O/T:- Extinction Rebellion

[i961pie]

Haha fair enough. I'm hoping that my (as yet unborn) children will still be around in 90 years though.

[Old_pie]

You appear to be part of a generation unable to see that some things are far more important that your ignorant knee-jerk moral outrage.

Have a quick think about what's more important; a guy who's irritated you or the end of our species.

And maybe you are part of a generation that believes if you say "Make it so" it will happen. We used to have an owner like that.

The right people need to be making the right decisions and those decisions are not easy nor necessarily technical. What bit of gluing oneself to the top of an aircraft really leads to any proper answers. Such actions detract from what needs to be done. Get out there and learn - come back when you've got some answers.

[Old_pie]

The Chinese. Similarly I am a Limey to the Yanks, a Sassenach to the Jocks, Infidel to certain Ayrabs, Pom to the Aussies and many more. Not a problem with me old lad.

Even Pommie barsteward if they actually like you

[tarquinbeech]

A Government agency who have taken on climate research to justify the billions of pounds that are sent to them to not do any space exploration agrees with the portion of the evidence their jobs depend on? Shocker!

Some of the evidence is incredibly disingenuous. They conveniently leave off the sections of the graphs which evidence that not only are we in a low-carbon era historically speaking (actually, among the lowest ever epochs - and an era where the vegetation has struggled more than ever), but attribute temperature rises to carbon dioxide alone, ignoring the historical data which proves that the earths temperature has virtually no link to changes in atmospheric CO2 (as referenced in many extensive pieces of geological research (see picture - the blue line being average temperature and the purple line being CO2 concentration in the atmosphere). And again, the research fails to take into account Milankovitch cycles at all (especially given that we are edging into an era of the coinciding of 2 of their cycles) - something which virtually no one knows about but has been proved to be the key driver of climate and global temperatures (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUcn07enz4 this is probably the most accessible video into it I have found - ignore the title, someone has just lifted it from elsewhere and I can't find the original).

Attachment 14124

I don't believe that CO2 is the problem, in fact, the earth is naturally greening and arid places healing thanks to increased levels of CO2; however, we pump far more than CO2 into the atmosphere at record levels; Methane being something that is incredibly problematic, at least 30 times stronger than CO2 (some claims say 87 times over a 20 year staggered potency cycle), that breeds its own increasing concentration with help from us, and no one seems to care about it (probably because it would be hard to tax). My bet is that IF we are to blame, its more likely Methane than CO2 that was the culprit all along (in conjunction with Milankovitch cycles, which some estimates put as responsible for around 70% of climate change variance).

I am not really sure where to start in taking this post apart, piece by piece, without boring every one else senseless?

What worries me even more is that there are still people out there that categorically refuse to believe that it is human activity, coupled with raping and pillaging a fragile eco-system, that is driving world temps higher and higher.....literally by the day......we have even invented a word for man´s era, the anthropocene, "relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment."......but no, nooooo, no....it must the sun as we "wobble" around it.....gawd give me strength.

The categoric proof is out there, 90 odd % of scientists agree. There are scientific, peer-reviewed papers on CO2 as a greenhouse gas, it´s lifetime in the atmosphere, it´s radiative forcing qualities, it´s increase in the atmosphere since 1750, it´s effect has been narrowed down to Watts per metre squared and typed into hundreds of climate models (some using my own laptop and thousands of volunteers worldwide to create "super -computers")....methane similarly, which breaks down over much longer time cycles to produce water and even more CO2.....after water vapor (which will get greater as the temps ramp up), CO2 and Methane are the next two most important, and it is HUMANS ramping it up into the atmosphere in gigatons, far in excess of the last mass extinction.

Apparently none of us understand Milankovitch cycles?....it´s a fancy name for Glacials, inter-Glacials and Ice Ages that occur roughly every 100,000 years. So my simple question is this: if the earth has an average temp of 15 degrees, and has increased by 1.5 degrees (10%) since man started the Industrial Revolution and dug up huge quantities of coal to turn into CO2, then later oil and gas....why have temps gone up 10% in 250 years which is a 0.25% fraction of your latest cycle ie a tiny blip on your cycle timeline with our temps rising sharply, why? Secondly - Surely, if we are already 20 to 25,000 years into a "cycle", surely the temps should be falling by now towards the next ice age or inter-Glacial at MINUS 28 degrees average? My understanding of a "cycle" is that we spend 20 to 25% of the elliptical orbit close to the sun (inter-glacial) and 75 to 80% of the time freezing our tits off! The last Ice Age was circa 25,000 years ago BUT IT´S GETTING HOTTER, AND HOTTER FASTER (if that makes any sense).
The ice caps are melting at a faster and faster pace (the Arctic was the lowest on record 3 days ago, and is getting relatively lower each day for that historic date, I check them every day, sad huh). The Antarctic similarly, glaciers around the world are melting revealing dead bodies from hundreds to thousands of years old, woolly mammoths are appearing, defrosted, all over Siberia, vast areas of tundra permafrost are thawing out or on fire.....it ain´t stopping, it´s getting worse.

Grrrr - Just typed all that above and it turned out that Swedish Magpie´s theory has already been debunked a few times on the tinternet, namely here: "Contrarians who dislike the idea of climate change today being due to the enhanced greenhouse effect are only too willing to exaggerate the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. It is likely that they will use the exaggerated diagrams of the solar system to leave a false impression that greenhouse gases cannot have any effect. An exaggerated eccentricity also creates a visual impression of massive changes in Sun-Earth distances and would mean precession effects ( discussed briefly below) to be simultaneously exaggerated. This allows disbelief for the need for positive feedback effects and hold on to an whim that there may be some unknown change in the orbits of the Earth that could account for the present warming we see today" https://medium.com/@pathackett/the-m...y-7b424ba74113

.....and here "The myth is wrong for two reasons:

First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.

Third rock from the Sun – why we’re not deep frozen.

A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.
Ice ages

Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial." https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

Sorry to bore everyone.

[DaveSmithRules]

And maybe you are part of a generation that believes if you say "Make it so" it will happen. We used to have an owner like that.

The right people need to be making the right decisions and those decisions are not easy nor necessarily technical. What bit of gluing oneself to the top of an aircraft really leads to any proper answers. Such actions detract from what needs to be done. Get out there and learn - come back when you've got some answers.

Hi Old_pie. If my 'generationist' retort has got your goat, please read back and realise it was in response to a previous comment stereotyping a generation too. I'm not going to keep that going though because it's boring and trivial. I'm going to gloss over your strange and tenuous comparison to AH too.

You asked for some answers. I even noted your snazzy use of the bold function. ; ) I'll try and give some, but on the rest of this thread there's some decent debate going on. Read what Tarquin just posted for starters.

If you want another place to start then here's a link to the Extinction Rebellion website. Have a read and try and understand why they're doing what they're doing. It's really important. If you go in with an open mind you might even agree.

Finally, if you have no concept of why a blind Paralympic medal winner would glue himself to an aircraft, i'd guess it's for two reasons:
a) To protest against airlines and what their capitalist motives are doing to the environment
b) SO YOU'D HEAR ABOUT HIS PROTEST AND BY PROXY THE CAUSE! Please note my use of bold capitals. ; ) It worked, didn't it?

[DaveSmithRules]

On a side note, it's interesting to see how many olympians have got involved with XR to use their status to further the cause.

Here's an interview with Etienne Stott (who lived and trained in Nottingham and won gold at London 2012) about why he got involved.

[tarquinbeech]

I am not really sure where to start in taking this post apart, piece by piece, without boring every one else senseless?

What worries me even more is that there are still people out there that categorically refuse to believe that it is human activity, coupled with raping and pillaging a fragile eco-system, that is driving world temps higher and higher.....literally by the day......we have even invented a word for man´s era, the anthropocene, "relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment."......but no, nooooo, no....it must the sun as we "wobble" around it.....gawd give me strength.

The categoric proof is out there, 90 odd % of scientists agree. There are scientific, peer-reviewed papers on CO2 as a greenhouse gas, it´s lifetime in the atmosphere, it´s radiative forcing qualities, it´s increase in the atmosphere since 1750, it´s effect has been narrowed down to Watts per metre squared and typed into hundreds of climate models (some using my own laptop and thousands of volunteers worldwide to create "super -computers")....methane similarly, which breaks down over much longer time cycles to produce water and even more CO2.....after water vapor (which will get greater as the temps ramp up), CO2 and Methane are the next two most important, and it is HUMANS ramping it up into the atmosphere in gigatons, far in excess of the last mass extinction.

Apparently none of us understand Milankovitch cycles?....it´s a fancy name for Glacials, inter-Glacials and Ice Ages that occur roughly every 100,000 years. So my simple question is this: if the earth has an average temp of 15 degrees, and has increased by 1.5 degrees (10%) since man started the Industrial Revolution and dug up huge quantities of coal to turn into CO2, then later oil and gas....why have temps gone up 10% in 250 years which is a 0.25% fraction of your latest cycle ie a tiny blip on your cycle timeline with our temps rising sharply, why? Secondly - Surely, if we are already 20 to 25,000 years into a "cycle", surely the temps should be falling by now towards the next ice age or inter-Glacial at MINUS 28 degrees average? My understanding of a "cycle" is that we spend 20 to 25% of the elliptical orbit close to the sun (inter-glacial) and 75 to 80% of the time freezing our tits off! The last Ice Age was circa 25,000 years ago BUT IT´S GETTING HOTTER, AND HOTTER FASTER (if that makes any sense).
The ice caps are melting at a faster and faster pace (the Arctic was the lowest on record 3 days ago, and is getting relatively lower each day for that historic date, I check them every day, sad huh). The Antarctic similarly, glaciers around the world are melting revealing dead bodies from hundreds to thousands of years old, woolly mammoths are appearing, defrosted, all over Siberia, vast areas of tundra permafrost are thawing out or on fire.....it ain´t stopping, it´s getting worse.

Grrrr - Just typed all that above and it turned out that Swedish Magpie´s theory has already been debunked a few times on the tinternet, namely here: "Contrarians who dislike the idea of climate change today being due to the enhanced greenhouse effect are only too willing to exaggerate the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. It is likely that they will use the exaggerated diagrams of the solar system to leave a false impression that greenhouse gases cannot have any effect. An exaggerated eccentricity also creates a visual impression of massive changes in Sun-Earth distances and would mean precession effects ( discussed briefly below) to be simultaneously exaggerated. This allows disbelief for the need for positive feedback effects and hold on to an whim that there may be some unknown change in the orbits of the Earth that could account for the present warming we see today" https://medium.com/@pathackett/the-m...y-7b424ba74113

.....and here "The myth is wrong for two reasons:

First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.

Third rock from the Sun – why we’re not deep frozen.

A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.
Ice ages

Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial." https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

Sorry to bore everyone.

Please could the deniers take 40 minutes of their life to watch a simple video of a scientist that has collected ice-core samples as part of his job, and his interpretation of them (peer-reviewed).....it is interesting, with pics of glaciers a hundred years ago, and today....the science, the graphs, Milankovitch cycles, the Permian mass extiction etc etc .......but the final 30 seconds is a guy standing up, with a microphone, from the audience to say "I don´t believe you".....the scientist just shakes his head and smiles.....I know who I believe!!....flat-earth society anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

[Old_pie]

y and understand why they're doing what they're doing. It's really important. If you go in with an open mind you might even agree.

Finally, if you have no concept of why a blind Paralympic medal winner would glue himself to an aircraft, i'd guess it's for two reasons:
a) To protest against airlines and what their capitalist motives are doing to the environment
b) SO YOU'D HEAR ABOUT HIS PROTEST AND BY PROXY THE CAUSE! Please note my use of bold capitals. ; ) It worked, didn't it?

I trust he is spending effort on persuading fellow athletes to desist in International competitions in the pursuit of their hobbies and accepts that drug taking/cheating is hardly a good example to his daughter.

No caps needed here.

[Old_pie]

If you want another place to start then here's a link to the Extinction Rebellion website. Have a read and try and understand why they're doing what they're doing. It's really important. If you go in with an open mind you might even agree.

So how are the needs of the growth of the world population to be dealt with?

Any number of projections:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ulation_growth

An extra billion or so every few years, mainly from 3rd world developing nations who will want cars, houses, roads, planes, universities, air conditioning, computers, fridges, smartphones etc etc.

Of course you could simply tell the next generation to not procreate. And you can free up a lot of space by depriving affordable heating from old people in the UK, that should get rid of a million or three over a couple of winters.

No government is going to take the steps necessary, but be sure, nature will sort the issue out and thankfully I won't be there to see it.

Maybe we just need another world war, Trump may not be as daft as he appears, he might have a master plan. Where have the North Koreans gone when you need them?

[tarquinbeech]

Maybe we just need another world war, Trump may not be as daft as he appears, he might have a master plan. Where have the North Koreans gone when you need them?

I´m pretty sure that Trump has just sent all the US troops, in northern Syria, home from a potential war zone? and is now getting slated by the hawks for not holding out and now looking like a wimp...plus, trying to make peace with North Korea when everyone said he was wasting his time......still , it shouldn´t stop people from continuing the sport of Trump-bashing....carry on.