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.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by emerald52, Jan 23, 2020.
It is not relevant to addressing the existential issue of current climate change.
The AGW existential issue and its accompanying doom mongering is ALL about the politics of power and control rather than climate change. The only real threat at this time is self fulfilling prophecy.
We need to concentrate on adapting to climate changes simply because we cannot do anything else that is sensible.
*sigh* but there is no real evidence. They say the data has been tampered with, and then go on to give an explanation that shows either the lack of understanding, or willful misinterpretation, of the science. Cherry picking graphs and scientific papers to best fit their narrative. Raw data alone is just that, it is meaningless until turned into information. That each one will have variables that need to be adjusted for. See below for more details why, but using raw historical temperature data would be like looking at the raw fastest finish marathon times from every marathon around the world over the past 50 years and considering any one time as comparable to one another.
Taking your point one. Here's a paper showing a hockey stick graph - https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf
Here's the raw data - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/borehole
Please indicate where and what borehole data they have altered downwards.
Point two - shows a lack of understanding of their use. NASA explains the reason why below and the additional link included should help you understand why raw data alone can not be used because there is too many inconsistencies between how the historical temperature was gathered.
"Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than normal for a particular place and time. For the GISS analysis, normal always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year. This base period is specific to GISS, not universal. But note that trends do not depend on the choice of the base period: If the absolute temperature at a specific location is 2 degrees higher than a year ago, so is the corresponding temperature anomaly, no matter what base period is selected, since the normal temperature used as base point (which is subtracted from the absolute temperature to get the anomaly) is the same for both years.
Note that regional mean anomalies (in particular global anomalies) are not computed from the current absolute mean and the 1951-80 mean for that region, but from station temperature anomalies. Finding absolute regional means encounters significant difficulties that create large uncertainties. This is why the GISS analysis deals with anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. For a more detailed discussion of that topic, please see "The Elusive Absolute Temperature"."
- NASA (2020)
I'll get around to the other points if I have more time when I'm not teaching.
As above. They have been shown to misrepresent the information on the few occasions I've looked at your videos so I am skeptical about anything they say. The fact you think youtube videos are more valid than any published research is telling. There are published papers that do challenge the methods (e.g. Mann puclished this model for showing warming whose statistical method was criticised by McIntyre). The trouble is you say science is wrong and then use bad science to justify the position.
How can that be done?
Many areas of the world will become uninhabitable, for a range of reasons (e.g. rising sea-levels drowning low-lying islands and coastal regions, and turning fresh water into salt water; huge areas becoming desert or drought-ridden; more extremes of weather in certain areas damaging homes & crops; etc, etc).
How can we adapt?
People currently living in those areas will no longer be able to do so. They will need to move to areas where people can live. So expect more migrants to countries such as ours.
Food crops will need to be replaced. How can that be done? Eat less? Eat different things (insects, etc)? Rationing for all?
And there are more issues.
So how would you suggest we (the human race, not just you and me) adapt to climate change?
It is exceedingly difficult to adapt to an ever-worsening situation.
In effect it is almost wholly impossible.
There is a solution: reduce carbon emissions immediately. Every reduction goes partway to making the future better than it would otherwise be. If it isn't too late already...
I think it's already too late. I don't believe global powers will work cooperatively either to cut emissions or to help out nations who will bear the brunt of it. As land and resources become scarcer, people will get dirtier about either hanging on to what they've got or acquiring someone else's. Best buy a shotgun now.
Though on a more cheerful note, won't some tracts of land currently not suitable for agriculture become so with climate change?
So it is nothing to do with people then?
We aren't smart enough to fix it. The science is clear and consistent. We still have the orange toddler from Washington denying climate change is a thing, to protect this imaginary thing called the 'economy'. Actually it's dumber than that. He's denying it because he receives a lot of imaginary credit units from people who make lots more imaginary credit units from destroying the actual real biosphere.
Thing is, the universe doesn't care. We will continue to exist for a bit, or not. If we manage to create a social system that respects reality enough to address looming problems we might be able to survive for longer (searching for sanity....none found....reboot apex predator from start). If (as is most likely) our refusal to face reality leads to our extinction, I just hope the next sapient species isn't so utterly useless at applying that hard won intelligence.
We know what the problem is. We have many possible avenues of technology and societal change to fix it. We aren't doing it, because we prefer the fantasy of 'everything's fine' to the uncomfortable reality.
Alternately, become less selfish and precious about 'my' land, 'my' country. Be prepared to have less so others can have more.
A significant percentage of the world's population is hungry:
Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth.
The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished.
Asia is the continent with the most hungry people - two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly.
Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest prevalence (percentage of population) of hunger. One person in four there is undernourished.
Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.
One out of six children -- roughly 100 million -- in developing countries is underweight.
One in four of the world's children are stunted. In developing countries the proportion can rise to one in three.
If women farmers had the same access to resources as men, the number of hungry in the world could be reduced by up to 150 million.
66 million primary school-age children attend classes hungry across the developing world, with 23 million in Africa alone.
WFP calculates that US$3.2 billion is needed per year to reach all 66 million hungry school-age children.
Yet one third of food is wasted.
There's enough now for no one to go hungry. But:
Hunger has been on the rise over the past three years, returning to levels from a decade ago. This reversal in progress sends a clear warning that more must be done and urgently if the Sustainable Development Goal of Zero Hunger is to be achieved by 2030.
And, yes, I'm to blame as much as everyone else who eats too much and wastes food.
People produce the CO2. In that sense yes.
However, there is huge inequality in emissions. Every person does not produce the same emissions.
If we got rid of the poor half of the global population today, we still have a huge problem to solve. 1/5 of the population produces nearly 3/4 of total emissions.
Birth rate is coming down everywhere. What do you want to do? Stop people having children? Let old people die?
Will not happen.
No evidence yet, to support this. It is AGW propaganda.
There is a huge amount of evidence of those things happening.
To say there is not, is simply stupid.
For crying out loud.
Do you read ANYTHING? Watch the news?
There are already islands literally drowning in the ocean where people have had to leave. Huge areas of savannah land are becoming desert, etc, etc.
I could post links - pictures - videos - first hand accounts by people who have had to move. But there's no point.
You really don't want to know, do you?
You're determined not to believe any of it.
If your faith is strong and you are comfortable in your beliefs, you don't need to concern yourself with the ideas of man.
The weird thing is that he knows it is true. He can see it as well as we can.
He, for some reason, continues to deny it.
I listen and laugh at the shambolic propaganda that they try and shower on us.
Data does not lie, tampered data does.
You like the rest of the brainwashed, mix climate change up with AGW., they are not the same thing and never have been. Climate change is real and has been with us forever, it cycles between warm and cold and will continue to do so regardless, whereas, AGW is a pseudo-science construct.
If you follow the money you might understand why research papers are IMO to be treated with great suspicion. Peer reviews of said research are also a 'closed shop' and have been for decades.
Data tampering is endemic amongst climate alarmists because it is the only way they can spread their panic mongering alarmist garbage.
Many children today are suffering mental problems as a result of these fraudsters. They use kids as emotional blackmail for the gullible.