Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Climate Change, the Surge...

1) We had '11,000 scientists declaring a climate emergency!'

2) Then we have the Greta phenomenon. Where is the funding coming from and why now, to launch her at the world?

3) Extinction Rebellion in London, started and run by a geneticist, receiving funding allowing them to pay their members to go and protest.

4) A bunch of people, such as Attenborough, saying the planet and human society has 10 years left unless we save it.

After years of relative inactivity, we have this sudden push. Why? Would it be to do with the fact the planet is not only no longer warming, but showing signs of imminent cooling?

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/11/11/western-hudson-bay-freeze-up-earlier-than-average-for-1980s-for-the-third-year-in-a-row/
"Western Hudson Bay freeze-up earlier than average for 1980s for the third year in a row"

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity "NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity"

China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve

(edited 3 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

SHallowvale

Two places being colder than usual does not mean that the planet, as a whole, is no longer warming (let alone cooling). I trust you understand how averages work?

As for solar activity, this is well known to fluctuate over a period of about 11 years. The cycle then repeats, as it has done so for well over a century.

Reply 2

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by SHallowvale

Two places being colder than usual does not mean that the planet, as a whole, is no longer warming (let alone cooling). I trust you understand how averages work?

Not to mention that global warming disrupts the jet stream, resulting in more extreme weather events. As always, denialists don't know **** about the subject

Reply 3

Fullofsurprises

We must be just imagining the forest fires, the massive storms, the rains, the expansion of deserts, the destruction of species.

Reply 4

username4969948

We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.

However, If you believe the current consensus on anthropogenic climate change is incorrect, you need to publish your research in a peer reviewed journal. I have no doubt Nature or Science would love to hear from you.

Until then, people can be forgiven for dismissing your claims.

Reply 5

username4926212

Original post by Kitten in boots

We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.

Brutal.

Reply 6

Stiff Little Fingers

97% do actually, but ok boomer

Reply 7

Stiff Little Fingers

The scientific consensus on climate change is clear, it is happening, it is anthropogenic and it is causing extreme weather conditions. The only people who still deny it are the supremely uneducated, the psuedo-intellectuals who **** themselves off about being devils advocate or corporate shills who'd sooner kill the planet than be merely rich than filthy rich. Pick which one you are.

Reply 8

SHallowvale

You suggested that the Earth could be showing signs of imminent cooling, to which you provided two specific examples. I've pointed out that these examples are not only insufficient but also irrelevant. Two local examples of temperature are not indicative of the entire planet's temperature change (or possible lack thereof).

The graph you've linked actually shows some warming, even though the warming is minimal. If you increase the scale and look over the last 100 years (or as far back as the data goes), the warming is more obvious. The same conclusion can be reached even when comparing different data sets:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

What longer cycle are you referring to? The article you gave in your original post referred to the solar minimum and what NASA has said about it. NASA, themselves, are referring to the 11 year cycle as I said.

Reply 9

Stiff Little Fingers

Bull**** - The IPCC are quite clear that CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be massively reduced in emissions, and ideally removed from the atmosphere if possible, to avoid temperature rises above 2 degrees celsius, which would be disastrous. Everything you're posting is known to be false, so I've got to ask - are you just completely illiterate around science or are you actively lying?

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 10

Fullofsurprises

"These changes don't automatically generate extreme weather events but they change the odds that such events will take place. It is equivalent to the loading of dice, leading to one side being heavier, so that a certain outcome becomes more likely. In the context of global warming, this means that rising temperatures increase the odds of extreme events occurring."

That's what the sceptical scientists say.
https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

Reply 11

username4977980

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

So no not really. It benefits them up to a point and ignores the big picture.

Reply 12

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Kitten in boots

We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.

Had to laugh at this.

Reply 13

z-hog

Let's get this straight once and for all, are you trying to say that too much is being made of this climate issue by some people?

Reply 14

SHallowvale

From the figure you linked to, it starts from an average of about -0.1 in the mid 90s and then ends at an average of around 0.3 in the late 2010s. I've actually just run a test on this data set to check for significance. A linear relationship with positive correlation is highly significant (with a p-value < 2.2x10^-16). We can very safely reject the null hypothesis.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but where in the original article does not mention a three hundred year cycle? I've Googled this and can't find any reference to it, especially from NASA.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 15

SHallowvale

Take out the El Ninos and "volcanoes" and the relationship is still significant.

Can we continue to talk about your original article, please? Where does it mention a solar cycle which is 350 years long?

Reply 16

z-hog

So what about the billions collected in green taxes and the trillions shared out among the carbon- credit trading community, could all that be a bit over the top? Our green levy on leccy for next year is going to double, a fifth of our bills it will be. All that and we're not all going to die?

Thanks for your input, I just look at the people behind the hysteria and that's enough for me. Manually repped.

Reply 17

SHallowvale

They have not remained flat.

Ok boomer

Even over here, this is from 2011 and the rest is history:

They are among the nation's wealthiest aristocrats, whose families have protected the British landscape for centuries. Until now that is.

For increasing numbers of the nobility – among them dukes and even a cousin of the Queen – are being tempted by tens of millions of pounds offered by developers to build giant wind farms on their estates.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph reveals how generous subsidies – that are added to consumer energy bills – are encouraging hereditary landowners to build turbines up to 410ft tall on their land.