COP26 progress or same old

[Jacob]

[

...
Am I now officially a denier...

Good luck with that then!

 

[Sandyn]

People may argue about the cause, but does anyone still deny there is climate change happening?

 

[planesleuth]

Hey moderators! Isn't it about time you took down online off topic posts like this. It's hardly working wood is it ?? !!!! I really don't want to be distracted by this, thanks.

 

[ey_tony]

Hey moderators! Isn't it about time you took down online off topic posts like this. It's hardly working wood is it ?? !!!! I really don't want to be distracted by this, thanks.

I hadn't realised that forum members were obliged to read every thread and every post? I thought the clue was in the title... 'Off-Topic'!

 

[planesleuth]

Haven't read it much Mr ey tony don't flatter yourself

 

[ey_tony]

Haven't read it much Mr ey tony don't flatter yourself

Flatter myself? Not in the least.
I've only recently joined the thread, it was well underway long before I arrived on the scene. The content interested me so I joined in. If you aren't interested in the debate then fair enough. I myself don't read every thread or have any interest in many of the thread contents but I wouldn't want others stopped from participating or making their views heard.

Why would you want others who are interested in the debate stopped from participating if as you suggest you haven't been reading it? You aren't obliged to read any posts so simply ignore threads that don't interest you. I've always done it and it saves wasted time.

 

[Daniel2]

Hey moderators! Isn't it about time you took down online off topic posts like this. It's hardly working wood is it ?? !!!! I really don't want to be distracted by this, thanks.

I know it can be a really difficult concept to grasp, but have you actually tried not reading a thread
that doesn't interest you ?

 

[Istrickl]

People may argue about the cause, but does anyone still deny there is climate change happening?

Can't quite see what your point is? The climate, from my recently educated perspective, would appear have always be changing. It's an interesting topic. What isn't remotely interesting is how boorish and pseudo religious some folk can be when attempting to have a reasoned debate about it...

 

[selectortone]

 

[Jacob]

Can't quite see what your point is? The climate, from my recently educated perspective, would appear have always be changing. It's an interesting topic. What isn't remotely interesting is how boorish and pseudo religious some folk can be when attempting to have a reasoned debate about it...

Not changing a lot during the holocene, which is rather the whole point. Holocene - Wikipedia
The "anthropocene" seems to be ushering in change which almost certainly will not be welcome, but as we caused it can we reverse it? Anthropocene - Wikipedia.
That is the question, friends, romans and countrymen!
I agree about the boorishness of the deniers, they really have nothing useful or interesting to say about anything - as you can see from this thread.
It's always been like this, flat earthers, creationists, anti vaxxers, covid sceptics, brexiters. "“The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11)"

 

[Sandyn]

Can't quite see what your point is?

It was just a question.
I wondered if there were still people who don't believe that climate change is happening?
If everyone accepts it is, we have to do whatever we can to reverse it. One of the things which is under our control is the reduction of CO2. We should start to see the effect on the measured CO2 within a couple of years. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility of the Global CO2 production starting to reduce for years.

I believe the scientists who have shown what is causing climate change, unfortunately it's not the same people who decide how we actually achieve CO2 reduction, I have no faith in those people.

 

[ey_tony]

Not changing a lot during the holocene, which is rather the whole point. Holocene - Wikipedia
The "anthropocene" seems to be ushering in change which almost certainly will not be welcome, but as we caused it can we reverse it? Anthropocene - Wikipedia.
That is the question, friends, romans and countrymen!
I agree about the boorishness of the deniers, they really have nothing useful or interesting to say about anything - as you can see from this thread.
It's always been like this, flat earthers, creationists, anti vaxxers, covid sceptics, brexiters. "“The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11)"

Talking of boorish.
Can you explain why over the last 15,000 years there have been around 10 sudden climatic reversals documented in the the proxy records which clearly did not involve anthropogenic CO2 production?

 

[DrPhill]

Can you explain why over the last 15,000 years there have been around 10 sudden climatic reversals documented in the the proxy records which clearly did not involve anthropogenic CO2 production?

Please supply your evidence for these climatic reversals.
This link provides a good representation of temperature over that period. I see no rapid changes.

 

[Jacob]

Talking of boorish.
Can you explain why over the last 15,000 years there have been around 10 sudden climatic reversals documented in the the proxy records which clearly did not involve anthropogenic CO2 production?

Yes very easy to explain. We weren't generating CO2 in great quantities until very recently!!!
Sort of obvious really. They could not have been due to mass exploitation of coal and oil because this had hardly started until about 300 years ago
I thought you would have spotted it yourself.
n.b. They weren't quite "reversals" - **** sapiens survived, expanded and spread during this period
There is a hypothesis that the stability of the holocene might actually have been anthropogenic through other human influences - agriculture and extinctions Holocene extinction - Wikipedia which is all very interesting.
It's all so much more interesting than the boringly dull deniers would have you believe.
But I suppose it's useful having them ask questions
Hope that helps - don't hesitate to ask another!

 

[Istrickl]

300 parts per million looks 'normal' peak.
Current level 417ppm takes us into territory unknown for the last 100,000 years or so
Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

This is true but given 10s of thousands of years is a mere hiccup in climate terms, it would seem sensible to take into account a wider range of data that's available and doesn't appear to be too contentious to the various waring factions. In that case, you could suggest that the amount of co2 in the atmosphere has been in steady decline for millions of years from a much higher concentration compare with where we are today. Given that there are plants (I'm told) that actually die at 180 ppm then you could certainly argue a case for the industrial revolution doing mankind a favour in co2 terms, ignoring of course the other positive and negative factors associated with this period. It's certainly beyond reasonable dispute that the planet is getting greener as a result of more co2.
What d'you think?

 

[ey_tony]

Yes very easy to explain. We weren't generating CO2 in great quantities until very recently!!!
Sort of obvious really.
I thought you would have spotted it yourself.
n.b. They weren't quite "reversals" - **** sapiens survived, expanded and spread during this period
There is a hypothesis that the stability of the holocene might actually have been anthropogenic through other human influences - agriculture and extinctions Holocene extinction - Wikipedia which is all very interesting.

So show the quantifiable relationship between CO2 and warming and explain the 'reversals' as found in proxy records in terms of CO2.

 

[Jacob]

..... It's certainly beyond reasonable dispute that the planet is getting greener as a result of more co2.
What d'you think?

In local areas yes, but not enough to match the desertification in other areas, including the sea.
In fact it's probably how life will continue, treelines rising etc, but not necessarily including ourselves as rates of change could be too steep. Life is unstoppable but nature has no preferences over species, even less over individuals.

 

[ey_tony]

Please supply your evidence for these climatic reversals.
This link provides a good representation of temperature over that period. I see no rapid changes.

A cartoon drawn by Friends of the Hockey Stick Lovers if I'm not mistaken.
The name Katharine Hayhoe at the foot of the page, Mann's sidekick, tells me all I need to know.

 

[Jacob]

So show the quantifiable relationship between CO2 and warming and explain the 'reversals' as found in proxy records in terms of CO2.

Don't be lazy you can track down information just as easily as the rest of us.
Though I see it could be difficult if you think you already know it all!

 

[Istrickl]

In local areas yes, but not enough to match the desertification in other areas, including the sea.
In fact it's probably how life will continue, treelines rising etc, but not necessarily including ourselves as rates of change could be too steep. Life is unstoppable but nature has no preferences over species, even less over individuals.

Mm, well yes, that's what I would have thought too, but apparently not according to NASA that says there has been a significant net increase according to its MODIS Vegetation Index