Climate change is fake [mod warning - controversial topic - enter at your own risk]

[Ken H]

[Mod note - split from this thread]

There is no climate emergency

Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, alongside an international group of scientists including Prof Simon Shepherd, of Bradford University, Dr E Popova, of Moscow State University, and Dr Sergei Zharkov, of Hull University are saying that the climate change we see is due to the natural cycles in the sun, which they have modelled, and then correlated to historic global temperature.

its a scam by academics, paid by governments, to make conclusions, which the government can then use to justify tax increases.

if you want climate change, look at the Uk's landforms. most UK valleys are glaciated, and there are large deposits of boulder clay - which is material deposited by glaciers. 10,000 years ago the UK was covered by 1 mile thick ice, and there were glaciers in S Italy and Greece. Thats recent in geological time. What caused those glaciers to melt? Cos it wasnt burning fossil fuels.

Seems our politicians prefer listening to a 16 year old girl than physicists.


here is an article about this - title

 

[Struner]

Lol, & will humans survive the top or the dip of wave in the cycle?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

@ Ken H - sir - do not disagree. I am a climate change sceptic myself and qualified. 1st degree Chemistry, 2nd degree Materials Science and Engineering, Masters in The Corrosion of engineering Materials plus DIC. I was also an acid rain sceptic when that was all the rage in the 1980s. In the 13th century Britain was a wine maker and grew grapes in the Thames Valley. I was trying not to be too political on this thread.

I am biased though - anything to get us more electrification - even if it means believing horse****.

I do have a copy of this book btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

 

[Ken H]

Lol, & will humans survive the top or the dip of wave in the cycle?

if we have an ice age, i think it would wipe out much of the human population. people do see a risk of that as the suns output wanes towards 2020.
The other big risk is the mass of hot volcanic rock under Yellowstone national park. If that blows (and it will some day) the amount of solids and CO2 it puts in the atmosphere will truly bugger the climate.
Look at the eruption of krakatoa in 1883. that brought 5 years of extreme weather as far away as California. And yellowstone is much bigger than that.

 

[duffield]

There is no climate emergency

Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, alongside an international group of scientists including Prof Simon Shepherd, of Bradford University, Dr E Popova, of Moscow State University, and Dr Sergei Zharkov, of Hull University are saying that the climate change we see is due to the natural cycles in the sun, which they have modelled, and then correlated to historic global temperature.

its a scam by academics, paid by governments, to make conclusions, which the government can then use to justify tax increases.

if you want climate change, look at the Uk's landforms. most UK valleys are glaciated, and there are large deposits of boulder clay - which is material deposited by glaciers. 10,000 years ago the UK was covered by 1 mile thick ice, and there were glaciers in S Italy and Greece. Thats recent in geological time. What caused those glaciers to melt? Cos it wasnt burning fossil fuels.

Seems our politicians prefer listening to a 16 year old girl than physicists.


here is an article about this - title

Climate change is a basic scientific fact based on how CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere; but the entire internet is infested with 'alternative facts' types now.
Homeopathy has about as much credence as climate change denial.


As far as I can see, none of the academics cited are climate scientists (what a surprise) and there's no clear indication even that they are really disputing the basic science of climate change.

It needs repeating that virtually all climate scientists (the people who actually *study* the climate) are entirely convinced that human emissions are the primary cause of climate change, and that any other causes are minor and taken account of in the models.

To put it in railway terms, if you were designing a steam locomotive, would you take advice from Nigel Gresley, or Florence Nightingale?

Anyhow, I've said my piece. I can't believe this counter-factual nonsense has penetrated railforums. I had a bad feeling as soon as I saw the thread title, I knew it would lead to this sort of thing.

 

[Ken H]

Climate change is a basic scientific fact based on how CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere; but the entire internet is infested with 'alternative facts' types now.

As far as I can see, none of the academics cited are climate scientists (what a surprise) and there's no clear indication even that they are really disputing the basic science of climate change.

It needs repeating that virtually all climate scientists (the people who actually *study* the climate) are entirely convinced that human emissions are the primary cause of climate change, and that any other causes are minor and taken account of in the models.

To put it in railway terms, if you were designing a steam locomotive, would you take advice from Nigel Gresley, or Florence Nightingale?

It would depend who was paying them. Thats the problem.

We are all told that academics are independent and all their papers are peer reviewed. But what if the whole of academia is one big club all sitting each other on the back with no original thought. Science should be probing the theories and looking for holes all the time. 'Settled' science is not science - it shows inability to think the unthinkable.
there is also the problem that academia seems to be moving to a position where people cant have certain views because they are deemed not to fit in with the narrative. If academics cant take on new ideas and research and argue them through, what is academia for?

 

[duffield]

It would depend who was paying them. Thats the problem.

We are all told that academics are independent and all their papers are peer reviewed. But what if the whole of academia is one big club all sitting each other on the back with no original thought. Science should be probing the theories and looking for holes all the time. 'Settled' science is not science - it shows inability to think the unthinkable.
there is also the problem that academia seems to be moving to a position where people cant have certain views because they are deemed not to fit in with the narrative. If academics cant take on new ideas and research and argue them through, what is academia for?

If you think that the entire world's climate scientists are all conspiring together to fake the clear and obvious results, based on data from multiple independent sources, which show a clear and consistent correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, and which accord with very basic physics and chemistry which even I can understand with my A level expertise, then I really can't say anything helpful.

 

[Bevan Price]

Global warming is a fact - but it is superimposed on the natural cycling of climate behaviour. So, there will be periods when the average earth temperature falls, but the overall, long-term trend is a gradual rise in earth temperatures.

As for what happens to the railways ?
DfT will continue to ignore everything other than short-term costs, and defer or block most electrification schemes.
Hydrogen powered trains will eventually be tried, but will fall into disrepute when there is a catastrophic explosion after a minor collision.
Seaside towns will start to become flooded; residents are evacuated & relocated; many lines to the coast will be cut back or closed.
Service frequencies will be reduced, and operating hours reduced, using the excuse of a need to cut fuel consumption.

 

[Ken H]

If you think that the entire world's climate scientists are all conspiring together to fake the clear and obvious results, based on data from multiple independent sources, which show a clear and consistent correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, and which accord with very basic physics and chemistry which even I can understand with my A level expertise, then I really can't say anything helpful.

have you actually read up what the prof from Northumbria uni who I cited above says? She seems to contradict the 'settled' science with some good argument about the suns varying output.
And I am still waiting to hear what stopped the last 3 ice ages.

Our climate is unstable and has been throughout the Quaternary (1). it was quite stable until 2.588 million years ago. Then the isthmus of panama stopped the mixing of the warm Pacific and cooler Atlantic oceans causing the instability and the wide variations in temperature, causing the 3 ice ages. We dont know when, and if, there will be a new ice age, but one is thought to be overdue.

Quaternary - the period we are in 2.588 million years ago to today. divided into Pleistocene epoch (2.588 million years ago to 11.7 thousand years ago, and the holocene from 11.7 years ago to the present.

 

[Ken H]

Global warming is a fact - but it is superimposed on the natural cycling of climate behaviour. So, there will be periods when the average earth temperature falls, but the overall, long-term trend is a gradual rise in earth temperatures.

As for what happens to the railways ?
DfT will continue to ignore everything other than short-term costs, and defer or block most electrification schemes.
Hydrogen powered trains will eventually be tried, but will fall into disrepute when there is a catastrophic explosion after a minor collision.
Seaside towns will start to become flooded; residents are evacuated & relocated; many lines to the coast will be cut back or closed.
Service frequencies will be reduced, and operating hours reduced, using the excuse of a need to cut fuel consumption.

We have done gas on trains before. just look up the Quintishill (1915) and Thirsk (1892) accidents.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is no climate emergency

Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, alongside an international group of scientists including Prof Simon Shepherd, of Bradford University, Dr E Popova, of Moscow State University, and Dr Sergei Zharkov, of Hull University are saying that the climate change we see is due to the natural cycles in the sun, which they have modelled, and then correlated to historic global temperature.

its a scam by academics, paid by governments, to make conclusions, which the government can then use to justify tax increases.

if you want climate change, look at the Uk's landforms. most UK valleys are glaciated, and there are large deposits of boulder clay - which is material deposited by glaciers. 10,000 years ago the UK was covered by 1 mile thick ice, and there were glaciers in S Italy and Greece. Thats recent in geological time. What caused those glaciers to melt? Cos it wasnt burning fossil fuels.

Seems our politicians prefer listening to a 16 year old girl than physicists.


here is an article about this - title

I’m afraid those four learned individuals are in a very, very small minority of professors, doctors and the like on the subject of man made climate change. You can believe those four if you like, but I prefer to believe the thousands of others who have demonstrated otherwise.

There is no doubt that the planet is warming up, and has been for some time as a result of the earth’s orbit eccentricities and solar cycles. Hence the glaciers melting. However there is also no doubt that the rate of warming has accelerated significantly in the last 150 years or so, At a rate never before measured. And that time scale matches the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that increase in greenhouse gases is down to us, I’m afraid.

 

[Ken H]

I’m afraid those four learned individuals are in a very, very small minority of professors, doctors and the like on the subject of man made climate change. You can believe those four if you like, but I prefer to believe the thousands of others who have demonstrated otherwise.

There is no doubt that the planet is warming up, and has been for some time as a result of the earth’s orbit eccentricities and solar cycles. Hence the glaciers melting. However there is also no doubt that the rate of warming has accelerated significantly in the last 150 years or so, At a rate never before measured. And that time scale matches the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that increase in greenhouse gases is down to us, I’m afraid.

so we dont leave our TV on standby and kill off our industries with increasing green costs while China and India are building coal fired power stations at a massive rate.
As are the Germans, who have stopped nuclear (scared of a melt down caused by a tsunami - in Germany!) and are going for coal and lignite power stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

so we dont leave our TV on standby and kill off our industries with increasing green costs while China and India are building coal fired power stations at a massive rate.
As are the Germans, who have stopped nuclear (scared of a melt down caused by a tsunami - in Germany!) and are going for coal and lignite power stations.

That would be the same China that has nearly 200GW of wind capacity, and adding to it rapidly, and is aiming for 50% of power geenrstion to be renewable / nuclear in a decade. Yes they are building coal power stations (many of which are replacing old coal power stations being decommissioned), but they are building a lot more renewables too.

 

[Jonny]

@ Ken H - sir - do not disagree. I am a climate change sceptic myself and qualified. 1st degree Chemistry, 2nd degree Materials Science and Engineering, Masters in The Corrosion of engineering Materials plus DIC. I was also an acid rain sceptic when that was all the rage in the 1980s. In the 13th century Britain was a wine maker and grew grapes in the Thames Valley. I was trying not to be too political on this thread.

I am biased though - anything to get us more electrification - even if it means believing horse****.

I do have a copy of this book btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

Whilst I agree with your post apart from the horse poo bit, and I would dearly love to see a lot of electrification on any pretence, I think that the railway has to be careful when playing to the 'green' market.

 

[Ken H]

Whilst I agree with your post apart from the horse poo bit, and I would dearly love to see a lot of electrification on any pretence, I think that the railway has to be careful when playing to the 'green' market.

to me the good bit of train travel is when you whizz past road traffic at 125 with 700 other passengers. The bit of the WCML past Watford Gap is brilliant for this. Then you see a freightliner train going the other way and think 'how many lorry journeys saved.
If the railways were not there what would the congestion be like?

 

[Mojo]

The climate does change naturally, however the speed at which it has been changing of late is not natural at all, and that is what the concern is.

Even if you don't agree with the science behind climate change, there are some facts relevant to this thread such as the numbers of people suffering with conditions as a result of air pollution, the social injustices caused by road transport, the numbers of people having to put up with unbearable noise as a result of aviation, plastic entering our food and the destruction of ecosystems.

 

[GrimShady]

There is no climate emergency

Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, alongside an international group of scientists including Prof Simon Shepherd, of Bradford University, Dr E Popova, of Moscow State University, and Dr Sergei Zharkov, of Hull University are saying that the climate change we see is due to the natural cycles in the sun, which they have modelled, and then correlated to historic global temperature.

its a scam by academics, paid by governments, to make conclusions, which the government can then use to justify tax increases.

if you want climate change, look at the Uk's landforms. most UK valleys are glaciated, and there are large deposits of boulder clay - which is material deposited by glaciers. 10,000 years ago the UK was covered by 1 mile thick ice, and there were glaciers in S Italy and Greece. Thats recent in geological time. What caused those glaciers to melt? Cos it wasnt burning fossil fuels.

Seems our politicians prefer listening to a 16 year old girl than physicists.


here is an article about this - title

St Andrews University astrophysics team said something similar a few years back. I would be more inclined to go with this explanation for climate change than the mad pollution panic that's going on now. Earth's climate has been changing ever since the planet formed and will continue to change until Sol dies. CO2 solution is simple. Plant more trees or atmospheric processors. It's the other polluters that are the problem and all the garbage the the sea is now full of.

 

[Bletchleyite]

St Andrews University astrophysics team said something similar a few years back. I would be more inclined to go with this explanation for climate change than the mad pollution panic that's going on now. Earth's climate has been changing ever since the planet formed and will continue to change until Sol dies. CO2 solution is simple. Plant more trees or atmospheric processors. It's the other polluters that are the problem and all the garbage the the sea is now full of.

My view follows the line that, as with most things, strongly polarised views are usually not 100% correct - and so is that in fact both things are the cause, but if we want to avoid things getting unbearably hot we still need to act.

 

[Ken H]

The climate does change naturally, however the speed at which it has been changing of late is not natural at all, and that is what the concern is.

Even if you don't agree with the science behind climate change, there are some facts relevant to this thread such as the numbers of people suffering with conditions as a result of air pollution, the social injustices caused by road transport, the numbers of people having to put up with unbearable noise as a result of aviation, plastic entering our food and the destruction of ecosystems.

Particulates in the urban environment and plastic in the environment are massive problems. my are swept under the carpet because crabon is see as the only polluter in town.

But the plastic in the sea problem isnt a European one, but India China and Africa are the real polluters.

 

[Bald Rick]

They are now, but to use playground language: “we started it”

 

[yorkie]

There is no climate emergency

Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, alongside an international group of scientists including Prof Simon Shepherd, of Bradford University, Dr E Popova, of Moscow State University, and Dr Sergei Zharkov, of Hull University are saying that the climate change we see is due to the natural cycles in the sun, which they have modelled, and then correlated to historic global temperature.

its a scam by academics, paid by governments, to make conclusions, which the government can then use to justify tax increases.

Blimey, if you believe that, you must believe almost anything!

if you want climate change, look at the Uk's landforms. most UK valleys are glaciated, and there are large deposits of boulder clay - which is material deposited by glaciers. 10,000 years ago the UK was covered by 1 mile thick ice, and there were glaciers in S Italy and Greece. Thats recent in geological time. What caused those glaciers to melt? Cos it wasnt burning fossil fuels.

You really think the increased rate of recent changes can be explained by natural means?!

Seems our politicians prefer listening to a 16 year old girl than physicists.

I've not yet met a 16 year old girl who is as mistaken as you are.

You choose to believe a tiny minority of physicists while disbeliving the majority. Why is this?

 

[Ken H]

Blimey, if you believe that, you must believe almost anything!

You really think the increased rate of recent changes can be explained by natural means?!

I've not yet met a 16 year old girl who is as misaken as you are.

You choose to believe a tiny minority of physicists while disbeliving the majority. Why is this?

check out the climate changes over the Quaternary. They have been massive. then tell me the change in the last 150 years is significant. And explain the massive warming that must have ended the ice advances. Ice advances, the evidence I have seen today in Kefalonia.

here is temperature,CO2 (Can you do subscripts on here?) and dust over the last 450 million years. And you are telling me the change since 1870 is significant?

 

[Struner]

I've not yet met a 16 year old girl who is as misaken as you are.

Indeed! (mistaken?)

 

[yorkie]

The scale of that graph is in the thousands of years. We are seeing significant changes in much shorter timespans.

 

[Ken H]

The scale of that graph is in the thoudands of years. We are seeing siginficant changes in much shorter timespans.

so how do you know the changes we see aren't just the 'noise' we know have taken place throughout the quaternary?

 

[Ken H]

Indeed! (mistaken?)

good to see a mod and his mate being childish. I thought this was an adult website for reasoned argument.

 

[Bald Rick]

good to see a mod and his mate being childish. I thought this was an adult website for reasoned argument.

1) reasoned argument requires the arguers to present their facts and be open to challenge about them. Show those graphs over a much shorter timespan and you’ll see the point.

2) this forum is open to all ages. Adult websites have rather a rather different content.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, you missed a bit off the end of the CO2 graph. Unfortunately my forum competence doesn’t stretch to inserting pictures (and hell I’ve tried to work it out), so you’ll have to make do with the second graph on this link.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

 

[Struner]

[...]
2) this forum is open to all ages. Adult websites have rather a rather different content.

Indeed!