I feel for her!

[Streetwalker]

And she drives a fiat punto,is that climate friendly?

Not as climate friendly as me , (if you buy into being climate unfreindly ) I walk or get public transport .  Wonder if she cries when she is filling it up ?

[Nick]

Your supposed evidence is most unconvincing. Scientists know of the greenhouse properties of CO2, that it lets in light but tends to trap in heat. That any increase in CO2 would tend to cause increased heat is obvious. [highlight]What is much less so is where else this heat would come from and how it would trigger an increase in CO2.[/highlight]

As to methane it is well known to be a much more powerful greenhouse gas but we emit much less of it. However, there is the risk that increased warming might result in more of the natural methane locked up in ice being released, creating a feedback loop. If kids are being taught about this then good

Do we really have to go into third grade science lessons about where the heat on the Earth comes from? 🌞 

The Earth is on a tilt of about 23 degrees, in our winter the north points away from the Sun, as we orbit to the other side of the the north points towards the Sun creating our summer. The Earth also has a wobble creating variants in our winter / summer. Our orbit around the Sun differs slightly causing variations to the temperature of the Earth. The Sun has large sunspot cycles that protect us from background radiation or minimums that allow a lot of BGR and therefore a lot of clouds.
Alignments of all these variants can cause either an ice age or a thermal trip, we're always heading towards one of them, and ATM we are just going over the edge and heading down again. Once we get to an ice age we will be there until we get another thermal trip and the whole thing starts to therm-cycle. 

[srb7677]

Your article doesn't show anywhere CO2 on par with temp, in fact, they are so twitchy about it they use the 800,000 year graph but have removed the temperature. Also, children in schools now are being taught that methane is the driver not CO2.



The real graph shows that on every occasion coming out of an ice age temperature increases first.

Your supposed evidence is most unconvincing. Scientists know of the greenhouse properties of CO2, that it lets in light but tends to trap in heat. That any increase in CO2 would tend to cause increased heat is obvious. What is much less so is where else this heat would come from and how it would trigger an increase in CO2.

As to methane it is well known to be a much more powerful greenhouse gas but we emit much less of it. However, there is the risk that increased warming might result in more of the natural methane locked up in ice being released, creating a feedback loop. If kids are being taught about this then good

[Nick]

CO2 is not lagging temperature by 800 years. It is currently increasing in line with temperatures.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov

Your article doesn't show anywhere CO2 on par with temp, in fact, they are so twitchy about it they use the 800,000 year graph but have removed the temperature. Also, children in schools now are being taught that methane is the driver not CO2.



The real graph shows that on every occasion coming out of an ice age temperature increases first.

[patman post]

The ice core records show us that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years and that in the last there has been 3 times the CO2 that we are seeing now. It also shows us that the Earths temperature has been much higher previously and that we will now start cooling, as previously stated, some scientists say the Earth is already cooling due to an extremely inactive Sun.

Follow the money and you'll find the science.

But the money is with the climate change deniers retained by those who are making oodles of the stuff from fossil fuel extraction, processing and marketing.

New money may be made from research into cleaner energy and production, but it's lagging the money changing hands in the fossil fuel industry...

[Nick]

I don't doubt they are using such cores and have seen some of that however they do insist on the  what is imo hysterical "since records began" without mentioning the actual time of those which is dishonest.

Some other factors are:

What devices where used to measure the earths temperature years back and if they were out by a fraction then modern day increases would be exacerbated.
Theres also the possibility, that no one has mentioned before, that the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated to the point that it doesn't matter how much more CO2 is added the radiated heat won't increase.

[Nick]

I don't doubt they are using such cores and have seen some of that however they do insist on the  what is imo hysterical "since records began" without mentioning the actual time of those which is dishonest.

The ice core records show us that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years and that in the last there has been 3 times the CO2 that we are seeing now. It also shows us that the Earths temperature has been much higher previously and that we will now start cooling, as previously stated, some scientists say the Earth is already cooling due to an extremely inactive Sun.

Follow the money and you'll find the science.

[cromwell]

Humans may only have kept records for 160 years (though some chronicles of past times mention weather — though not climate), but trees and ice and ground cores have captured climate and environment data for far longer, and it is this that is driving a lot of current climate study.

I don't think you're wrong to highlight the world population and its mass movement — much of which is being driven by changes in climactic conditions. But I am firmly in the Fight Climate Change camp...

I don't doubt they are using such cores and have seen some of that however they do insist on the  what is imo hysterical "since records began" without mentioning the actual time of those which is dishonest.

[patman post]

And she drives a fiat punto,is that climate friendly?

Well the facts we were taught when I was young Steve was that we were entering a new ice age,mention that now and I'm told the scientists then were wrong and didn't have the expertise and instruments they do now.

Is it not possible that in a few decades someone will come along and rubbish this.


We are told that this or that is the hottest since records began the trouble is they've only been keeping reliable records for just over 160 years and the earth is how old?

I don't doubt the climate is changing it always has,there were vineyards in England long before it became England.

I keep saying it's not climate change but population we need to fear and mass movement of people,in that we are only seeing the start.

Humans may only have kept records for 160 years (though some chronicles of past times mention weather — though not climate), but trees and ice and ground cores have captured climate and environment data for far longer, and it is this that is driving a lot of current climate study.

I don't think you're wrong to highlight the world population and its mass movement — much of which is being driven by changes in climactic conditions. But I am firmly in the Fight Climate Change camp...

[cromwell]

If she really believed she would be protestesting outside the Chinese embassy . These people are pests and should be dealt with as such .  By the way she owes me £15 for my cab that was held up on london Bridge the other week

And she drives a fiat punto,is that climate friendly?

We are doing what we should be doing, and teaching young people facts. The fact that these facts are unwelcome to you is unfortunate but global warming is very real, the science incontrovertible in spite of the best efforts of denialists.

I expect Nick to rock up soon denying that there is any scientific evidence, by inference accusing most of the world's scientists of talking out of their arses, and that he knows more than they do. An extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence entirely lacking. Because it would take quite some evidence to convince me that you and Nick know more than the world's greatest scientists.

Well the facts we were taught when I was young Steve was that we were entering a new ice age,mention that now and I'm told the scientists then were wrong and didn't have the expertise and instruments they do now.

Is it not possible that in a few decades someone will come along and rubbish this.


We are told that this or that is the hottest since records began the trouble is they've only been keeping reliable records for just over 160 years and the earth is how old?

I don't doubt the climate is changing it always has,there were vineyards in England long before it became England.

I keep saying it's not climate change but population we need to fear and mass movement of people,in that we are only seeing the start.

[srb7677]

I think we have to keep a sense of perspective. None of us know everything not even scientists. After all they used to think the world was flat. I think we can all see that the world is currently getting warmer but then that may well have been part of it's history for eons. Some of us here remember when the science told us that by the 1990s we would be in an ice-age and the UK would be unliveable. What is wrong is to present 'facts' in such a way that it gives people and particularly the young such fear that they don't know where to turn. That is simply unkind.

We should not be avoiding teaching facts to the young because those facts are scary. In fact they need to know so they can do something about it. They are after all the leaders of the future.

The self interested current crop - and I mean all of them both here and abroad and not any one party or country - are frankly in large measure a waste of space when it comes to the bigger picture.

[srb7677]

You haven't shown any science for me to deny.

Here's one for you to start with, find an article that scientifically explains how one of the heaviest gasses (CO2) gets 70 miles up in the atmosphere. Here's one of your scientists explaining it...Not.
You'll learn a lot about wine, sod all about how it gets up there. I've read 4 articles now stating how it happens, not one of them explains it.

Secondly, explain how CO2 lags temperature by 800 years if CO2 is a driver of climate change. I can show you the scientific evidence for this.

And, explain why some scientists say that the Earth is actually cooling now, and will do most likely until the 50's. It'll be a case of yay we did it, when in fact China, India and Russia are chuffing the stuff out like no tomorrow.

CO2 is not lagging temperature by 800 years. It is currently increasing in line with temperatures.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov

[Streetwalker]

A girl has climbed the gantry over the M25 stopping the traffic. She had tears in her eyes as she admitted that she knew everyone would hate her, but claimed she had no future.

If she really believed she would be protestesting outside the Chinese embassy . These people are pests and should be dealt with as such .  By the way she owes me £15 for my cab that was held up on london Bridge the other week 

[Nick]

We are doing what we should be doing, and teaching young people facts. The fact that these facts are unwelcome to you is unfortunate but global warming is very real, the science incontrovertible in spite of the best efforts of denialists.

I expect Nick to rock up soon denying that there is any scientific evidence, by inference accusing most of the world's scientists of talking out of their arses, and that he knows more than they do. An extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence entirely lacking. Because it would take quite some evidence to convince me that you and Nick know more than the world's greatest scientists.

You haven't shown any science for me to deny.

Here's one for you to start with, find an article that scientifically explains how one of the heaviest gasses (CO2) gets 70 miles up in the atmosphere. Here's one of your scientists explaining it...Not.
You'll learn a lot about wine, sod all about how it gets up there. 


https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/09/23/carbon-dioxide-distribution-atmosphere/

I've read 4 articles now stating how it happens, not one of them explains it.

Secondly, explain how CO2 lags temperature by 800 years if CO2 is a driver of climate change. I can show you the scientific evidence for this.

And, explain why some scientists say that the Earth is actually cooling now, and will do most likely until the 50's. It'll be a case of yay we did it, when in fact China, India and Russia are chuffing the stuff out like no tomorrow.

[T00ts]

We are doing what we should be doing, and teaching young people facts. The fact that these facts are unwelcome to you is unfortunate but global warming is very real, the science incontrovertible in spite of the best efforts of denialists.

I expect Nick to rock up soon denying that there is any scientific evidence, by inference accusing most of the world's scientists of talking out of their arses, and that he knows more than they do. An extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence entirely lacking. Because it would take quite some evidence to convince me that you and Nick know more than the world's greatest scientists.

I think we have to keep a sense of perspective. None of us know everything not even scientists. After all they used to think the world was flat. I think we can all see that the world is currently getting warmer but then that may well have been part of it's history for eons. Some of us here remember when the science told us that by the 1990s we would be in an ice-age and the UK would be unliveable. What is wrong is to present 'facts' in such a way that it gives people and particularly the young such fear that they don't know where to turn. That is simply unkind.