-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
It was a fond memory... Guards, arrest her!!!
jacksjg89
PROCRASTINATOR
That sounds like it’s before climate change. You had it easy
Is Her Majesty demanding that I go naked?
Couldn't I at least
View attachment 566080
use the Union Jack to protect my modesty?
bellesouth
Magistrate
Just to be pedantic - there is no 'before climate change'. The climate of this lump of rock we live on has been in a state of constant change for over 3.5 billion years and will continue to change for another 4 billion years unless some clown of a politician decides to blow it up before then.
If you are referencing the alleged 'man-made' climate change, then that is a whole new ball game. This site is well worth visiting before making any judgement - https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/author/notalotofpeopleknowthat/
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
You might want to read some actual science, too, and make up your own mind. Try to follow WHY they say what they say. That's important: why is there a scientific consensus (and there pretty much is)? It is uncontestable that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are going up, and that greenhouse gases do warm the atmosphere--the mechanisms are well known by actual experiment. It is also uncontestable that the arctic is melting pretty steadily. Several ice shelves in Antarctica have collapsed, and real data (lidar) show that the moorings of others have eroded from melting. The "models" (which, imperfect as they are, are based on in part on physics, unlike economic models which are based solely on past experience) predicted storms with more precipitation (not more frequent storms, but more potent ones) and that seems to be happening. One can argue (as this guy does) that temperature measurements are flawed, but one can always claim things like that. Measurements are getting more precise.
Nature, in an editorial years ago now, said that as data refuted "deniers'" objections, they simply came up with new ones. ("The satellite data show cooling." Well, except that the formula they were using didn't take account of the angle of incidence of the radiation they were measuring, and when that was corrected the satellite data didn't show cooling.) That shows they have an agenda, and aren't very honest. They used to claim that warming wasn't happening at all. Now a lot of them say that it's "minor", or that it's "natural". One thing I find rather compelling is that all over the world, the frequency of "record highs" far exceeds that of "record lows". Also, nighttime temperature minima seem to be rising. Sea level measurements are also pretty good, and the level is rising (and coastal flooding is more frequent as well--it's hard to fake the number of times a given area is under seawater). Higher sea levels come from global warming by two mechanisms--the same weight of warmer water has more volume, and melting land ice pumps water into the sea. It is clear that glaciers are retreating all over the world. Biologists also monitor the populations of a lot of species (birds are exceptionally well monitored), and ranges in the northern hemisphere are expanding north as spring gets earlier (which again can be measured), winter gets warmer, and fall ends later.
One can quibble with estimates of "how much" and "how soon" based on models, but the evidence of warming itself is pretty solid.
Finally, one thing that always struck me is the supposed "plateau". Why didn't the mean temperatures go down? If it's just "natural variation", one would expect that. One explanation might be that water has a high "heat capacity", and the oceans are soaking up the heat and warmer water is moving deeper. That is consistent with measurements--granted, they haven't been widespread, but the ones that have been done show this result. In addition to altering ocean circulation (circulation like the Gulf Stream can be measured, and the Gulf Stream is getting weaker), that will eventually become less effective in soaking up heat. Measurements show the oceans are getting more acidic due to dissolved carbon dioxide (chemistry that has been known for a couple of hundred years). It might be good to worry a little about this, instead of making up unverified scenarios to claim that we can't be certain that the worst will happen.
I am not trying to be an ass, I just am getting a little tired of an "argument culture" in which everyone's claim has equal weight, and unverified claims are on a par with those which have actual data behind them.
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
It's kind of funny. Back then people did without A/C. Eaves. Shade trees. Fans. Indiana went on daylight savings time about the time Congress extended it to "save energy". It turned out energy use went way up, as people got home from work "early" and cranked up the A/C. I use fans myself (which admittedly does get a little problematic, especially with high humidity). I don't like the variation A/C gives--it kicks in once the temperature rises a couple of degrees, then gets it back down, then lets it rise again before kicking in.
People say Phoenix has a "dry heat". Well, yeah, but over 100 degrees that really doesn't matter all that much. You have to have one of those ventilated seat cushions in your car--otherwise your back is soaked in sweat when you arrive, and you fry when you sit down on the surface of the seat after the care has been standing in the sun.
I have a book on the Navajo language. He claims that the terms for Phoenix and California both mean "hotter than hell".
General Sherman in the 1880's did an inspection tour of the Arizona territory--before A/C, obviously.
"Too damned hot and dry."
"Now, General. All she needs is a little more water, a little less heat, and a few good citizens."
"That's all hell needs."
(from the "Roadside History of Arizona". These books exist for other states as well, and are a great read.)
bellesouth
Magistrate
I'm not going to argue with you. This is not the place. Let's just agree that we disagree on the question of man-made climate change. This said, may I refer you to Rule 3 of a 40 year old paper by Irving Janis on 'GroupThink'. This states that -
"The third rule, which is that they cannot properly debate the matter with those who disagree with their belief. Anyone holding a contrary view must simply be ignored, ridiculed and dismissed as not worth listening to."
Please read this with an open mind - https://www.thegwpf.com/christopher-booker-groupthink-on-climate-change-ignores-inconvenient-facts/
That's not a good rule. This rule will probably making the ditches deeper and head to radical reactions.
My rule, let the other his opinion and stop the discuss. Many opinions have a religious attitude. And on this point is the clear mind on the end.
Life and life let!
bellesouth
Magistrate
Gibbs505
SERVORUM DOMITOR
I agree that it is not a good rule, but it is reality.That's not a good rule. This rule will probably making the ditches deeper and head to radical reactions.
My rule, let the other his opinion and stop the discuss. Many opinions have a religious attitude. And on this point is the clear mind on the end.
Life and life let!
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
OK, let's agree to disagree. "This is not the place."
But, please read the scientific literature with an open mind. I do. My views are not based on "Al Gore" or "distinguished experts", but peer-reviewed papers (some of which I think are on shaky ground).
Also, why won't the authors of this polemic (i.e., "my opponents are biased and engaging in group think") reveal their funding sources? (from wikipedia)
Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.
I will say no more on this. I apologize to anyone offended. I will note that I did not initiate this exchange.
That's not a good rule. This rule will probably making the ditches deeper and head to radical reactions.
My rule, let the other his opinion and stop the discuss. Many opinions have a religious attitude. And on this point is the clear mind on the end.
Life and life let!
But we have a good rule:
Policy on political and other irrelevant posts
Arguments about politics and other irrelevant topics have no place on this site, they will just drive people away, so they will be deleted.
Except on Tree's 'Conversation' thread. It is a PM thread but all are welcome. Most will find Tree's thoughts are hiding in the the small 'minority' cave but that is OK. I didn't join here to shape the world and doubt anyone did to mold my mind. Be friends and be well!
T
A POLICY THAT I ENDORSE HEARTILY, INSOFAR AS I DO ANYTHING HEARTILY. I TEND TO TRANSCEND POLITICS. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME WHETHER YOU ENDORSE ONE VIEW OR ANOTHER. WE ALL DANCE TOGETHER IN THE END.
AND PEOPLE GET UPSET WHEN I SHOW UP. CALL THAT SENSE, COS I DON'T. STILL, AROUND HERE, PEOPLE SEEM TO LIKE ME WELL ENOUGH.
MIND YOU, I DO FAVOUR CATS. CATS ARE NICE. I AM UNBENDING ON THAT POINT. SO BACK TO COFFEE AND CRUX, EH?
Tree feeds 8 cats (and some stray dogs periodically). But he never forgets his main endevour!
Tree
...what, Ulrika? No, I don't remember what that might be....
Perhaps Tree needs to wok on a 'crux of spring'...
It could be climate change...
It could be climate change...