Report Climate change ipcc

[DAVID SNOW]

13 hours ago, The PIT said:

Just finished watching David Attenborough program.

Got questions about fields of solar panels do a create a local heat urban effect ??

 

Didn't watch it but is the worlds ever increasing population still his biggest concern?

[Devonian]

2 hours ago, The PIT said:

Problem with solar panels they take up space that expanding populations will need to grow food. 

Again, I think this is a marginal effect. Obviously some panels can be on building, and big solar farms here can still have animals grazing around the panels. In the future solar farms are likely to be in places with abundant sunshine - the deserts.

IMO.

[Midlands Ice Age]

34 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Didn't watch it but is the worlds ever increasing population still his biggest concern?

I didn't watch it either.

My thoughts for today...

Speaking of the UHI affect. It also fits the facts that most of the warming in the globe is in the Northern Hemisphere. Where has the vast increase in populations occurred. Yep you guessed it.

But I did watch the Walrus nature program the previous week.

It seems as though it has been debunked.

These events have occurred (and more importantly, reported) for over 100years at 2 spots in Canada.  These include reports of up to and over 50.000 animals at a single site.

They  also have occurred at various sites in Siberia, but seem to have only been reported in the last 20 years (maybe an iron curtain situation).

It seems to be related to the numbers of Walrus, and a clue is that they are all males.

Down on the packed beaches the 'kings' reign supreme and will not tolerate intrusions from 'lesser' males.

It seems as though their only refuge (if they want to stay on land at this spot), is to climb these hills to the top of the cliff.

It is known that there was a group of polar bears in the area as they had inhabited the local village. 

It is thought that they initially sought to escape from the polar bears in blind panic. Any ones still at that top do not know what had happened to their friends who had already 'escaped',    so . …….

Far from being a sign of CC affecting Walrus negatively, another totally opposite view is more likely.

It also seems as though, the location used to film the piece in question as open to debate as the dates shown on the film do not tie in with the local reports of the event. The dates tie in more with a similar event 500miles further East.  Which at least is even more proof that this is not a unique phenominum.

That the number of Walrus are increasing is now widely being reported, in addition (as recent satellite evidence has shown) that the number of polar bears have increased from a believed 15.000 to nearly 40,000, across the whole Arctic.

Certainly, it is known that a 'renewed enlarged colony'  has established itself on NE Svalbard after decades of declines.

The evidence is now growing that far from CC causing major problems for these Northern animals they are in fact increasing in numbers.

It does not really change anything to do with CC, but it illustrates how 'snowflakes'  will believe all they anything they are told (rather like the male walrus) and leap to inconclusive, and possibly totally wrong,  conclusions.

MIA

 

 

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I didn't watch it either.

My thoughts for today...

Speaking of the UHI affect. It also fits the facts that most of the warming in the globe is in the Northern Hemisphere. Where has the vast increase in populations occurred. Yep you guessed it.

But I did watch the Walrus nature program the previous week.

It seems as though it has been debunked.

These events have occurred (and more importantly, reported) for over 100years at 2 spots in Canada.  These include reports of up to and over 50.000 animals at a single site.

They  also have occurred at various sites in Siberia, but seem to have only been reported in the last 20 years (maybe an iron curtain situation).

It seems to be related to the numbers of Walrus, and a clue is that they are all males.

Down on the packed beaches the 'kings' reign supreme and will not tolerate intrusions from 'lesser' males.

It seems as though their only refuge (if they want to stay on land at this spot), is to climb these hills to the top of the cliff.

It is known that there was a group of polar bears in the area as they had inhabited the local village. 

It is thought that they initially sought to escape from the polar bears in blind panic. Any ones still at that top do not know what had happened to their friends who had already 'escaped',    so . …….

Far from being a sign of CC affecting Walrus negatively, another totally opposite view is more likely.

It also seems as though, the location used to film the piece in question as open to debate as the dates shown on the film do not tie in with the local reports of the event. The dates tie in more with a similar event 500miles further East.  Which at least is even more proof that this is not a unique phenominum.

That the number of Walrus are increasing is now widely being reported, in addition (as recent satellite evidence has shown) that the number of polar bears have increased from a believed 15.000 to nearly 40,000, across the whole Arctic.

Certainly, it is known that a 'renewed enlarged colony'  has established itself on NE Svalbard after decades of declines.

The evidence is now growing that far from CC causing major problems for these Northern animals they are in fact increasing in numbers.

It does not really change anything to do with CC, but it illustrates how 'snowflakes'  will believe all they anything they are told (rather like the male walrus) and leap to inconclusive, and possibly totally wrong,  conclusions.

MIA

It also fits in well with the highly controversial (we are in the Post-Truth Era, after all!) idea that most of the globe's major land-masses are in the NH...the main exception being, of course, Antarctica. Which (rather conveniently for CCDs, as it happens!) happens to sit slap bang on the South Pole!

Still employing the old 'name-calling' tactic, I see, MIA?

[Devonian]

27 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I didn't watch it either.

My thoughts for today...

---cut just for brevity---

MIA

 

 

Interesting. Do you have some references for your claims?

Secondly, I wear the label 'snowflake' with increasing pride but, more important to me is, do you think I'm intelligent?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Devonian

[Midlands Ice Age]

18 minutes ago, Devonian said:

Interesting. Do you have some references for your claims?

Secondly, I wear the label 'snowflake' with increasing pride but, more important to me is, do you think I'm intelligent?

Dev...

You are neither a 'snowflake' nor unintelligent.

You spend  time analysing the data.. I suggest nothing of a personal persuasion towards yourself..

Many followers  (particularly) the younger generation are simply accepting the information they are supplied without looking further at the data. They are being presented with data that is presented by people who totally believe that every 'weather' event and every natural change that happens is determined by CC.

Do you think that Extinction Rebellion leaders are political?  

MIA

[Devonian]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev...

You are neither a 'snowflake' nor unintelligent.

You spend  time analysing the data.. I suggest nothing of a personal persuasion towards yourself..

Many followers  (particularly) the younger generation are simply accepting the information they are supplied without looking further at the data. They are being presented with data that is presented by people who totally believe that every 'weather' event and every natural change that happens is determined by CC.

Do you think that Extinction Rebellion leaders are political?  

MIA

Ok, then I suggest your views, highlighted, are supposition. I don't know what the generality of people on the XR events know, and neither do you. The might be snowflakes, the might be stupid, they might be intelligent.

My supposition is (knowing one well, and having met a few others) is they are, in general, as smart as you or me.

XR leaders? Erm, we all have political views don't we? Are you political? Of course you are. What they want, aiui, is their three demands.

As to data, again, where are you getting your walrus data from? I think I might have a guess

[The PIT]

My only problem with some people with climate change is that they are over aggressive and nothing can be wrong even when simple mistakes are spotted. Just see some of the reactions on here.

I've have degree in control engineering and when I took the degree your results were expected to be reproducible, data verified and of course if something is wrong you don't throw the toys out of the pram you go away and correct it. 

Anyway I see nobody has taken my point up about the growing human population and the need for it to be stabilised. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

[DAVID SNOW]

2 minutes ago, The PIT said:

My only problem with some people with climate change is that they are over aggressive and nothing can be wrong even when simple mistakes are spotted. Just see some of the reactions on here.

I've have degree in control engineering and when I took the degree your results were expected to be reproducible, data verified and of course if something is wrong you don't throw the toys out of the pram you go away and correct it. 

Anyway I see nobody has taken my point up about the growing human population and the need for it to be stabilised. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

You must have missed my question further up the page.

Perhaps you have me on ignore.

[The PIT]

2 hours ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Didn't watch it but is the worlds ever increasing population still his biggest concern?

I can't recall him mentioning it. However expanding population will have a large bearing on climate.

[DAVID SNOW]

30 minutes ago, The PIT said:

I can't recall him mentioning it. However expanding population will have a large bearing on climate.

Thanks for the reply, he must have changed his mind then.

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, The PIT said:

My only problem with some people with climate change is that they are over aggressive and nothing can be wrong even when simple mistakes are spotted. Just see some of the reactions on here.

I've have degree in control engineering and when I took the degree your results were expected to be reproducible, data verified and of course if something is wrong you don't throw the toys out of the pram you go away and correct it. 

Anyway I see nobody has taken my point up about the growing human population and the need for it to be stabilised. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

I've replied to two of you questions with my views

Wrt population, well I see there is a big football match on. Say 50, 000 are at that match. If each person there had a stadium of their own with 50, 000 in it that would (if my maths is good) be 2.5 Bn people. That's about 1/3 of the global population.

My conclusion is human population is both significant and their consumption must be having an effect on the planet..

Wrt climate change, I'm still surprised snowflakes can be over aggressive. Btw, what 'simple mistakes'?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Devonian

[Derecho]

7 hours ago, The PIT said:

My only problem with some people with climate change is that they are over aggressive and nothing can be wrong even when simple mistakes are spotted. Just see some of the reactions on here.

I've have degree in control engineering and when I took the degree your results were expected to be reproducible, data verified and of course if something is wrong you don't throw the toys out of the pram you go away and correct it. 

Anyway I see nobody has taken my point up about the growing human population and the need for it to be stabilised. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

I think posts that are skeptical but curious are fine as I was a climate change denier when I was younger. However in the case of a certain other person they have been posting the same inflammatory stuff on TWO for other 10 years. That kind of stuff led to the climate forum being banned on TWO and now they are doing the same things here.

I'm a climate scientist yet we get accused of all kind of rubbish, some even bizarrely say we are just a bunch of money grabbers even though I finished my PhD thesis with just 56p in my bank account. Would you go up to a random plasterer and just say they are rubbish at their job? No. So why a climate scientist. We are researching the biggest issue to face the planet today yet just get given a hard time by people who refuse to accept the facts and have vested interests,

8 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I didn't watch it either.

My thoughts for today...

Speaking of the UHI affect. It also fits the facts that most of the warming in the globe is in the Northern Hemisphere. Where has the vast increase in populations occurred. Yep you guessed it.

Maybe the most warming occurs in the NH because it has much more land then the southern hemisphere??? I don't see many UHI's in the arctic or the antarctic for that matter...

But I did watch the Walrus nature program the previous week.

It seems as though it has been debunked.

These events have occurred (and more importantly, reported) for over 100years at 2 spots in Canada.  These include reports of up to and over 50.000 animals at a single site.

They  also have occurred at various sites in Siberia, but seem to have only been reported in the last 20 years (maybe an iron curtain situation).

It seems to be related to the numbers of Walrus, and a clue is that they are all males.

Down on the packed beaches the 'kings' reign supreme and will not tolerate intrusions from 'lesser' males.

It seems as though their only refuge (if they want to stay on land at this spot), is to climb these hills to the top of the cliff.

It is known that there was a group of polar bears in the area as they had inhabited the local village. 

It is thought that they initially sought to escape from the polar bears in blind panic. Any ones still at that top do not know what had happened to their friends who had already 'escaped',    so . …….

Far from being a sign of CC affecting Walrus negatively, another totally opposite view is more likely.

It is known that the movement patterns of Polar Bears have changed their movement patterns due to melting sea ice. So this could have a knock on effect elsewhere?

It also seems as though, the location used to film the piece in question as open to debate as the dates shown on the film do not tie in with the local reports of the event. The dates tie in more with a similar event 500miles further East.  Which at least is even more proof that this is not a unique phenominum.

That the number of Walrus are increasing is now widely being reported, in addition (as recent satellite evidence has shown) that the number of polar bears have increased from a believed 15.000 to nearly 40,000, across the whole Arctic.

This increase is a myth and not the levels you quote here. 2 of the 19 species of polar bears widely studied have shown a population increase in recent years but this is because they were heavily hunted in past decades so their population has increased. The best studies population of polar bears decreased in population by 22% from 1987 to 2004.

Polar bears are predicted to drop by 30% by 2050. This was also a study done before arctic sea ice volume crashed in 2007...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing/

Certainly, it is known that a 'renewed enlarged colony'  has established itself on NE Svalbard after decades of declines.

The evidence is now growing that far from CC causing major problems for these Northern animals they are in fact increasing in numbers.

Although polar bears are not going extinct, as I mentioned their population is due to decline by at least 30%. You are also overlooking the huge impact climate change will have on other species besides polar bears.

It does not really change anything to do with CC, but it illustrates how 'snowflakes'  will believe all they anything they are told (rather like the male walrus) and leap to inconclusive, and possibly totally wrong,  conclusions.

Ah the old snowflake insult? How about you try something original with some wit? The irony of the jumping to wrong conclusions isn't lost on me either... 

MIA

 

 

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Never mind banning discussions on climate change it appears you cannot event mention data that alludes to 'change' over on TWO now???

How the hell are you to make money as a weather site offering services to others if you do not use current data in your forecasting or using the tweaks changes brings to atmospheric circulation in your projections

The sad thing I am also finding is the need for climate change deniers to link both science and mitigation to the 'left' in politics?

How did saving our world and its population become a thing of the left and the continued wanton destruction a thing of the right?

[Methuselah]

Yes indeed, QS: healthy scepticism (of the 'I don't know, but really would like to learn' variety) is what makes science progress; but, alas, simply posing and posing and reposing the same stock 'questions' (usually in the form of thinly-disguised contrarian statements) ad nauseum is not healthy scepticism: it's treating genuinely curious, though uneducated, people as though they are cretins...

And actively reducing the human population? What's the point of that? Once resources run-out, our numbers will decline accordingly...so there's no need for intervention?

[Derecho]

Climate change represented by the Easter Bunny

[cheeky_monkey]

On 18/04/2019 at 15:30, parrotingfantasist said:

 

Please can we have a more robust attitude on this forum i.e remove unsubstantiated contrarian opinion instantly... 

 

 

 

 

tis a dangerous road you tread when you want to censor someone else's opinion just because you don't agree with it

[Derecho]

12 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

tis a dangerous road you tread when you want to censor someone else's opinion just because you don't agree with it

Not really if those opinions are designed to mislead and aren't backed up with any evidence. A weather forum dominated by climate change deniers would be the equivalent of a geology forum dominated by flat earthers.

Going on the same path of CO2 emissions without any action being taken? Now that is dangerous 

 

[Paul]

28 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Not really if those opinions are designed to mislead and aren't backed up with any evidence. A weather forum dominated by climate change deniers would be the equivalent of a geology forum dominated by flat earthers.

There is a balance to be had though. Even if some of those posting the contrarian stuff won't change their views, the evidence and info posted to challenge them will be read by many others, some of whom may be sitting on the fence or even in the denial camp, and that info may help to sway them. 

I'm not saying we should allow the 'hardcore deniers' a platform to present pseudo-science etc, but closing down debate entirely isn't necessarily the way forward. If there are people out there who still don't believe the science, despite all of the evidence, then those views need countering using factual, scientific evidence as clearly and as regularly as possible imo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48018034/climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-listen-to-climate-scientists

[weirpig]

7 minutes ago, Paul said:

There is a balance to be had though. Even if some of those posting the contrarian stuff won't change their views, the evidence and info posted to challenge them will be read by many others, some of whom may be sitting on the fence or even in the denial camp, and that info may help to sway them. 

I'm not saying we should allow the 'hardcore deniers' a platform to present pseudo-science etc, but closing down debate entirely isn't necessarily the way forward. If there are people out there who still don't believe the science, despite all of the evidence, then those views need countering using factual, scientific evidence as clearly and as regularly as possible imo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48018034/climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-listen-to-climate-scientists

exactly  imagine if all we could post was the same opinion.   What a bore that would be   

[Derecho]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

There is a balance to be had though. Even if some of those posting the contrarian stuff won't change their views, the evidence and info posted to challenge them will be read by many others, some of whom may be sitting on the fence or even in the denial camp, and that info may help to sway them. 

I'm not saying we should allow the 'hardcore deniers' a platform to present pseudo-science etc, but closing down debate entirely isn't necessarily the way forward. If there are people out there who still don't believe the science, despite all of the evidence, then those views need countering using factual, scientific evidence as clearly and as regularly as possible imo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48018034/climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-listen-to-climate-scientists

I think those who are genuinely curious but may not yet be convinced, I can understand that and completely agree (as mentioned in my earlier post - I used to be a denier in my teens). It's just there are some people who will not accept it no matter what evidence is put in front of them. How can constructive debate emerge when people whip out statements like 'climate scientists are a fraud' etc?

I've been arguing for over 10 years on many of these points yet nothing ever changes, the same arguments keep being raised again and again, despite having addressed these many times in the past. Some people ignore the science sadly and only believe what they want to see which in turn takes the focus away from the science itself. Some people I believe don't want to know about the science and learn about the topic, they just want to encourage further denialism, that's why you see a spike in such posts when there is a cold spell for example.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Paul]

10 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I think those who are genuinely curious but may not yet be convinced, I can understand that (as mentioned in my earlier post - I used to be a denier in my teens). It's just there are some people who will not accept it no matter what evidence is put in front of them. How can constructive debate emerge when people whip out statements like 'climate scientists are a fraud' etc?

I've been arguing for over 10 years on many of these points yet nothing ever changes, the same arguments keep being raised again and again, despite having addressed these many times in the past. Some people ignore the science sadly and only believe what they want to see which in turn takes the focus away from the science itself.

That's the world we live in though, there are some people who think that way. We do stop people posting on here when they just make 'anti-science' statements over and over again and won't engage. As we do with people who resort to insults and the like. We also have fairly strict rules in terms of acceptable, science based evidence etc. So please report posts which you think are going beyond reasonable. 

Ultimately there will always be people who disbelieve the science, for whatever reason, but all we can all do is keep going with the evidence and science based debate, in the hope that at least some of those wake up and smell the coffee. I agree, It shouldn't really be necessary at this point, but it is what it is. 

[Methuselah]

6 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I think those who are genuinely curious but may not yet be convinced, I can understand that (as mentioned in my earlier post - I used to be a denier in my teens). It's just there are some people who will not accept it no matter what evidence is put in front of them. How can constructive debate emerge when people whip out statements like 'climate scientists are a fraud' etc?

I've been arguing for over 10 years on many of these points yet nothing ever changes, the same arguments keep being raised again and again, despite having addressed these many times in the past. Some people ignore the science sadly and only believe what they want to see which in turn takes the focus away from the science itself.

Not only that, QS...those same questions keep being asked by the same people; and, were those people being genuinely sceptical, they wouldn't do that...

[Derecho]

2 minutes ago, Paul said:

That's the world we live in though, there are some people who think that way. We do stop people posting on here when they just make 'anti-science' statements over and over again and won't engage. As we do with people who resort to insults and the like. We also have fairly strict rules in terms of acceptable, science based evidence and the like. 

Ultimately there will always be people who disbelieve the science, for whatever reason, but all we can all do is keep going with the evidence and science based debate, in the hope that at least some of those wake up and smell the coffee. I agree, It shouldn't really be necessary at this point, but it is what it is. 

Completely agree with your post and sorry if what I said came across a bit too strong. It's not really a problem on here, it's much worse on social media, especially Facebook where you can't attach figures onto the posts of group pages. That makes it especially difficult because I think good Figures are the best way to get the science across.

I think outreach is one of the things I enjoy most about science, I'd love to do it more often as I think science definitely needs more of it. I even remember in education the first time I came across a weather lesson was when I was 18 in college and that was just a lesson on cold and warm fronts which hardly made up any marks in my geography paper! The only way I learnt about meteorology was following the model output threads for a couple of years beforehand.

So more defintely needs to be done. When I first heard about climate change I was sceptical because I thought it was depressing and I held on whatever hope that it may not be too bad. Sadly as I studied about climate change more and more, my concerns grew. We really need progress soon 

[weirpig]

as i understand it the current level  is around 400ppm   which is around the same amount as in the  Pliocene era  many millions years ago.   The only difference was that Temps at the time were much higher  which caused  the Artic to melt and cause much higher sea levels.   I often wondered why the difference in Temps were so different to now?.   It seems that however  there could well be a lag in the effects of the ppmm    and we are not seeing the true effects this will come some years after.  The question i pose is this.  Global warming isnt going to be solved in the next few years  infact by the time the world gets its act together  i expect PPMM levels to be much higher.  If eventually we do meet our current targets (which is a big if)   Then allowing for a lag effects  we may already be doomed.    As there been any scientific papers published  that state that levels will drop to acceptable levels if we reduce our carbon levels?  or is a case that the damage as been caused  and that co levels will continue to rise  ( as natural progression)  and 400ppmm is now just our new starting point