So we come back to the differences we have. I don't want to wait and see if they are right or wrong I think we should and must do what we can to reduce our emissions. The UK have got good targets and are reducing emissions so are a lot of other countries even if it doesn't help climate change to me its a good thing to do, OK I'm a green, lefty, marxist but we don't get a second chance if we stuff up the planet.
I'm sorry but that just demonstrates that you're reading the hype and not the facts. The IPCC predict between 1-2 degrees of warming. The hype is around the worst case scenario if we do nothing, that's where the 4 degrees come from. Global temperature has increased by just over 1 degree since 1880. We've had industrialisation of vast parts of the world, two huge world wars, nuclear weapon deployment and we've seen it increase by 1 degree. Predicting double that in the next 80 years is pushing it don't you think? There hasn't been a smog in London for 50 years
As I said we wont agree because nether you nor I can prove the effects. Let's wait and see hey? https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
I hope you read it The IPCC reports are quite informative and don't contain hype. It's the interpretation that causes the problems
Great, so what temperature increase by 2100 would you consider to be catastrophic? Remember that we are emerging from the little ice age up to the beginning of the 19th Century when, for example, the Thames in London would freeze over, so the overall temperature will be recovering.
Without mitigation the report suggests that by 2100 the temperature increase compared to pre-industrial levels will be between 3.7 and 4.8 oC higher, now it doesn't mention catastrophic effects but I would assume that as the premise of the report is to limit increase to +2 oC they consider that anything above this wouldn't be good
So what do you think they mean by "without mitigation?" I see that as the control, i.e absolutely nothing is done and emission levels increase at the same rate as they are now until 2100. That is unrealistic which is why it's not in the middle of their estimations, it's at the very top. The middle of their estimations is 1-2 degrees. I don't see 1-2 degrees as catastrophic and I think that, with the technological advances we don't even know about yet, 2 degrees should be worst case. These are models remember.
At a 2 degree increase it is anticipated that 99% of the worlds coral would be lost, global fish catches could reduce by 1.5 million tonnes, sea rises by 10cm, not a worry for me and 1.7 billion people could be exposed to severe heat waves every 5 years. 2 degrees would see large parts of London, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire under water. So I suppose it all depends how you see catastrophic really. Personally I would prefer those things to be avoided as much as possible.
"Anticipated" means that they're guessing. They don't know. Are you absolutely certain that CO2 is the key factor? Not weather patterns like el nino or nina? Not the Jetstreams? Not changes on the sun, for example sun spots? Not a naturally occurring temperature increase as we emerge from colder recent temperatures (climatically)? No other factor than CO2, because no one is allowed to question the "science" or they risk being labelled a denier. Science should always be questioned, it has to be. There cannot be settled science.
- Anticipated yes it hasn't happened and as you say it is subject to the accuracy of the model, rubbish in rubbish out scenario - No it's not just Carbon Dioxide. Methane, Nitrous Oxides, CFC's are all involved as well as water vapour. - El Nino La Nina are naturally occurring and change local weather patterns. We are in a La Nina at the moment and it is bringing welcome rain. Climate change could make these events worse or stop them. - Changes from the sun occur but as the NASA report shows the increase in earth temperatures appear to be independent of the radiant energy arriving at the earth As Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that you reference comprises 1300 independent scientists from around the world who are experts in this area. They have concluded with a 95% probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
No, it was in the link I had posted about 2 hours earlier. As the saying goes You can lead a horse to water etc.
A 16 year old aspergers sufferer who has made a million quid from it, can lead you too, and make you swallow it
The graph looks terrifying until you look at the scale. Since 1880 the change is 0.6 degree. The IPCC is a body that collates papers on Climate Chance. They don't have an hypothesis, they work to prove their assumption. Dissenting papers are not included so it's not a matter of whether CO2 causes excessive warming of the planet but by how much. I can't accept just hearing one side of the argument, especially when they call it climate science.
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/ You won't of heard of this and will probably dismiss it but if you actually read it you might begin to question some of your indoctrinated beliefs. They don't want you to read the other side because there is a consensus, the science is proven and anyone who doesn't believe it is a denier. Doesn't that worry you? Just as in the video I posted initially, we are being told what to think and what to do and if you dissent you are castigated. That's not a world I want.
Great to see Blono running rings round the lefties Tobes has disappeared even faster than he did when Leeds beat Everton
Although the Newcastle fans were spot on about how poor their team would be. I might ask them to do my predict 6
