Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    362

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
University offers students struggling with anxiety about climate change THERAPY to tackle their feelings of 'anger, guilt and grief'
  • Sessions being held at the University of Derby by Dr Jamie Bird
  • They involve participants trying to express feelings through art and poetry
  • Student Claire Prowse felt she may not have a future because of climate crisis

 
University offers students struggling with anxiety about climate change THERAPY to tackle their feelings of 'anger, guilt and grief'
  • Sessions being held at the University of Derby by Dr Jamie Bird
  • They involve participants trying to express feelings through art and poetry
  • Student Claire Prowse felt she may not have a future because of climate crisis


No doubt they'll be taught the fine art of "Jazz Hands"
 

Log in to remove this ad.

“There is no ambiguity or wriggle room that the bushfires are linked with climate change … And I don’t think that there is a bushfire expert that won’t make that link. The strength of the link can be argued, but the existence of the link is not disputable.”

Prof Andy Pitman explained the science behind this link to Crikey: high carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in some places, leads to “greening”, meaning more vegetation — like leaves, branches and even trees — growing above the soil. When you are hit with a drought, the vegetation become stressed and drops to the ground or dries out, becoming fuel for fires. So when a fire breaks out, the dead vegetation feeds bigger, more powerful flames that are harder to fight."

I would have thought that's a good thing, higher crop yields?


 
70 minutes, but watch it.

Snakey, I very much appreciate the information you share in this thread. Some are outstanding
However, I personally do not think this is one of the better pieces. or examples.

The presenter is concentrating on and contesting an illustrative oversimplified illustration. I would be staggered if in the actual highly complex computer models developed by Climatologists that they do not factor in the spherical nature of the planet, nor take into account angle of incidence of sunlight. However I am not familiar with the variables in such models and do not pretend to understand them.

If so his paper is almost worthless and is in some ways being hysterical as well.

------------------------------------------------------
="Snake_Baker, post: 64197786, member: 142951"]
@ ~ 45:00

View attachment 812220

Staggering.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, at face value it is obviously incorrect and a stupid comment.

However I think the brief comment is ambiguous, and not very clear . Perhaps he was really meaning reflection of energy (sunlight EMF) rather than heat transfer as in thermodynamics.
 
Snakey, I very much appreciate the information you share in this thread. Some are outstanding
However, I personally do not think this is one of the better pieces. or examples.

The presenter is concentrating on and contesting an illustrative oversimplified illustration. I would be staggered if in the actual highly complex computer models developed by Climatologists that they do not factor in the spherical nature of the planet, nor take into account angle of incidence of sunlight. However I am not familiar with the variables in such models and do not pretend to understand them.

If so his paper is almost worthless and is in some ways being hysterical as well.

------------------------------------------------------
="Snake_Baker, post: 64197786, member: 142951"]
@ ~ 45:00

View attachment 812220

Staggering.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, at face value it is obviously incorrect and a stupid comment.


He is critiquing some of the hacks that are involved in the "climate science" peer review process.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He is critiquing some of the hacks that are involved in the "climate science" peer review process.

I realise that. However imho (non expert) his paper likely does not deserve proper peer review nor publication.

If my guess is correct and the real models take into account these factors. Then the reviewers ought to have simply stated such in a reply email to him. End of the matter.

On the other hand if they really actually do merely average sunlight across the whole flat earth /globe , which is what he is suggesting, then the whole climate science is a complete waste of time and total BS! (regardless of the flaws in peer review processes)
 
Interesting paper. The models come up short again.
It is interesting, will need to do more research on water feedback.

It does seem ridiculously easy to get published in some journals: https://scholarlyoa.com/finnish-man-uses-easy-open-access-journals-to-publish-junk-climate-science/

Found this interesting re: peer review process
 
In other words, you're completely in over your head and bullshitting again.

The natural sciences care nought for your political "feelings".
And the scientific world cares naught for your "feelings". You should learn a bit about science at some stage.

"Humans' ability to collaborate to obtain otherwise inaccessible goals may be one main cause for our success as a species. Comparative psychological research with children and our closest primate relatives is starting to elucidate the phylogenetic roots as well as the unique psychological mechanisms that support our cooperative behavior"

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top