1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Climate change modelling "a fools paradise".

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Mar 19, 2019.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    CO2 represents at most 6% of the green house effect and our contribution to that 6% is <6%.
    92% is caused by water vapour and a further 2% by other gases.
    You may think it is daft but the evidence for the drivers of global warming has already been provided with reference to source.
     
  2. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Do you realise that modelling which all this hysteria is based upon, consistently gives higher temperatures than actual measured temperatures. So, which do you believe, the actual measured temperature, the modelled temperature or neither?
     
  3. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    We are virtually powerless in controlling atmospheric composition, if you think otherwise then it is you that is "dumber than dumber".
     
  4. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Is the content wrong in any way? I am sorry to ask hard questions but you seem to be avoiding them.
     
  5. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    If you go back to the early days of climate alarmist campaigns, they concentrated their claims entirely on the effects that relate to a warming climate. Heat waves, droughts, rising sea levels as examples.
    During the early 2000's it became obvious that global warming had stopped/paused so, a new grouping of climate alarmists conjured up the term 'climate change'. The consequence being (for now/until something else changes) that any change out of the usual is now characterised as AGW. IMO this new linkage has one goal and that is to instill fear so that we will welcome radical and very costly regulation on the way we live our lives.
    Here is a little flavour of AGW hysteria promotion; a typical quote from National Geographic 2011:
    Weather gone wild.
    "Rains that are almost biblical, heat waves that do not end, tornadoes that strike in savage swarms, 'there has been a change in the weather lately'. What is going on?"

    Really? What next, will it be the sky is falling?
     
  6. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    It's god then.

    Except where you say we've changed the atmosphere and plants are reaping the benefits from increased CO2.

    So we can't change the atmospheric composition, except when we do.
     
    Scintillant likes this.
  7. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    The National Geographic article is quite reasonable, not hysterical
    The article begins 'Whats going on' like this:

    "Are these extreme events signals of a dangerous, human-made shift in Earth’s climate? Or are we just going through a natural stretch of bad luck?

    The short answer is: probably both. The primary forces driving recent disasters have been natural climate cycles, especially El Niño and La Niña. Scientists have learned a lot during the past few decades about how that strange seesaw in the equatorial Pacific affects weather worldwide......".
     
  8. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    But societies can do things and make decisions that mitigate against climate change. For example, after thousands died in heatwaves in Europe a few years ago the French government set up air conditioned emergency shelters and identified people at risk such as pensioners living alone who would be contacted by services. In the USA whole communities have been destroyed by fire and planning laws are changing..
    But planning for our cities and citizens that are in harms way mean significant spending decisions have to be made. Climate change denial means those decisions are less likely to be made by lawmakers and policy makers and those who insist on low tax economies will block those decisions. In the end it may be insurance companies that end up being the ones who force behaviour change. Pay more or leave your location or stay and take the risk but without insurance if you can't afford it.
     
  9. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    A series of assertions and opinion backed by no evidence whatsoever. What could be wrong?:rolleyes:
     
  10. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    I have referenced. Take a look instead of back-biting.
     
  11. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Yes we can reduce our pollution for the good of all but that is not the point of this thread.
    Who has denied climate change?
    In truth the AGW brigade are history deniers. There are many historians who contend that Michael Mann and the IPCC., are incorrect regarding the 'little ice age', and also about the Roman, Medievel and Minoan warming periods where temperatures were much higher than today.
    Cold, death and pestilence are what history tells us accompanies lower temperatures.
     
  12. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Really?
    Would they be the 3%:rolleyes: who do not conform to AGW?
     
  13. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    "We are virtually powerless in controlling atmospheric composition" I did not say we can't I referred to our CO2 which is embedded within the total 6% EFFECT, ref#361
     
  14. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    You're an engineer. How do people in cold places stay warm? How do people in warm countries stay cool? Is it easier to survive in an environment 37 Kelvin (don't need a wee degree sign for kelvins) below body temperature or 37K above body temperature? What about 27K? What about flora and fauna?
     
  15. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Do the actual measurements show a warming?
     
  16. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    A hell of a lot of what if's AND when we do not clearly understand climate change in the first place, yet we are being bulldozed towards AGW dogma.
     
  17. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    If you look at geological time periods we are following a normal cyclic trend albeit cooling.
    If we look at time periods going back around 11000 years and using the Greenland ice core data, the peaks and troughs are consistent with nothing abnormal and current (2009) temperatures being below trend by some 2 degrees. (source Alley 2004; current temperature:box 2009)
    If we look back for the last 4000 years or so we are below the average, eg., Bronze age was close to 2 deg C warmer than at present. We are still around 0.5 deg C below the medievel warming period and around 1.5 deg C below the iron age peak.
    If we look at the last few decades starting with the 1930's and then 1950's we are at around that level possibly a little higher depending on which sources you use.
     
  18. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    Oh yes, where?
     
  19. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

     
  20. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Can you post the graphs up to about 2017?
     

Share This Page