The Power Of Nature.Wild Weather.Climate Change.

[tobyjugg2]

(Don't) Wait until we see what occurs over the next 5 years as we pass through the Solar maximum.

 

and dont mistake screwed up polar storms creating hard winters in some places (while the polar regions rapidly warm) as 'proof' the world isn't warming ...

 

 

Shame the very very small minority (but very vocal) of educated and normally paid people and equally small but very vocal number of ill educated people who are denying human driven climate change won't be the only ones to suffer.

[tobyjugg2]

It's all a natural process.

 

Only because we are considered part of nature, despite despoiling it.

 

before you start spouting about it was hotter in the past.

Yes it was - BUT generally, apart from a couple of smallish (in the grande scheme of thins) glitches that effectively ended the ice age and rose the sea levels by 300-400 feet and the corresponding changes wiping out all species of hominids except us,

the last time it was this hot there were dinosaurs, insects and ferns NOT humans and trees - good luck surviving that.

 

 

 

Climate change deniers should stop spouting this absolute garbage which is disputed by 99% of all real scientists - the rest are mainly paid by the petroleum interest lobbies.

[tobyjugg2]

here you go Natgeokids will enlighten you

 

https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/discover/geography/general-geography/what-is-climate-change/

 

 

What causes climate change?

 

1. Burning fossil fuels

 

2. Farming

 

3. Deforestation

 

 

 

 

 

When you understand that you can move on to the growed up sites like NASA that give growed up evidence.

[tobyjugg2]

Grown.

Of course I believe everything printed in a magazine under the control of Mr Rupert Murdoch.

Why wouldn't you?

What a feeble response when you certainly seem more than happy to quote and promote the poor end of Murdock's Fox news' Human driven Climate change denial BS !!!

 

re nat Geo:

Here's proof that National Geographic won't bend to Rupert Murdoch's climate change denial

 

https://theweek.com/speedreads/578805/heres-proof-that-national-geographic-wont-bend-rupert-murdochs-climate-change-denial

 

 

... and despite NASA being one of the most conservative organisations on the planet ...

 

But I expect you will continue to ignore conclusive evidence.

Reminds me of those Born again Christians who swear that God created the universe in 4004 BCE and everything that contradicts it is just because God simply made it that way in 4004BCE

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

 

• IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers
  B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
  Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
  V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
  B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
  
• In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
  
• National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
   
  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
  
• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
  
• https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/
  
• Levitus, S.; Antonov, J.; Boyer, T.; Baranova, O.; Garcia, H.; Locarnini, R.; Mishonov, A.; Reagan, J.; Seidov, D.; Yarosh, E.; Zweng, M. (2017). NCEI ocean heat content, temperature anomalies, salinity anomalies, thermosteric sea level anomalies, halosteric sea level anomalies, and total steric sea level anomalies from 1955 to present calculated from in situ oceanographic subsurface profile data (NCEI Accession 0164586). Version 4.4. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Dataset. doi:10.7289/V53F4MVP
  
• https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7159
  
• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  World Glacier Monitoring Service
  
• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  Robinson, D. A., D. K. Hall, and T. L. Mote. 2014. MEaSUREs Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial Snow Cover Extent Daily 25km EASE-Grid 2.0, Version 1. [indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.5067/MEASURES/CRYOSPHERE/nsidc-0530.001. [Accessed 9/21/18].
  http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
  Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed September 21, 2018.
  
• R. S. Nerem, B. D. Beckley, J. T. Fasullo, B. D. Hamlington, D. Masters and G. T. Mitchum. Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. PNAS, 2018 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717312115
  
• https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
  
• USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6
  
• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
  
• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
  
• C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
  
• Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
  

[tobyjugg2]

Why are you copying and pasting from this:

 

 

See Cy Husain post, strangely identical to yours...

Unless you are Cy Husain.

Quite poor, Sir.

 

I'm quoting from the the 2 links I supplied. Just actually look and you will see.

 

The 'references' are the same as from the NASA link. Didn't you get to the bottom of the page?

 

It looks like 'Cy Husain (who I am not) is quoting from some similar articles in Nature and perhaps the same NASA article rather than Natgeokids and NASA as I did

... you can see that if you give them more than a glance .. but yes they are similar.

 

... That Cy Husain looks an informed guy

and seems he also thinks NASA is a source with some standing.

 

 

So thats NASA, Nationalgeographic and Nature reporting the same things so far even from your links,

 

 

Read the info in those links and many many many others (even some owned by Murdock) with an open mind king - the evidence of science explaining what is happening is overwhelmingly compelling.

[tobyjugg2]

I spent years researching this subject with the view that we were causing climate change and read many studies and scientific papers as well as books and internet claims.

I was also in touch with real experts in the subject.

My conclusion is as above.

I'm not going to change my mind now because politically controlled entities make something up.

I just pay thousands in taxes to line someone's pocket and accept that I can't do anything about it.

 

So while we await any quality peer reviewed evidence of kings' 'real experts on the subject' and links to his 'many scientific papers' to support those empty words there,

the choice is between:

 

1. A king12345 unsupported opinion

 

or

 

2. The scientifically supported reports and summarised opinions of evidence from and by:

 

* 97% of climate scientists and even higher % in the scientific community at large (as linked in refs)

 

* NASA (as linked)

 

* The United Nations (https://unfccc.int/resource/annualreport/ http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/)

 

* Nature Magazine (as linked by king in failing to poo poo real evidence)

 

* National Geographic (as linked despite the Murdock links)

 

* theccc (https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/global-action-on-climate-change/)

 

* Gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained)

 

* The metoffice.gov.uk (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news)

 

* and the list of quality evidence by world class organisations goes on and on and on

 

 

.... I know which choice on who to believe seems rational to me.

 

 

 

Take a test:

https://unfccc.int/news/un-launches-climattitude-campaign-find-out-about-your-attitude-to-climate-change

[tobyjugg2]

I spent years researching this subject with the view that we were causing climate change and read many studies and scientific papers as well as books and internet claims.

I was also in touch with real experts in the subject.

 

Only recently papers started to be published online.

Finding them would probably take a few days work which I can't waste unfortunately.

 

 

Significant clash of timescales you report there king. You seem confused.

 

If your latter/latest claim was in anyway 'real', linking the 'recently published' papers and evidence from the last few days should be simple, even if they aren't legitimate bodies - unlike those I link.

 

and, You don't have time to find papers you have as you state only just looked at - Yet surprisingly, you have time to continue to post what can only be described as rhetoric in the face of detailed overwhelming scientific evidence at best.

- Consider that there are dozens and dozens of names of genuine 'real expert' people and world class organisations in the posts and links I have supplied in only a relatively few minutes of effort.

Your arguments simply dont stand up to even a cursory examination.

 

... but like i said

You clutch to your beliefs (statements?) in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that would give even an American born again evangelical christian pause for thought.

 

Perhaps you simply missed your calling.

[tobyjugg2]

Saying that, the human race needs to make sure we are not now speeding up or adding to the problem.

 

What part of the overwhelming evidence, just a very small part of it linked here, gives you anything less than utter certainty that humans are at the very least 'adding to the problem' AND 'speeding it up' let alone being the major cause of the extraordinary weather events we are increasingly seeing?

Note that the latest reports are now saying we are in a situation that hasn't been seen in 800,000 years or more (it was 10 -20,000 years just a few years ago). 800,000 is at least twice as long as homo sapiens has existed as a species

... and some aspects of it may NEVER been seen before while there has been life on Earth.

 

 

If some other genuine, quality evidence from a reputable source gives you the slightest doubt in the face of pretty much ALL major and minor legitimate bodies of scientific knowledge and opinion, please link it with your understanding of it for discussion.

 

 

The three-minute story of 800,000 years of climate change with a sting in the tail

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-three-minute-story-years-climate-tail.html

 

https://environmentcounts.org/ec-perspective-accounting-for-800000-years-of-climate-change/

[tobyjugg2]

There's one thing which remains constant and that's change.

 

Climate change is one of our worries amongst others http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150323-how-long-will-life-on-earth-last

 

 

What I state in this post is not as widely accepted as my previous posts in this thread, but generally are accepted as valid interpretations of the evidence and models - unlike pretty much all climate deniers claims.

 

First some less immediate info

If you look at the data, you will see a glaring correlation between some aspects of climate change, the co2 levels in the atmosphere and the 800,000 - 1,000,000 years that hominids have been using fire, with the effects increasing over that period as we

1. Used fire more and more (cooking, clearing forests to create grasslands etc)

2. Found more efficient ways (coal, oil (whale and subterranean) to burn

 

 

More immediately:

According to all current 'real' understanding - We should be in an ice age now.

Both predictions long held based on data and new advances very strongly indicate that we should already be in a deepening ice age.

Great, some might say, burning oil and coal has saved us....

 

Well in some ways that might be considered a valid view, BUT consider that if we should be in an ice age, deepening all the way from the medieval 'little ice age' and yet the world has been warming and significantly, just think what will happen if the Earth drops out of its 'natural' current cooling cycle and starts a 'natural' (natural = without Human effects) heating cycle?

Just how hot do you think the earth will get?

Runaway global warming aka 'The venus effect' (Earth becomes like Venus) is a realistic result.

 

 

https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/02/11/human-emissions-just-cancelled-next-ice-age-heres-why-we-should-care

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-in-the-next-15-years

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-earliest-example-of-hominid-fire-171693652/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[tobyjugg2]

why is the earth as warm as it is in the first place? It is not because of the atmosphere, it is becasue of radioactive decay.

 

A glowing example of misdirection there.

More accurately: About 50% of Earths 'heat' 'given off' (err 'radiated') is believed to be by radioactive decay - although the figures are rough as it is unclear how much of that heat is radioactive decay and how much residual heat from the Earths creation for example caused by rotational friction of the Earths magnetic core - which also protects us from solar and cosmic radiation.

 

In any case, Dont forget that although if it wasn't there the Earth would have always been far far colder, radioactive decay is relatively constant so would NOT account for large swings.

[tobyjugg2]

so lets bring this down to a simple practical example.

 

Co2 is a greenhouse gas, called such because it makes the Earths atmosphere act more like a greenhouse. Cow farts are even more effective as greenhouse gas.

 

I just went out in my garden, right now.

 

The air temperature in my garden is about 13 degrees

In my greenhouse, in the sunshine, its 27.8 degrees.

 

Not a perfect example, but good enough.

 

Ericsbrother,

Asking for evidence and links from you and king is not to be awkward,

its in the hope that you will at least do some sanity checking before you spout complete carp - which requires me to correct you if the subject matter matters to me.

 

Of course, you could actually already know its carp and simply hope that no-one will take the time to correct it - but I hope not.

[tobyjugg2]

Even if Stephen Hawkins came back from afterlife and gave you evidence,

 

How would you know - given your poor excuses for NOT giving any evidence?

The simple VISIBLE evidence of just these few pages is : I link valid evidence - you don't.

 

Talk about kettle and teapot.

 

Oh, and here you go

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-40473841/stephen-hawking-at-75-trump-and-climate-change

 

http://kenburridge.com/stephen-hawking-quotes-on-climate-change-and-global-warming/

 

 

"“The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. ”

 

 

Thanks for the support Steve ..

[tobyjugg2]

Try using breitbart or Trump or at least some oil lobbyist as an evidential reference king

 

All others are almost certain to fail you, even the Mail.

 

 

... or do YOU accept Stephen Hawkins testimony on this subject - as I do?

[tobyjugg2]

I said you're right.

But as I said, you're right.

 

Yep Me and Steve and 97% of all climate scientists

 

 

We're doomed and it's all our fault, not just nature.

So as punitive measures let's pay more tax so politicians can pay scientists to make up some more claims, so we can pay even more tax.

 

Nope

 

What we are doing, we CAN stop and even undo - but it will take changes.

 

It may well take more taxes, but not necessarily. But its a small price to give our Children and grandchildren a planet they can live on

 

What we need to do is CHANGE the politicians and pay more scientists and engineers to come up with answers and solutions AND IMPLEMENT THE ONES WE ALREADY HAVE WHILE WE ARE WAITING

 

and VERY importantly NOT just stop listening to those that say differently - but call them out on their lies.

[tobyjugg2]

there are no large swings in atmospheric temp, also your greenhouse isnt full of CO2, jsut that the glass changes the wavelength of some of the radiation passing through it so it stays inside to heta the air contained theirin.

 

 

For God's sake at least look up how a greenhouse works before you babble nonesense

The glass does not change the wavelength.

 

Heres the basics - study hard for a week and then we'll move on to reflection and absorption and infra-red radiation provided you successfully answer a few basic questions ..

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

 

 

A sneak peek at next weeks lesson

https://sciencing.com/a-greenhouse-work-4564037.html

 

 

For someone with a degree in geology this should be ... I cant even think of a term.

Its basic for someone with cse's

[tobyjugg2]

They won't do it because then people would be owed money for being green.

Too risky.

Anyhow, we already pay this tax via gas and electricity bill, road tax, council tax, etc.

They'll only use it to charge yet another tax.

 

And human abuse will keep damaging the climate relentlessly.

 

.. Corrected that last line for you king

[tobyjugg2]

tobyjugg2, do you really believe that if humans disappeared from earth today, climate would stop changing?

 

Absolutely not, it would start to return to as nature intended.

 

Trees and plants would quickly start to reclaim areas, locking carbon out of the atmosphere, fish stocks would start to recover - increasingly as the seas slowly eradicated the pollution or adapted to it

 

In as little as a few hundred years, the Earth would probably be back in an Ice age.

 

 

 

Whereas with humans continuing as they are

Within a hundred years there will be no ice, deserts spreading, the Seas looking like the local yob estates pond

... if we are lucky

quite possibly the earth would already be well on the path to being another Venus.

 

 

The answer is somewhere inbetween

- hopefully mostly the first part but without the ice age.

[tobyjugg2]

Air pollution don't cause climate change, unless unmistakable evidence is provided.

 

Already supplied the unmistakable evidence as 97% of climate scientist agree

You can ignore it all you wish of course - doesn't make it any less true.

 

Now you supply some evidence to the contrary

[tobyjugg2]

Climate has been changing for billions of years and all scientists agree 100%.

Fact.

Nothing new.

Actually evangelical Christian 'scientists' dispute that, just like Human driven climate change deniers dispute human driven climate change

 

 

So you have nothing to support your opinion?

Just trolling to try to blot out valid evidence then?

 

If some other genuine, quality evidence from a reputable source gives you the slightest doubt in the face of pretty much ALL major and minor legitimate bodies of scientific knowledge and opinion, please link it with your understanding of it for discussion.

 

 

 

So, its kings entirely unsupported opinion

 

VS

 

The three-minute story of 800,000 years of climate change with a sting in the tail

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-three-...mate-tail.html

 

https://environmentcounts.org/ec-per...limate-change/

 

 

https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/02/11/...we-should-care

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-...-next-15-years

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ire-171693652/

 

 

 

* Steven Hawkins + 97% of all Climate Scientists (Heating mechanisms are at least as much physics as geology)

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/scienc...climate-change

 

http://kenburridge.com/stephen-hawki...lobal-warming/

 

 

"“The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. ”

 

 

* NASA + The National Centers for Environmental Information + The Climatic Research Unit

 

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

What causes climate change?

1. Burning fossil fuels

2. Farming

3. Deforestation

 

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page3.php

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

 

* The United Nations (https://unfccc.int/resource/annualreport/ http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues...limate-change/)

 

* Nature Magazine

 

* National Geographic (as linked despite the Murdock links)

 

* theccc (https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-c...limate-change/)

 

* Gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained)

 

* The metoffice.gov.uk (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news)

 

* The Smithsonian Institute (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ire-171693652/)

 

* UK's Geography GCSE (If NASA kids doesn't suit) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/climate_change/greenhouse_effect_rev1.shtml)

 

Just a brief summary of the world class institutions who dispute kings opinion.

 

Perhaps you should start with the NASA kids link before moving up to a UK GCSE curriculum king? or are you just trolling?

 

[tobyjugg2]

The climate changed and would continue to do so without humans - even reversing Human caused climate change:

- as I already replied to in https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?490590-The-Power-Of-Nature.Wild-Weather.Climate-Change.&p=5155116&viewfull=1#post5155116

 

What I, Steven Hawking, NASA, the UN and 97% of climate scientists actually claim is that humans are impacting it - severely - in a way that even threatens life on earth as it is, mainly through Co2.

 

https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-often-do-ice-ages-happen.html

 

" Over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated between about 170 parts per million and 280 ppm

 

That's a difference of only about 100 ppm between glacials and interglacials, Sandstrom said.

 

In May 2016, Antarctica carbon dioxide levels hit the high level of 400 ppm"

Edited October 27, 2018 by Andyorch
edited

[tobyjugg2]

Well, considering that you're trying to convince people that climate never changed before we arrived...

 

That is quite simply a lie

 

Link anywhere in this thread where I, or anyone I linked, or anyone other than YOU have used that or claimed that.

 

[tobyjugg2]

Well, considering that you're trying to convince people that climate never changed before we arrived...

 

That is quite simply a lie

 

Link anywhere in this thread where I, or anyone I linked, or anyone other than YOU have used that or claimed that.

[tobyjugg2]

Simple facts:

 

1. I didn't claim 100% of even climate scientists agree - there are a few, mainly using the tactics of you and the chap in the link, and religious fanatics of all persuasions, of simply denying overwhelming evidence

- as YOU, your linked person and the very few half way credible others who make these statements commonly do

- and they even say that climate science is a religion - despite their blatant fanaticism and denial of overwhelming evidence.

Unlike you I looked - He uses the same simple denial of the facts as you do - although better than you - he does give some already proven false 'arguments' and use already disproved 'facts'.

eg His claim that the multiple sources (NASA UN etc) and detailed figures regarding global warming are false.

 

 

2. YOU are the ONLY one here suggesting anyone is saying climate change didn't exist without humans.

I linked evidence showing that it has existed,

but of course, you claim people say things they simply did not say and do not believe, and simple try to say everyone else is wrong - without properly evidencing that claim.

 

YOU stated: "considering that you're trying to convince people that climate never changed before we arrived"

- Still waiting for anything to support your LIE there, and even that I or anyone I linked, or anyone other than YOU have stated that.

 

Answer that before expecting anyone to comment on already disproved one off very minority beliefs linked from youtube in the face of the world class organisations and science already linked

 

[tobyjugg2]

We could be living within a virtual reality game simulation, which is being played by aliens from another planet or possibly humans from a previous Earth generation, who are now living in a new dimension.

 

It is impossible to say that this could not be true.

 

Climate could therefore be a programmed part of such a game with the parameters altered as part of the game play.

 

 

 

LOL

I see you actually watched kings link and understood it unclebulgaria.

You gazzumped my response - but did it very well.

[tobyjugg2]

Did I say "You're right" before?

If I didn't forgive me, but you're right.

Nobel price chap is a charlatan.

 

ah you actually looked at the contents of your link and spotted it did you?

You surprise me - although I think charlatan is perhaps the wrong word.

 

His actual stance seems to be not so much that the figures from all those many many sources around the World from Greenpeace, through the UK's weather services, through NASA and the UN are wrong

- BUT that the figures from the many sources all these organisations use are actually all Falsified in a world wide conspiracy

 

Why didn't you use the self proclaimed Son of God Himself king?

 

 

or as my other half calls them in no attempt whatsoever to be politically correct - the Nutter Brigade.