go back thousands of years with a broader confidence interval (and it's pretty similar for sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels).

As for the period between 1480 & 1521, have you actually tried reviewing any scientific literature to find out what is known about the climate in different parts of the world during that period?

It is therefore impossible for anyone to compare our very recent past with anything of our climate history.

Yet the scientists who actually study the Earth's climate think differently.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this is because they actually know what the F' they are talking about.

The thing youre missing is that Im not disputing man made climate is occurring.

Again: I have never said, suggested, or implied that you are.
Of course, you disagree with the scientists who actually study the climate, because you think that it's mostly natural with just some added influence from man (although how you can reach that conclusion is a mystery because, apparently, "it is impossible for anyone to compare...").

My belief is that our recent knowledge of the last 100 years is meaningless when viewed alongside our historic temperature changes.

History is a good indicator of whats coming, especially when its naturally occurring.

Hmmm...

Your belief (supported by nothing, because even the articles you tried to use didn't support your position...

...or evidence backed facts and conclusions from nearly 100% of the scientists who actually study this (and who support their position by publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals).

It's so difficult, how can I decide?

Shall we keep going or simply agree that we have opposing views.

Agree to disagree, you mean?
That's a cop out that only people who know that they can't defend their position fall back on.

How about we instead agree that you know basically nothing about the relevant science, certainly nowhere near enough to even begin to challenge the scientific consensus, and that we should both therefore accept the scientific consensus?

[landlord-man]

We shall agree to disagree then - but even that you disagree with lol

You'd rather bully me to your point of view. Not going to happen.

[buzzard1994]

So, I was spot on with my idea of euthanasia at 80 then lol

Probably younger than that - unless retirement age has reached 80.There is a science fiction story where every time someone is born an elderly person dies and the age at death keeps falling. Maybe we'd also go back to exposing any less than perfect baby because "human rights" would disappear.

[Macromia]

We shall agree to disagree then - but even that you disagree with lol

People can, and almost always should, "agree to disagree" when a 'dispute' is about something that is a matter of opinion (e.g. whether pineapple should be used as a pizza topping, if it should be compulsory for secondary school students to have lessons to teach them a second language, or who would best run a country - a left wing or right wing government).
However, when a disagreement is about facts there is no "agreeing to disagree". With factual claims you are either right or wrong - and here, you are wrong.

You'd rather bully me to your point of view. Not going to happen.

Let's be completely honest.
There was NEVER any possibility of you even giving consideration to the possibility that your original claims about global warming being natural and therefore inevitable were incorrect.

That's the view that I've taken right from the start after reading just the post that you made to start this thread.
I have never believed that there was any chance that you would be willing to listen to any suggestion. that you might be wrong, or that you would be prepared to give proper consideration to any evidence that contradicted your position.
I haven't even tried to change YOUR mind, let alone made any attempt to "bully" you into accepting facts that you clearly weren't interested in hearing.

What I have done is try to show that your claimed 'facts' are incorrect, as bluntly as possible. That's aimed at anyone who might not already have decided that they know better than the climate scientists who have shown time and time again that people who make claims like yours are ignorant of the facts.

[landlord-man]

You never believed I would listen - yet you waffled on enjoying the sound of your own voice.

You have NOT disproved that the climate is naturally changing because FACT shows what has taken place and that is a better indicator of whats coming than simply saying "oh no its not" lol

Humans are affecting the climate which I have always said.

You cannot (nobody can) predict natural changes coming. But I would rather use natural historic changes as a fair indicator of the future. Hot, cold, hot, cold...

Try to belittle and bully your opinion on me again as you are prone to do and I will allow you the last word as its something you desperately seek lol