Climate Change

It was The Sun what did it?!!

 

I thought this, and it's sister videos are fascinating :

 

I agree. I am a big fan of beavers for much the same reason - slowing run off.. The Tweed Commission is pretty alarmed by the prospect but old records show Peebles was once rich in salmon (food for poor people!) and beaver pelts so plainly they co-existed and thrived.

 

I've done a bit of checking on this, and a minority of scientists published reports (about 10% of studies at the time) that predicted a cooling trend in the 1970s. This was based on cooling that was detected in the northern hemisphere, probably due to the high levels of atmospheric pollution by chemicals (aerosols). Around 60% of scientific studies contradicted this and were already warning of the danger of greenhouse gas emissions causing warming. But a new ice age is more interesting and therefore achieved greater traction with the public. The remaining 30% of studies were inconclusive.

The sun's rays don't warm the atmosphere. They warm the ground, and the ground warms the atmosphere, but only slowly. The more concentrated the rays (i.e. the higher the sun is in the sky), the more the ground warms and the more the atmosphere above it warms (as a glider pilot, I know that in summer, it takes 5 to 7 hours after sunrise for sufficient heat in the ground to start warming the air enough to trigger thermals in the UK). But the atmosphere would lose that heat back into space if it wasn't for greenhouse gases. Like much of what allows life as we know it to thrive on earth, it is an unbelievably fine balance. Lose greenhouse gases, and it would become too cold for us to survive, and increase greenhouse gases a small amount and it becomes dangerously warm.

I'm sure the science & mathematics involved in modelling and predicting the extent of global warming and climate change are complicated, but unfortunately, I don't think the fundamental theory behind it is.

Science and engineering have provided solutions to major problems before, though maybe not as big as this one. But I'm hopeful that they will solve this problem too.

So, I'm going to continue to ride my motorbikes (I can't imagine life without bikes), but try to balance that, at least a little bit, in other ways.

Happy New Year y'all.

 

Brilliant! More power to him.

I've seen a couple of similar stories recently, in the USA and U.K., where farmers have started working with instead of against nature with some great result. Hopefully, the message will spread.

 

This is from someone who specialises in scientific models.....with a shedload of scientific prizes.

• My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
  • Freeman Dyson (2007) "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society", Edge, August 8, 2007.
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

 

Do you think if I change my diet and break wind a lot less they will take that as me doing my bit for climate change

 

The great thing about ‘the impending apocalypse’ is that its very failure to materialise will nail it for the nonsense it is. Its proponents do the environment a grave disservice by distracting from real pollution (CO2 is plant food and non-toxic) and loss of habitat. True madness is destroying rain forest to produce bio-fuels.

 

I keep missing all the BBC programmes that give the alternative view to "climate change is man made". I know they are there because the BBC is impartial and always gives both sides to an argument. Please, can someone help me find them ?

 

about 10 years ago, Fiona Bruce opened the 6 o'clock news with the statement that the climate debate is over, something about the IPCC report. She was right, BBC haven't debated it since.

 

Indeed, it "controls the proles" and provides added tax revenue.

 

It's always good to go back and see what the climate experts predicted in the past, and we can then judge how useful they are. I mean what part of this did they get wrong?

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

 

Agree with you complete about the rainforest destruction for biofuels and palm oil.

But the problems are already being seen with regards to climate change and global warming. Also exacerbated by deforestation.

 

Very interesting read about some of the other possible scenarios.
Takes a while to read, but as I've found in the past if I don't do the reading I can't give an honest opinion.

The above link was broken, so I found it again at:
https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society

 

Yes it would be nice to see both sides of the debate, instead of just the brainwashed robotic repetition of the climate alarmists position.

Everytime there is a so called extreme weather event now the main stream media seem to blame it on climate change, however there is no evidence to support this:

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/...er&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=thedcenergy



And the main stream media never report on anyones climate predictions that have been proved wrong:

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/