Jump to content


Tawnyowl

The Power Of Nature.Wild Weather.Climate Change.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 245 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Some of the weather headlines from across the world.

Any comments,views articles put them here.Is the Climate getting out of control

The latest news and comment on natural disasters and extreme weather

https://www.theguardian.com/world/natural-disasters

 

Extreme weather

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/extreme-weather

 

Gulf Stream current at 'record low' with potentially devastating consequences for weather, warn scientists

Disruption of ocean circulation is thought to be driven by global warming, and could lead to sea level rise and extreme events like storms

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-current-climate-change-ocean-temperature-ice-age-global-weather-a8300896.html

 

France

13 people killed as flash flooding hits Aude, southwest France

Several months' worth of rain fell within a few hours
overnight in Aude, leaving people stranded on rooftops.

https://news.sky.com/story/five-people-killed-as-flash-flooding-hits-aude-southwest-france-11526297

 

France
-Bad weather in the Aude:
Mini-Tornado
in Narbonne-plage.

Where is Narbonne-Plage

https://www.france-voyage.com/tourism/narbonne-plage-2113.htm

 

Video a little further down in the article.

Two wounded and much material damage. On the sidelines of the floods, the Mediterranean coast was hit by a strong wind and a big swell on Monday.

In Narbonne-plage, it's a real mini-tornado that ravaged the seaside resort.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffrance3-regions.francetvinfo.fr%2Foccitanie%2Faude%2Fintemperies-aude-mini-tornade-narbonne-plage-1559016.html&edit-text=

 

Well is the Climate changing.What do you think and what can be done about it.

Someone out there knows or wants to say something,write something.

Well write it down now here,release the pressure.

Now when i was a kid winters were winters:sad: and summer,mm better go,enough said.

Your turn.

Bye Tawnyowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a scientist saying that we should be worried if climate didn't change.

He also said humans contribute to climate change as much as a match lit in a sealed room 3mx3mx3m.

He's banned from all media.

This climate change is just a political sc@m to suck money from me.

I pay a lot of money in taxes because I pollute, but would throwing money at nature stop the inevitable life cycle of the planet?

One little note: a few years ago some halfbrain were shouting about global warming, then accordingly to their own studies they realised the planet is cooling, so they started shouting "climate change"

Climate has always changed, fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi king12345 interesting post.And thoughts shared by many i would think

So lets try to get to the truth of it all.

This thread could run for some time.

 

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

 

 

What’s in a name? Weather, global warming and climate change

“Climate change” and “global warming” are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Similarly, the terms "weather" and "climate" are sometimes confused, though they refer to events with broadly different spatial- and timescales.

https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/

 

Five geoengineering solutions proposed to fight climate change,meeting today worth keeping one eye on.

Futuristic for sure.

https://www.dezeen.com/2018/10/18/five-geoengineering-solutions-climate-change-un-ipcc-technology/

 

 

Always interesting what President Trump says at times like this.

Fact check: Donald Trump's claims versus climate science

Trump’s assertions are at odds with scientific consensus that humans are causing higher temperatures that pose immediate and growing threats

Trump: ‘Something’s changing and it’ll change back again’

Trump: ‘I don’t know that it’s manmade’

Trump: ‘I don’t wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t wanna be put at a disadvantage’

On melting ice caps causing sea-level rise, Trump said: ‘And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man’

Trump: ‘They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael’

Trump: ‘They say the worst hurricanes were 50 years ago, if you can believe it. In fact, the one that they say was worse – so two or three worse – one was in 1890s, and one was exactly 50 years ago. The winds were 200 miles an hour. So who knows?’

 

Much more on the link and answers to those thoughts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/15/fact-check-donald-trumps-claims-versus-climate-science

 

Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world is headed for painful problems sooner than expected, as emissions keep rising.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/ipcc-report-climate-change-impacts-forests-emissions/?user.testname=none

 

Global Warming of 1.5 °C

an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

 

So onwards who else has any weather,climate,global warming thoughts.

Lets get to the bottom of it,Or try to.

Tawnyowl over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.5C above pre industrial levels.

These readings were taken in Antarctica using mercury thermometers which are not as accurate as modern ones.

There were a few of them scattered about, checked daily by lonely scientists living months in sub-freezing temperatures all on their own.

On many occasions 2 thermometers a couple of miles apart gave readings with over 10C difference (???)

Also, it is questioned whether the readings were really taken every time they were logged.

To be honest, if I was left on my own in the middle of the ice in 1900 and told to take readings by walking miles everyday, I would be tempted to take an experienced guess and put down some figures, after all, nobody would have thought those readings would have influenced how much road tax we pay today.

Read up about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Kingy, as a geologist I used to look at climate change is the rock strata and all of the things you mention about flood in France as actually quite normal events.

Goegraphers know that flooding occurs every year in Bangladesh, it got worse over the last centrury because of off the trees in the foothils of the himalays were cut down but the reason why the soil is fertile is the annual flooding. Now we are told the flooding is caused by climate change.

If you look in the Old Re sanstone in Scotland you can see evidence of lightning strikes from storms that were many magnitudes bigger than the biggest thunderstorms we get now. If you pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the plants grow quicker and we havent reached the thrweshold where that stops happening. Yes, ther is evidence of climate change, as said there always is but nothing that we didnt get in the 10th to 11th century. there are cycles that overlap so expect it to be hot in 2086 and bloody freezing in 2380.

The IPCC is made up of politicians, not scientists and the idea that there is a consensus amongst scientists is a laughable statement, that is not what science is about. Oh yes, soe of the leading lights in the IPCC are scientists, for example Pachuri is a railway engineer but you wont find many big name scientists agreeing to a wording of the outpput for these conferences, not in their nature to use such words. Also in the last 25 years $200million has been spent on climate change research whre the outcome of that work was predicted beforehand to show man made climate change. the amount spent on research showing the opposite? $100000

The person who firt promulgated man made climate change used a mathematicla model that has never ever been proven to work and the person who fist arranged the first IPCC conference made a billion out of his consultancy and now lives in China, that paragon of good environmental practice.

 

Empirical measurements- that is another fraud as all of the pre 1998 data has been changed without thsi being properly explained to the public. Wwe used to measure surface temperature by using weather stations scattered around the world, mostly put there by Victorian explorers and maintaned ever since. Now the measurement is mid atmospheric temperatures taken by satellite ans as said all of the earlirt data was then altered to fit in with the new system. No measuremtn was ever taken pre 1975 so how can you the decide to extarpolate centuries worht of good data by this method? Well, they got the resuts they wanted that way when the actaul measuring devices showed no real omg term change.

 

 

Low energy bulbs? use them and save a polar bear- no, the ban on tungsten filament bulbs came about because in 1978 NATO realised we were running out of strategic metals like tungsten, titanium and chromium and the Russians had zillions of tons of the stuff so the west needed to cut down on its consumption so we had enough to use for war mongering in style and comfort. Climate change became the ideal excuse to force people to buy expansive and alternatives so the resources could be preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Don't) Wait until we see what occurs over the next 5 years as we pass through the Solar maximum.

 

and dont mistake screwed up polar storms creating hard winters in some places (while the polar regions rapidly warm) as 'proof' the world isn't warming ...

 

 

Shame the very very small minority (but very vocal) of educated and normally paid people and equally small but very vocal number of ill educated people who are denying human driven climate change won't be the only ones to suffer.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a natural process.

We contribute to the air quality at ground level, but the mass of the planet including atmosphere is so great that the global environment is not affected as much as the much more vocal people claim without evidence.

The planet warms up and cools down on a cycle which also triggers other phenomena like earthquakes and extreme weather.

It's been going on for billions of years and the "experts" are only looking at the last few years using unreliable data.

All is done so we can pay more taxes.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

I'm all for cleaner air in urban areas, but I still don't understand where my environmental taxes go.

And don't get me started on the Toyota prius argument, considering that overall, from production to scrap they pollute 4 times as much as any similar internal combustion vehicle, fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all a natural process.

 

Only because we are considered part of nature, despite despoiling it.

 

before you start spouting about it was hotter in the past.

Yes it was - BUT generally, apart from a couple of smallish (in the grande scheme of thins) glitches that effectively ended the ice age and rose the sea levels by 300-400 feet and the corresponding changes wiping out all species of hominids except us,

the last time it was this hot there were dinosaurs, insects and ferns NOT humans and trees - good luck surviving that.

 

 

 

Climate change deniers should stop spouting this absolute garbage which is disputed by 99% of all real scientists - the rest are mainly paid by the petroleum interest lobbies.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here you go Natgeokids will enlighten you

 

https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/discover/geography/general-geography/what-is-climate-change/

 

 

What causes climate change?

 

1. Burning fossil fuels

 

2. Farming

 

3. Deforestation

 

 

 

 

 

When you understand that you can move on to the growed up sites like NASA that give growed up evidence.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grown.

Of course I believe everything printed in a magazine under the control of Mr Rupert Murdoch.

Why wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grown.

Of course I believe everything printed in a magazine under the control of Mr Rupert Murdoch.

Why wouldn't you?

What a feeble response when you certainly seem more than happy to quote and promote the poor end of Murdock's Fox news' Human driven Climate change denial BS !!!

 

re nat Geo:

Here's proof that National Geographic won't bend to Rupert Murdoch's climate change denial

 

https://theweek.com/speedreads/578805/heres-proof-that-national-geographic-wont-bend-rupert-murdochs-climate-change-denial

 

 

... and despite NASA being one of the most conservative organisations on the planet ...

 

But I expect you will continue to ignore conclusive evidence.

Reminds me of those Born again Christians who swear that God created the universe in 4004 BCE and everything that contradicts it is just because God simply made it that way in 4004BCE

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you copying and pasting from this:

 

 

See Cy Husain post, strangely identical to yours...

Unless you are Cy Husain.

Quite poor, Sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you copying and pasting from this:

 

 

See Cy Husain post, strangely identical to yours...

Unless you are Cy Husain.

Quite poor, Sir.

 

I'm quoting from the the 2 links I supplied. Just actually look and you will see.

 

The 'references' are the same as from the NASA link. Didn't you get to the bottom of the page?

 

It looks like 'Cy Husain (who I am not) is quoting from some similar articles in Nature and perhaps the same NASA article rather than Natgeokids and NASA as I did

... you can see that if you give them more than a glance .. but yes they are similar.

 

... That Cy Husain looks an informed guy

and seems he also thinks NASA is a source with some standing.

 

 

So thats NASA, Nationalgeographic and Nature reporting the same things so far even from your links,

 

 

Read the info in those links and many many many others (even some owned by Murdock) with an open mind king - the evidence of science explaining what is happening is overwhelmingly compelling.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent years researching this subject with the view that we were causing climate change and read many studies and scientific papers as well as books and internet claims.

I was also in touch with real experts in the subject.

My conclusion is as above.

I'm not going to change my mind now because politically controlled entities make something up.

I just pay thousands in taxes to line someone's pocket and accept that I can't do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I spent years researching this subject with the view that we were causing climate change and read many studies and scientific papers as well as books and internet claims.

I was also in touch with real experts in the subject.

My conclusion is as above.

I'm not going to change my mind now because politically controlled entities make something up.

I just pay thousands in taxes to line someone's pocket and accept that I can't do anything about it.

 

So while we await any quality peer reviewed evidence of kings' 'real experts on the subject' and links to his 'many scientific papers' to support those empty words there,

the choice is between:

 

1. A king12345 unsupported opinion

 

or

 

2. The scientifically supported reports and summarised opinions of evidence from and by:

 

* 97% of climate scientists and even higher % in the scientific community at large (as linked in refs)

 

* NASA (as linked)

 

* The United Nations (https://unfccc.int/resource/annualreport/ http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/)

 

* Nature Magazine (as linked by king in failing to poo poo real evidence)

 

* National Geographic (as linked despite the Murdock links)

 

* theccc (https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/global-action-on-climate-change/)

 

* Gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained)

 

* The metoffice.gov.uk (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news)

 

* and the list of quality evidence by world class organisations goes on and on and on

 

 

.... I know which choice on who to believe seems rational to me.

 

 

 

Take a test:

https://unfccc.int/news/un-launches-climattitude-campaign-find-out-about-your-attitude-to-climate-change


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only recently papers started to be published online.

Finding them would probably take a few days work which I can't waste unfortunately.

As I said, I don't want to convince anyone because even if I did, it wouldn't make any difference.

Mass media will continue blaming humans for climate change and we will pay more and more taxes so the politicians can pay nature to stop working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I spent years researching this subject with the view that we were causing climate change and read many studies and scientific papers as well as books and internet claims.

I was also in touch with real experts in the subject.

 

Only recently papers started to be published online.

Finding them would probably take a few days work which I can't waste unfortunately.

 

 

Significant clash of timescales you report there king. You seem confused.

 

If your latter/latest claim was in anyway 'real', linking the 'recently published' papers and evidence from the last few days should be simple, even if they aren't legitimate bodies - unlike those I link.

 

and, You don't have time to find papers you have as you state only just looked at - Yet surprisingly, you have time to continue to post what can only be described as rhetoric in the face of detailed overwhelming scientific evidence at best.

- Consider that there are dozens and dozens of names of genuine 'real expert' people and world class organisations in the posts and links I have supplied in only a relatively few minutes of effort.

Your arguments simply dont stand up to even a cursory examination.

 

... but like i said

You clutch to your beliefs (statements?) in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that would give even an American born again evangelical christian pause for thought.

 

Perhaps you simply missed your calling.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine is a balanced view. There have been cataclysmic weather episodes before humans would have contributed to them, earthquakes and volcanoes also play a part. During the Roman period the UK was warmer. Saying that, the human race needs to make sure we are not now speeding up or adding to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying that, the human race needs to make sure we are not now speeding up or adding to the problem.

 

What part of the overwhelming evidence, just a very small part of it linked here, gives you anything less than utter certainty that humans are at the very least 'adding to the problem' AND 'speeding it up' let alone being the major cause of the extraordinary weather events we are increasingly seeing?

Note that the latest reports are now saying we are in a situation that hasn't been seen in 800,000 years or more (it was 10 -20,000 years just a few years ago). 800,000 is at least twice as long as homo sapiens has existed as a species

... and some aspects of it may NEVER been seen before while there has been life on Earth.

 

 

If some other genuine, quality evidence from a reputable source gives you the slightest doubt in the face of pretty much ALL major and minor legitimate bodies of scientific knowledge and opinion, please link it with your understanding of it for discussion.

 

 

The three-minute story of 800,000 years of climate change with a sting in the tail

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-three-minute-story-years-climate-tail.html

 

https://environmentcounts.org/ec-perspective-accounting-for-800000-years-of-climate-change/


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's one thing which remains constant and that's change.

 

Climate change is one of our worries amongst others http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150323-how-long-will-life-on-earth-last

 

 

What I state in this post is not as widely accepted as my previous posts in this thread, but generally are accepted as valid interpretations of the evidence and models - unlike pretty much all climate deniers claims.

 

First some less immediate info

If you look at the data, you will see a glaring correlation between some aspects of climate change, the co2 levels in the atmosphere and the 800,000 - 1,000,000 years that hominids have been using fire, with the effects increasing over that period as we

1. Used fire more and more (cooking, clearing forests to create grasslands etc)

2. Found more efficient ways (coal, oil (whale and subterranean) to burn

 

 

More immediately:

According to all current 'real' understanding - We should be in an ice age now.

Both predictions long held based on data and new advances very strongly indicate that we should already be in a deepening ice age.

Great, some might say, burning oil and coal has saved us....

 

Well in some ways that might be considered a valid view, BUT consider that if we should be in an ice age, deepening all the way from the medieval 'little ice age' and yet the world has been warming and significantly, just think what will happen if the Earth drops out of its 'natural' current cooling cycle and starts a 'natural' (natural = without Human effects) heating cycle?

Just how hot do you think the earth will get?

Runaway global warming aka 'The venus effect' (Earth becomes like Venus) is a realistic result.

 

 

https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/02/11/human-emissions-just-cancelled-next-ice-age-heres-why-we-should-care

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-in-the-next-15-years

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-earliest-example-of-hominid-fire-171693652/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is the earth as warm as it is in the first place? It is not because of the atmosphere, it is becasue of radioactive decay.

So when was it last hotter tna at present? answer the early 1930's bu that has been aibrushed out of history and certainly out of the school curriculum by peopel who apply "corrections" to the data. If you look at the datas showing that the planet is getting warmer, when does that start? andser at the end o a prolanged cols period. Who aroind here remembers the ice fairs held on the Thames? as there were no thermometers around at the time how cold was it then? What about the warm spell that was notable in the 3rd century AD Bloody romans with their lithage process to extract gold an silver no doubt the cause of that but funnly it all went cold again for 500 years and then heated up for another 200 years and then back to a mini ice age for a few centuires. All of this with a population that want changing much so had no influence on things.

what about measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere in different times. This has been doen by ice sampling and guess what? no link between CO2 and temp over time. Anyone remember the Mt St heles volcanic eruption? that caused the atmospheric temp to drop by nealry a degree for the year afterwards. the computer models that even NASA use brush these things aside ad the reason is because they are just that, computer models and if you put in a system that only has one end result the oitput will match the model. It is a feedback loop that is based on flawed modelling.

 

 

My ex boss was often seen on telly talking about how it would be wrrm enough to grow grapes in York this century. he was happy to admit that he gets paid to say things like this even though he doesnt believe this is actually linked to human activity and this is a massive problem in my eyes, a natural occurrence is being sold as something else and the messianic outbursts of some are as ridiculous as the claims by religious fundamentalists. Govts love cimate change as it is an excuse to raise taxes ( this reported decades ago) and politicians have an attitude that " something must be done" regardless of the impossibility of the threat such as spending absolute fortunes on watching near earth orbit asteroids whe if one was to be on a path for collision what could they do about it other than pass a law banning people from panicking or possibly declaring earth an "asteroid free zone" and fining anyone who allows one to annihilate earth.

My other big problem with this is that it detracts from things we are doing that are killing our planet and the worst of those is pollution of the oceans. Now our news is good at beating us up for plastic waste but 90% of the stuff in the oceans comes from 3 rivers in Asia and the west isnt interested in punishing the offenders for reasons that are political and commercial. Most of our oxygen comes from plankton, most of the worlds fish are being killed off and we dont take measures to actually survive the loss of what keeps us alive. Another thing that isnt being addressed is the population sustainability problem. Gte rid of the excess 2 billion people and then even if man is reponsible for global warming then that will put it in reverse. Now all of the environmental activists who spend huge sums of money flying around the world telling us to switch our lights off should do the decent thing and top themselves to give a good example to others. As for the rest of the reduction? Nuclear winter anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...