O/T:- Extinction Rebellion

[i961pie]

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

I don't think there are many if any deniers on here, the main argument against the protesters is their methods.

[DaveSmithRules]

Oldpie - You make some interesting points, but I'm not sure how valid issues such as:

- doping in sport
- world population projections
- Donald Trump creating new world wars

... actually are to this thread. I mean, sure I can see how you got to each of them. But the main point of this thread is about a nonviolent global environmental movement with the stated aim of using civil disobedience to compel government action to avoid tipping points in the climate system.

Personally I like and back XRs current methods. If you don't fair enough. I'm just glad to see someone doing something.

[Old_pie]

Oldpie - You make some interesting points, but I'm not sure how valid issues such as:

- doping in sport
- world population projections
- Donald Trump creating new world wars

... actually are to this thread. I mean, sure I can see how you got to each of them. But the main point of this thread is about a nonviolent global environmental movement with the stated aim of using civil disobedience to compel government action to avoid tipping points in the climate system.

Personally I like and back XRs current methods. If you don't fair enough. I'm just glad to see someone doing something.

So basically they are not doing something, they want "someone else" to do "something". And you don't want the selfishness of human nature to be accounted for. Good luck because as I see it the government actions to avoid tipping points will cause riots and civil warfare with current technologies and world population projections.

[Old_pie]

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.

If you've sussed out Trump's policies and strategies you're doing well. Meanwhile something's afoot with Kim - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50064893

[Skatorna]

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

You haven't actually touched any of the opposing data, you're just quoting the dogma.

We have 4 billion years of geological data (the graph from my post) that gives us the opposite reading to the current conclusions on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Rising temperatures historically happened at times when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere fell. Therefore, in the very least, we know that there are many other factors that can contribute extensively enough to global temperature that means that the CO2 levels aren't always relevant. This has been observed time and time again. The problem with your data on the other hand is that it is for a very small, hand picked, time frame. It's wrong when the bigger picture is taken into account. How do the scientists square the data from before this very small period of the earths history they like to exclusively look at? They can't. Not without saying something very unscientific such as "there was a dramatic shift in the way the CO2 behaved". Thats they the pro-climate change data is almost exclusively linked to an 800,000 year period - a ridiculously small window to try and use to extrapolate a trend when the earth is 4.5 plus billions of years old. Thats less than 0.02 percent of the potential data they are trying to use to give an unequivocal answer, when the other 99.8 percent of the available data says otherwise.

It's interesting that he brings up the Permian Mass Extinction, something that was most likely driven by a Meteorite and Methane emissions - with pretty scant geological evidence for CO2 being the driver.

Again, I'm not going to claim to be a climate change denier because I am still not well read enough and still yet to come to a firm conclusion either way, but in the very least, the science is far from being "settled". The dogma very much is though. I'm willing to go as far as to accept that CO2 is playing a role in the temperature rise because in theory that is how CO2 is supposed to behave, but the magnitude of the historical data which shows it not behaving in that way is and that fact that the pro-climate change community actively hide it or ignore it says a lot.

[Psaw2]

My presumption as to why the USA is ignoring the climate is because a solution already exists. As far as im concerned, aliens do exist....don't laugh, and are obviously far ahead of us. And they can fix it if they want to, or when they want to. The dilemma for them is to decide if we deserve it.

If it was left to me , I would say no, let them gas themselves. Human beings are appalling, just one step up from a slug. If we were let loose in the universe, it would be like cancer cells invading a body.

I was born in 1957, the weather was completely different then. It started getting warmer in the early 70s, and to be honest Im glad its getting warmer. Havent had the heating on yet. Stuff the future, I wont be there, and the way things are going, neither will you, which will be a blessing as the universe can relax, having got shot of these things.

Your own personal extinction is not far away, time to prepare for that. If your death is not sudden, the last thing on your mind will be notts county. What will be important to you? Books have been written on that.

Flavio.

[tarquinbeech]

You haven't actually touched any of the opposing data, you're just quoting the dogma.

We have 4 billion years of geological data (the graph from my post) that gives us the opposite reading to the current conclusions on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Rising temperatures historically happened at times when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere fell. Therefore, in the very least, we know that there are many other factors that can contribute extensively enough to global temperature that means that the CO2 levels aren't always relevant. This has been observed time and time again. The problem with your data on the other hand is that it is for a very small, hand picked, time frame. It's wrong when the bigger picture is taken into account. How do the scientists square the data from before this very small period of the earths history they like to exclusively look at? They can't. Not without saying something very unscientific such as "there was a dramatic shift in the way the CO2 behaved". Thats they the pro-climate change data is almost exclusively linked to an 800,000 year period - a ridiculously small window to try and use to extrapolate a trend when the earth is 4.5 plus billions of years old. Thats less than 0.02 percent of the potential data they are trying to use to give an unequivocal answer, when the other 99.8 percent of the available data says otherwise.

It's interesting that he brings up the Permian Mass Extinction, something that was most likely driven by a Meteorite and Methane emissions - with pretty scant geological evidence for CO2 being the driver.

Again, I'm not going to claim to be a climate change denier because I am still not well read enough and still yet to come to a firm conclusion either way, but in the very least, the science is far from being "settled". The dogma very much is though. I'm willing to go as far as to accept that CO2 is playing a role in the temperature rise because in theory that is how CO2 is supposed to behave, but the magnitude of the historical data which shows it not behaving in that way is and that fact that the pro-climate change community actively hide it or ignore it says a lot.

I haven´t touched your "opposing data chart" because it doesn´t make sense (unless I´m reading it wrong), nobody apart from Deniers try to use it either (I found several attempts online, all discredited)......let me give you one simple example from the heavily-analysed dinosaur period, the Triassic.....your chart says CO2 then was low, it is actually printed at 210 ppm?, lower than today? if so, that is nonsense....quote "The Earth was a very different place some 200 million years ago when the first dinosaurs began to emerge during the Triassic Period. The climate was hot and dry, with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels sitting at about 2,000 parts per million (ppm) – far higher than our current level of about 405 ppm. " https://newatlas.com/co2-levels-return-triassic/48800/ and another site "As a result, Triassic Earth was warmer than the modern world, lacked ice caps at its poles, and saw widespread desertification within the supercontinent Pangaea and wetlands along its coast. It would likely not have been a liveable environment for human beings, even without the threat of Dilophosaurus attacks around every corner.

Unfortunately, we may be headed back there in the near future, according to research published Tuesday in Nature Communications.

A team led by Gavin Foster, a professor of isotope chemistry at the University of Southampton, predicts that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution will reach Late Triassic levels—roughly 2,000 parts per million (ppm)—by the year 2250, if humans continue to consume fossil fuels at the current rate. " https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j...global-warming.

So I was confused. I knew there were plenty of different versions of "your timeline map" knocking around and are used by various people to prove, or disprove, various theories (like the infamous "Lord" Monckton of Brenchley).....so I found "mine" showing the correct Triassic CO2 levels.

Ahhhhhh......now things look a little different......we are correctly using Berners GEOCARB figures, though before he died, he warned people against using his "timeline" to prove individual theories because his time stamps "were too coarse" ie in 10 million year segments? I believe.....he made a few alterations to his figures (three I believe) due to various controversies. One is clearly shown in the huge drop in CO2 that ended the Ordovincian (matched by a drop in temps).....here is Berner also in a 2004 paper quote "1. Proxy estimates of paleo-CO2 agree, within modelling errors, with GEOCARB model results.2. There is a good correlation between low levels of atmospheric CO2 and the presence of well-documented, long-lived, and aerially extensive continental glaciations.3. The uncorrected Veizer temperature curve predicts long periods of intense global cooling that do not agree with independent observations of paleoclimate, especially during the Mesozoic. When corrected for pH effects, however, the temperature curve matches the glacial record much better. 4. The global temperatures inferred from the cosmic ray flux model of Shaviv and Veizer (2003) do not correlate in amplitude with the temperatures recorded by Veizer et al. (2000) when corrected for past changes in oceanic pH. Additional problems with this correction have been shown by Rahmstaff et al.(2004). Changes in cosmic ray flux may affect climate but they are not the dominant climate driver on a multimillion- year time scale full paper here https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/...173-14-3-4.pdf

Despite "my timeline" making a lot more sense than yours, I am still not happy with using guesstimates of temps and fossilised CO2 deposits over 10 million-year timelines.
Mankind has been around since Lucy walked out of Africa 3 million years ago, Homo Sapiens Sapiens for only the last 100,000 and all Europeans from just seven women, The Seven Daughters of Eve.........we are now polluting the atmosphere, we are changing the planet, we are in the anthroprogenic era.

I understand that you think cherry-picking 800,000 years of specific ice-core data does not totally explain everything that happened 250 million years ago, science is still evolving, maybe one day it will.....but at least that 800,000 years is precise and detailed and covers our recent past...... and the Milankovitch cycles.......but wait I hear Tarkers cry, "I have more....what about 3 million years? covering the period since Lucy went walkabout?"....OK, give it a shot Barkers....

....."Variations in Earth’s orbit pace the glacial-interglacial cycles of the Quaternary, but the mechanisms that transform regional and seasonal variations in solar insolation into glacial-interglacial cycles are still elusive. Here, we present transient simulations of coevolution of climate, ice sheets, and carbon cycle over the past 3 million years. We show that a gradual lowering of atmospheric CO2 and regolith removal are essential to reproduce the evolution of climate variability over the Quaternary. The long-term CO2 decrease leads to the initiation of Northern Hemisphere glaciation and an increase in the amplitude of glacial-interglacial variations, while the combined effect of CO2 decline and regolith removal controls the timing of the transition from a 41,000- to 100,000-year world. Our results suggest that the current CO2 concentration is unprecedented over the past 3 million years and that global temperature never exceeded the preindustrial value by more than 2°C during the Quaternary" https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337 and here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../#ITEM-22376-0

If you trash this 3 million years Swedish, I might just give up and get legless...again.

Various causes of the Permian Mass Extinction (nobody really knows) here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../#ITEM-22376-0

Scientists line up to state the "bleedin obvious" https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=H4YSwajvFAY

[i961pie]

My presumption as to why the USA is ignoring the climate is because a solution already exists. As far as im concerned, aliens do exist....don't laugh, and are obviously far ahead of us. And they can fix it if they want to, or when they want to. The dilemma for them is to decide if we deserve it.

If it was left to me , I would say no, let them gas themselves. Human beings are appalling, just one step up from a slug. If we were let loose in the universe, it would be like cancer cells invading a body.

I was born in 1957, the weather was completely different then. It started getting warmer in the early 70s, and to be honest Im glad its getting warmer. Havent had the heating on yet. Stuff the future, I wont be there, and the way things are going, neither will you, which will be a blessing as the universe can relax, having got shot of these things.

Your own personal extinction is not far away, time to prepare for that. If your death is not sudden, the last thing on your mind will be notts county. What will be important to you? Books have been written on that.

Flavio.

I see the medication isn't working

[jackal2]

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.

More "celebrities speaking out about climate change" today I see, albeit they're hiding behind a cloak of fake modesty by saying they are hypocrites themselves. Nothing to do with getting their names in the news columns or promoting their 'brand' then!

Seriously, whatever your views on this or any other issue, don't you get sick of 'celebrities' who feel that somehow their view is so much more worthy of note than anybody else's? Not to mention that the positions they take are often hypocritical as they now admit!

From all sides of the argument, I think there are views being expressed by supposed nobodies like us on this thread that are more worthy of a modicum of attention than the self-obsessed rubbish spouted by these sport/film/television media whores.

[Old_pie]

More "celebrities speaking out about climate change" today I see, albeit they're hiding behind a cloak of fake modesty by saying they are hypocrites themselves. Nothing to do with getting their names in the news columns or promoting their 'brand' then!

Seriously, whatever your views on this or any other issue, don't you get sick of 'celebrities' who feel that somehow their view is so much more worthy of note than anybody else's? Not to mention that the positions they take are often hypocritical as they now admit!

From all sides of the argument, I think there are views being expressed by supposed nobodies like us on this thread that are more worthy of a modicum of attention than the self-obsessed rubbish spouted by these sport/film/television media whores.

Even Louis Hamilton, king of speed and burning rubber, is having feelings of angst, has sold his private airplane, setup a vegan shop and is wondering whether it is all worth it. FFS - get on with what you do best man!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/50061569