Global warming - how else can these signs be explained?

iseverynamegone

siremoon said:

Was anyone really measuring emissions in the 50s when virtually every building in the country was pouring the products of solid fuel combustion into the atmosphere and in London you literally couldn't see more than a few feet in front of you during the smog

It would be worth you taking a look at how far back Ice core records of pollution track, for just one example. 

Hattigol

Saying there is global warming because some flowers are out is akin to peeing in the ocean then saying that global ocean temperatures have risen.

iseverynamegone

As mentioned earlier one of the biggest things everyone could do today would be stop eating meat.  This is just an easy win for anyone serious about making a difference. But few are. 

Heartfeltdawn

fandango said:

Must. Stay. Calm.

I thought we tFBers had the intelligence not to get suckered by climate alarmists into believing the climate change/global warming scam.

But low-grade shitehawks like Tommy Robinson are to be believed apparently. 

http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/132880/tommy-robinson/p1

Chalky

As a wise man once said "Imagine that we suddenly had concrete undisputed scientific evidence that by stopping all sports, all hobbies, all music, all TV, all alcohol, we could halt global warming.  What would you bet the outcome would be? The wilful abandonment of all those things by everyone? Or the bloodiest war?"

The point is that, whatever the cause, the solution is not going to be achieved by everyone being nice.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

We're not arguing - I can see you're doing your bit and are onside. I only objected to your comment about climate change deniers. They need to be educated and brought round through reasoned debate not insults. Behaviours need to change. We don't want a Brexit style scenario in which there are two sides shouting insults at each other whilst nothing gets done. Brexit has shown the mess that can be achieved by a lack of planning, vision and will to succeed in sorting out a major issue that will affect millions of people. Climate change is another major problem that won't go away. The UK should do more.

Climate change scientists don't present their findings through journal articles entitled "Climate change deniers - accept the truth or fuck off' though. Half of my university time was spent on Environmental Science so I've done my fair share of environmental journal browsing. The information is there, presented in a non-shouty reasoned manner... and it's shat upon. 

Take this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/experts-warn-trump-epa-meddling-scientific-method/575377/

"For decades, they write, the EPA and other federal agencies have followed a “two-step process” when consulting science: First, scientific staff have reviewed existing research and summarized and synthesized it for political staff. Then that political staff “can accept, ignore, rerun some of the analysis, or reinterpret the results.”

This process essentially erects an apolitical wall between the agency’s scientific staff and its policy makers, and it has been endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Science, the authors say. But every single one of the proposed EPA reforms breaches that wall, allowing political staff to dictate the terms of scientific analysis and synthesis to scientists.

“It’s extremely problematic to start to limit what the scientific analysis can actually do within the agency. It cuts into the science, a place we’ve never been before,” Wagner told me."

How do you reason with federal agencies who don't want reasoned scientific analysis? How do you reason with supporters of politicians who want these changes to occur? 

Debating with those who dislike climate change for more emotive reasons rather than scientific reasons is never going to work. 

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Climate change scientists don't present their findings through journal articles entitled "Climate change deniers - accept the truth or fuck off' though. Half of my university time was spent on Environmental Science so I've done my fair share of environmental journal browsing. The information is there, presented in a non-shouty reasoned manner... and it's shat upon. 

I agree. However most people read newspapers, Twitter and Facebook etc not scientific journals, much in the same way the Brexit debate played out. It comes down to 'if you think [insert climate change advocate or denier] then you can fuck off' .. you can read climate change denying articles in all the major UK papers and online in Facebook groups. A classic argument I've come across - "there's no climate change  - the government just wants to  tax us more" .... people are also selfish. They want their big cars and foreign holidays.

For change to happen you need a public debate to lay out the facts. We've forgotten how to do it. It's been done in the past and has led to some of the great reforms of the last hundred years. Social media has dumbed us down and led to Trump and Brexit. Scientists live in an ivory tower that the average voter won't go near.. Politicians pay lip service but won't do anything as they know voters won't like it.

Result? Nothing happens.

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

Google can be a great tool that allows ordinary people like me to read what the experts really think rather than getting information filtered by vested interests and governments.

As it happens the volcano is important. What if it explodes? The ice melt could be rapid with sea levels rising. Areas of the UK could vanish under sea water - does the government have a plan for rising sea levels? How much is it affecting the melt of ice? As the ice melts the temperature of the surrounding sea water rises. Russian scientists think they can stop the ice caps meting by constructing a large device to reduce the amount of the Sun's energy that hits the poles. Madness? Who knows. As NASA says - the topic is complex and there's no easy fix.

You put a lot of faith in Google there, they have vested interests as well.

But, and reading how the thread has developed, I think we have had this one out.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

As a wise man once said "Imagine that we suddenly had concrete undisputed scientific evidence that by stopping all sports, all hobbies, all music, all TV, all alcohol, we could halt global warming.  What would you bet the outcome would be? The wilful abandonment of all those things by everyone? Or the bloodiest war?"

The point is that, whatever the cause, the solution is not going to be achieved by everyone being nice.

We don't want nice. One can deny climate change in the most beautifully polite prose imaginable. What is needed is a reasoned response and a belief in evidence-based analysis. 

The scenario you detail: it's likely we'd have gone over the tipping point if the only way to stop climate change was to erase huge tracts of societal behaviour. 

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

You put a lot of faith in Google there, they have vested interests as well.

Yes, Google allows me to find and read NASA's climate change website written by people qualified to comment. Not sure what you mean by Google's vested interests. Enter climate change evidence into a search and the results are pretty good - NASA and other respected academic organisations ... no flat Earth supporters with dodgy anti-climate change pseudoscience.

The internet allows you to dodge government lies and vested interests so long as you have an open mind.

Phil_aka_Pip

Fretwired said:

The government should reduce the speed limit on the motorway.

Won't stop "speeders".

Needless since on most motorways these days you're lucky if you can achieve 70mph: the nerk in front is going slow or there's a roadworks-related speed restriction in place, or ther's just yet another 1st gear queue.

What eats fuel & causes pollution and wears vehicles out is hard accelleration and braking; that kind of driving behaviour is more likely to be triggered by queues and slow nerks in front.

ICBM

The only thing that will change anything is when governments force people to change their behaviour, either by financial leverage or outright legislation. This isn’t easy because there are a lot of vested interests trying to keep things as they are.

One of the few successes so far has been the stopping of the sale of incandescent light bulbs above 60W, and even that met with a lot of resistance. People are selfish and complacent, and don’t like to be made to take anything other than the easiest option.

Worse than that, sometimes governments get it wrong - pushing diesel cars even when there was widely available evidence that it was a bad idea is the most obvious example.

Dominic

"limit speed on motorway "
yes ,and hand out Tartan lap rugs and Thermos flasks to every other old Gifford
Should INCREASE speed limit ........pathetic limit from days when cars had under-engineered brakes just inconveniences people who have good cars
100mph in off peak /free flowing times
Maybe limit built up areas of stop/start driving in suburbs where kids play and people walk on pavements

Garthy

roberty said:

Garthy said:

quarky said:

We know that:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) Man-made CO2 production has rocketed since the Industrial Revolution
3) Atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution
4) Global temperatures have increased since the Industrial Revolution

Maybe there is no link at all between any of that, and it is all a huge coincidence. But we also know that the Sun's warming cycles don't correlate either.

5) C02 is easy to measure and tax.

There are easier ways to raise tax revenue than forming a conspiracy with 99% of the world's scientists

I read the other day, the one thing conspiracy theorists have in common is that they have never worked as project managers :-)

I’m not a denier, but I am getting increasingly annoyed by European governments hounding soft targets and fiddling while Rome burns. It’s the ‘look we are doing something!” while jazz handing yet real issues are ignored. 

Its the same as plastic pollution- 95% of the plastic in the ocean comes from just two countries yet we have the smug satisfaction of reducing single use carrier bags by almost 100%. Its like putting a flag filter over your Facebook profile picture with “I’m helping” written underneath. We both know a French flag doesn’t do anything to stop ISIS but people feel virtuous doing it.

There is not enough pressure on the USA, China and India to clean up in every respect. 

My other grievance is the rampant hypocrisy- people tell others to fuck off for not believing in climate change or tell  others to drive slower but quite happy to buy a guitar made from endangered wood finished in an environmentally hostile substance or consider flying 8000 miles to save a few quid in tax and/or getting around CITES rosewood ban. 

Rocker

Hattigol said:

Saying there is global warming because some flowers are out is akin to peeing in the ocean then saying that global ocean temperatures have risen.

You have a reason for the happenings I wrote about in the OP then? Even discounting the summer bedding plants and the roses being in bloom in November, how do you explain the cowslip being in flower or the cherry blossom being in full flower or the sparrows fixing up the nest? These events do not happen until well into spring. Something is happening.....

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

You put a lot of faith in Google there, they have vested interests as well.

Yes, Google allows me to find and read NASA's climate change website written by people qualified to comment. Not sure what you mean by Google's vested interests. Enter climate change evidence into a search and the results are pretty good - NASA and other respected academic organisations ... no flat Earth supporters with dodgy anti-climate change pseudoscience.

The internet allows you to dodge government lies and vested interests so long as you have an open mind.

Google has complete control over what it presents, it can supply you with whatever it likes in the interest of being open or in the interest of being the opposite.

Certainly no more trustworthy than any government?

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

You put a lot of faith in Google there, they have vested interests as well.

Yes, Google allows me to find and read NASA's climate change website written by people qualified to comment. Not sure what you mean by Google's vested interests. Enter climate change evidence into a search and the results are pretty good - NASA and other respected academic organisations ... no flat Earth supporters with dodgy anti-climate change pseudoscience.

The internet allows you to dodge government lies and vested interests so long as you have an open mind.

Google has complete control over what it presents, it can supply you with whatever it likes in the interest of being open or in the interest of being the opposite.

Certainly no more trustworthy than any government?

So Google run NASA's website is written by Google is it? No it doesn't so your comment is irrelevant.

And then there's this:

https://theoutline.com/post/5453/google-will-help-the-un-with-climate-change-research-since-the-us-government-wont?zd=1&zi=zhqvk43y

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

You put a lot of faith in Google there, they have vested interests as well.

Yes, Google allows me to find and read NASA's climate change website written by people qualified to comment. Not sure what you mean by Google's vested interests. Enter climate change evidence into a search and the results are pretty good - NASA and other respected academic organisations ... no flat Earth supporters with dodgy anti-climate change pseudoscience.

The internet allows you to dodge government lies and vested interests so long as you have an open mind.

Google has complete control over what it presents, it can supply you with whatever it likes in the interest of being open or in the interest of being the opposite.

Certainly no more trustworthy than any government?

So Google run NASA's website is written by Google is it? No it doesn't so your comment is irrelevant.

And then there's this:

https://theoutline.com/post/5453/google-will-help-the-un-with-climate-change-research-since-the-us-government-wont?zd=1&zi=zhqvk43y

No, but NASA is an agency of the US Government : They presumably are therefore capable of "government lies"?

You can't pick and choose who you feel is malign (governments, vested interests) and benign (apparently Google and bits of certain governments) and pretend either side is any more biased or unbiased?  Especially while lauding the efforts of the world's greatest data-miners?

It's possible that governments have to work around the hard truth that people in their countries won't accept the realities (more expensive energy, less stuff, less meat, less travel) of serious action against climate change, and that if they tried to enforce those things they would be voted out?  Arguably both Brexit and Trump are the result of people in the west saying "none of this modern change nonsense give me back my nostalgic view of some fantasy past that never existed where there were less brown people".

NASA are scientists and will in my estimation publish what they find doing science, as they should, but no single article, or group of articles, would make me doubt the consensus of the human impact on global climate change, which is the horse we rode in on.

dbphoto

Ghosts are real.
God exists.
Fairies live at the bottom of my garden.
Football is amazing.
The Earth is flat.
Climate change/global warming is not a scam.

I only believe one of the above to be true, but I know I would be wasting my time trying to convince anyone on the internet who disagrees with me.  

I also appreciate that no one in the internet can persuade me otherwise.

I will therefor continue to trust trust the work of scientists over anyone else.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

I agree. However most people read newspapers, Twitter and Facebook etc not scientific journals, much in the same way the Brexit debate played out. It comes down to 'if you think [insert climate change advocate or denier] then you can fuck off' .. you can read climate change denying articles in all the major UK papers and online in Facebook groups. A classic argument I've come across - "there's no climate change  - the government just wants to  tax us more" .... people are also selfish. They want their big cars and foreign holidays.

For change to happen you need a public debate to lay out the facts. We've forgotten how to do it. It's been done in the past and has led to some of the great reforms of the last hundred years. Social media has dumbed us down and led to Trump and Brexit. Scientists live in an ivory tower that the average voter won't go near.. Politicians pay lip service but won't do anything as they know voters won't like it.

Result? Nothing happens.

So the problem isn't that the information isn't out there. You then have to look for other angles. Is the information presented in a way that people understand? You could say that journals offer technical and simple versions within an entire report. So some of the blame has to fall on people themselves. Some can't be arsed to read up for themselves and some come to a subject area with their own opinion already established and no amount of rational discourse can sway them. 

Ivory towers: how can a scientist who studies airborne pollutants and asthma rates in cities for instance be living a life disconnected from reality? The ones who are disconnected from reality are the anti-vaccine brigade. Far too often scientists are portrayed by elements of the media with their own agenda as being distanced from the working man.

We have lost areas where public debate would happen. The focus is on academia and safe spaces stifling debate: so the reduction of unions has caused debate to stifle. Loss of organisations where debate would happen, sports to clubs. One of the things I've been reading a lot into over the last few months has been the erosion of traditional working-class societal structures and common elements like sports, religion, social life, all of these acted as public debating areas. These are just as important as debates within the upper echelons of academia or political organisations.