Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

We have to move from fossil fuels in the next 200 years. But why do it so destructively is my question, we should get away, when the tech is ready, it sure as **** aint.

The whole transition is estimated to cost between 80 and 150 trillion, oil profits? Banks are the major shareholders in oil companies ffs

Thing is this rushed transition will really **** with teh global economies, massively.

It will cost 10 times what adaption to alleged consequences would cost, with all of 7% scientific certainty.

Any one I ask, even scientists who "believe" I have emailed a few, asked them how much warming is natural and how much is man made, not ****ing one knows

 

So, is the statement that CO2 will cause "run away temperature rise" fact or theory?

 

So is this a theoretical debunking or was it based on experiments and/or evidence in our atmosphere?

 

Sis, I got the idea that CO2 simply warms the atmosphere from the Telegraph, not exactly the climate-change friend. Their argument revolved around the opinion that global warming was not caused by man, but by the sun. They didn't though argue that CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere. as I say, this bit has been a revelation to me.

 

It's easy to prove, when you are lying on the grass in summer, and a cloud passes under the sun, do you feel a change in temperature?

If you do, then that temperature change is more than the change in earth's temp in the last 200 years.
Are you afraid

 

Every scientific belief is a theory.

The effect of CO2 on global temperature is a theory that's over a century old. The theory is being proved correct by the simple facts, as CO2 production has increased so has the temperature. The evidence is now compelling and the concensus is that the theory is correct. There are those who still dispute it of course, but that's science full stop.

 

Yes, I mentioned this further up the thread. Not sure if I agree with the conspiracy bit (surely no scientists at all would back it up if the science was that shaky), but looking at things to do - Reforestation is a must. NOW.

 

Did you notice I didn't deny the warming bit? coming out of an ice age does that

Most likely or is?
Contributing how much?

 

@donga kloppo The telegraph are right of the spectrum isn't it?

I would expect them to be polar opposite of the Guardian who are extremely pro.

I avoid media on it, I stick to the science. This is too important.

it only pisses me off so much because of real pollution taking a back seat.

 

You have a green circle jerk, about 40 scinetists who all peer review each other, many of them share government funding, so yes they would

Dude one scientist was disgusted and leaked a load of emails, about fiddling the data and hiding the decline in temps. I think that is proof enough

Phill Jones said he is not giving skeptics his data cos they will use it against him, but that is what peer review is

 

Ah, so you prefer one theory I prefer the other. Got it

 

Is that not a bit simplistic? Surely if you raise the global temperature by two degrees it will effect weather more than a passing shade? That 2% wouldn't be spread evenly, either . I accept what you're saying about saturation CO2 levels ( I think!), but that seems a bit counter-intuative. If I raise the heating in my house by 2% I certainly feel it after a while (gives me migraine if it's too warm).

 

the temperature change is even bigger at night, are you afraid of the dark?

what a pathetic argument by some who claims to only "do the science"

 

What do you think of re-forestation?

 

You'll have to do your own research on how much, I don't have the facts to hand, and I'm not doing your work for you.
I asked Sis whether he thinks it's natural or anthropogenic and he declined to answer the straight question, as usual.
Now you're doing the same. If you think they are wrong, do you think they are liars or fools? It's a very simple question.

 

It was in jest I was merely pointing out that heat blocked by one cloud passing the sun is greater than the earth has changed temp in about 400 to 500 years

Not alarming, did you watch that two minute video? It puts the warming into a historical context.

 

The whole 2 degree thing is bollocks, they tell you they we are probably contributing to warming (not sure) but not how much (they don't know) but their plans will keep it below 2 degrees.
How can you aim to keep something to a specific level if you have no idea how much you are contributing to it or are not even sure if you are?

 

I have given my best guess for why they are doing it above.

Wrong yes
Liars yes

 

It also ignores the issue of the acidification and temperature rise of the oceans caused by the increase in CO2, which is already having tangible effects.

The idea that the Earths open atmosphere is already saturated and therefore further increases aren't going to exacerbate the issue appears simplistic.

This is a good piece on the entire subject and the history of the science

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

Guess I will have to ask again.