This CERN lecture from 2007 is well worth a watch, I've linked it where he starts to talk about solar and climate variations, and he mentions that these observations are not used in climate models. The entire lecture is worth a watch. edit: link won't start at correct time, go to 6m
It's just a tax on the poor if you've money you can spout on about damage but if you NEED to fly round the world that's ok
There is a high probability that the earth is entering a natural cooling phase, the likes of which we haven't had for over 200 years. But that may be offset by CO2.
Yes. Everything that you can see going on at the moment with more extreme weather and rising sea levels, melting ice, changing climate... All filmed on a sound stage and it's all a conspiracy to get you to part with more money and not a serious effort to make sure our children's future isn't completely cocked up. My advice, look into everything yourself from reputable sources, from the Science, to the skeptics. Most importantly, understand the chemistry at work, understand how climate actually work, then make an informed decision for yourself. As I've said before, asking on a forum is basically 'a guy on the internet said'. It's all opinions, and none of us are right or have the full story. Hopefully I'm wrong with my opinion, but I'm on the side of science here.
I never said anything about money I merely asked is the planet getting hotter or colder. You say one thing and b-badger is saying another. My comment was I’m confused and still am even after you mugging me off best I can do with what’s available. Also Graeme a sense of humour may help slightly because science doesn’t seem to have an answer
it's about time scales, if the solar weather forecast is the dominant factor, we could see 2 deg average temp drops in the next 10-20 years, we will know soon enough. Where as the CO2 models predict 2 Deg warming in the next 100 years. If both are right, expect a drop in the short term, followed by a rapid rise in ~30-40 years
Apart from when the science doesn't agree with your opinion Runaway global warming...oh 0.32 deg C Melting Ice...perhaps not No more snow...or maybe more snow
And for a global conspiracy, it seems like a lot of effort and inter country collaboration to collect money from the poor... It seems more like people (scientists and non academics) see the picture and interpret it their way... Do you see the fox? Now you’ve seen it, it’s harder to see anything else, I’ve made your objectivity more difficult...
I don't believe anyone can be absolutely sure, however I choose to believe the factual historical data going back hundreds of thousands of years, and the current actual data. I personally don't have much credence with models and forecasts, as they are invariably flawed and proved incorrect. And a few million years ago the earth was a lot warmer and it sustained the megafauna, massive animals and vegetation that thrived.
There is no doubt that life thrived when the climate was warmer, but climate change was gradual, occuring over millenia, allowing time for species to evolve and adapt to the new climate. Whenever there has been rapid climate change, whatever the cause, there have been mass extinctions. The problem with climate change science is that it has been corrupted by politics, I'm pretty skeptical myself about whether CO2 is going to have much of an impact. But I do agree that rapid climate change is a very bad thing. There are other environmental issues that are of serious concern, but getting very little attention because climate change is what the politicians care about. #1 on the agenda ought to be human population control, but no politician outside of China will touch it.
My apologies, it was an attempt at humour comparing the skeptics to the moon landing skeptics (please, nobody open that can of worms!!!) I was just about to leave work last night when I wrote that, and didn't consider the wording properly. It wasn't a jab at you or anybody else personally. Skepticism is an important and beneficial part of being human. And you asked is it getting hotter or colder. I replied yes. To both 0.32 degrees is quite large on the average global temperature scale. Considering it's only a few degrees either way to start either an ice age or warming. It's also interesting to note that the trough is highlighted to 'disprove' the rise, even though the trend is rising, with large peaks after 1997. The temperature changes over history aren't being disputed, they are accepted by the scientific community. Yes, it was a lot warmer, the atmosphere gas content was also different allowing for megafauna and megaflora. The problem is, we humans would seriously struggle to survive in such conditions. The planet is comfortable for us at the moment. If temperature rises too far, our population drops dramatically as well as plant and animal species that can't adapt. The earth however will go on. It's not the first mass extinction that has or will ever happen in the earths history. We are being a bit selfish to be honest, as we're trying to keep the planet for ourselves. Maybe we should be allowing change to happen, and see what comes out on top. Here's a good comparison for the mini ice age that's possible in 2030. I'd recommend reading both. Mini ice age could bring freezing temperatures by 2030 https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots 3 reasons not to expect a 'mini ice age' in 2030 https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/3-reasons-not-expect-mini-ice-age
I think you're right about human population, but maybe China is just honest about the issue, and our governements are just hiding the fact they are doing something about it... by killing us with tons of poisons and carcionogens (metaldahyde, glyphosate, etc) used in farming, contaminating our food crops, livestock and leaching in to our water supplies. Then the government quashes proven cancer treatments like GcMAF (which is relatively easy and cheap to produce), and instead still pushes treatments which are further poisons like chemotherapy and radiotherapy....maybe I'm just paranoid and conspiratorial ...or am I? Better take my meds now, before they come and get me...
This mentions the lack of peer review, well that's because of the lack of research and funding, it's career limiting to do research in to climate change that goes against the orthodoxy. The idiocy of this is that this research does not conflict with CO2 predictions, and shouldn't be used to "disprove" anything. If you watch the CERN lecture I posted earlier, there are numerous correlations between earth climate and sun cycles, not just the mini ice age. Solar brightness/radiation can NOT alone explain this, this is often correctly cited. Solar brightness variation alone is insufficient to cause climatic changes that have been observed. But that just means that there is another as yet unexplained mechanism, the observations don't go away because they can't be explained by current science. Gravity is real, we know the maths to predict it, yet Science still can't adequatly explain it. The lecture goes on to suggest this mechanism is in fact cosmic rays. Basically, cosmic rays seed cloud formation, more rays = more cloud = cooler climate. The Sun's solar wind protects the earth from cosmic rays. More sun activity, less cosmic rays, less cloud, warmer climate. He includes observations of climate variation dating back 100's millions of years and how earth's climate is even dependant on our solar systems orbit in the milky way. When our solar system passes through one of the galaxy spiral arms, we're exposed to greater cosmic rays and a experience a cooler climate. Fascinating stuff, but severely lacking in research.
and failing, population in my lifetime will go from 3.5bn to 10bn. Probably to 20bn in my children's lifetime.
I'll have a watch of that.... or more accurately I'll listen to it while working this afternoon. A long video
Watched the video, and it was very interesting. Thanks for the link. I liked how the guy, even though he was (I think) the lead on the experiments approached it in a largely neutral way, and what limitations they faced. That what they are investigating were observations that needed investigating, and what they were seeing from observations showed the trend of cosmic rays affecting cloud formation. It was good to Listen to and informative. I've had a little look, and they have continued their research, and published some findings from their experiments. https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cern-experiment-sheds-new-light-cloud-formation https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119 Though in conclusion they say this: "The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere." Some of the reading is a bit heavy going, but it seems that trees have a large part to play in the formation of clouds... "In 2014 CERN’s CLOUD experiment made a huge discovery when it showed that biogenic vapours emitted by trees and oxidised in the atmosphere have a significant impact on the formation of clouds, thus helping to cool the planet." So from one line of investigation they have a better understanding of one aspect, which can help us to sort out another issue. We need more trees!
