Opinion Climate change

[OneGreatClub]

Payback for his BigFossil Fuel bribes.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Wonder if Dutton considered this as a potential
Issue?

 

[OneGreatClub]

This doesn’t look good

 

[OneGreatClub]

Are we rapidly getting to the point of no return?

 

[OneGreatClub]

That is some massive heat wave in the Mediterranean

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Saw this on You Tube last night. Don't know why it popped up on my RHS. I was watching cricket and construction videos.

The great physicist / astronomer/ astrophysicist Carl Sagan in 1985 explains to a US Congress committee what the greenhouse effect is, the benefits of having a greenhouse effect on Earth keeping the planet warm enough, rather than at 30 degrees centigrade lower than it would be without earth's greenhouse effect , the downside of the greenhouse effect if humans keep burning fossil fuels and getting the delict balance wrong.

He said by mid 21st century the earth will be warmer by several degrees warmer if things don't change, he predicted the big 3 would burn more fossil fuels USA, Soviets/Russia and China, that China had to be part of discussions and solution not just USA and Soviets, but with the benefit of hindsight, he probably under predicted their growth rate especially of China

He said we should study past climate on the earth, back before the ice age and climate of other planets to get some calibration of what might happen.

He talked about Venus, how it has clouds and an atmosphere that reflects sunlight like the earth does, but because its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide, its CO2 levels are 90 times higher than earth and how they have average temperatures of 470 degrees. My calculation based on earth's 1985 and 2025 CO2 readings, is its now about 73 times.

Its a great pity he died in late 1996 from blood cancer / leukaemia aged only 62. He was a great communicator of science and I have no doubt if he had lived another 25 years or more, he would have straightened out a lot of the bullshit peddled by politicians, business lobbies and media manipulators about the science of Climate Change.

As a youth in the early 80's his Cosmos doco series and accompanying book had a profound affect on my thinking. There is also something about his voice / delivery that was almost hypnotic and drew you in to what he is saying. Plus I used to love how he used to say billions and trillions of years or particles. He put an emphasis on second half of billions and trillions that stretched them out.

Below is the video of his 16 minute or so opening statement to the committee. There is another video of that committee hearing that has stuff before Carl makes his statement then takes about 12 minutes of Q&A and other experts talking about climate change and the greenhouse effect back in 1985. All up its 2 hours 24 minutes long.





This was a MSNBC story in 2021 marking the 25th anniversary of his death. The second half of the 4 minute video Brian Williams reads from one of the many book Carl wrote, this one written in 1995 predicting the future - not about climate change, but how the US will change - the last sentence newsreader Brian Williams reads out is;

"The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bite (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations, on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."






billions and billions - Carl says it wasn't him who said it.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Saw this on You Tube last night. Don't know why it popped up on my RHS. I was watching cricket and construction videos.

The great physicist / astronomer/ astrophysicist Carl Sagan in 1985 explains to a US Congress committee what the greenhouse effect is, the benefits of having a greenhouse effect on Earth keeping the planet warm enough, rather than at 30 degrees centigrade lower than it would be without earth's greenhouse effect , the downside of the greenhouse effect if humans keep burning fossil fuels and getting the delict balance wrong.

He said by mid 21st century the earth will be warmer by several degrees warmer if things don't change, he predicted the big 3 would burn more fossil fuels USA, Soviets/Russia and China, that China had to be part of discussions and solution not just USA and Soviets, but with the benefit of hindsight, he probably under predicted their growth rate especially of China

He said we should study past climate on the earth, back before the ice age and climate of other planets to get some calibration of what might happen.

He talked about Venus, how it has clouds and an atmosphere that reflects sunlight like the earth does, but because its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide, its CO2 levels are 90 times higher than earth and how they have average temperatures of 470 degrees. My calculation based on earth's 1985 and 2025 CO2 readings, is its now about 73 times.

Its a great pity he died in late 1996 from blood cancer / leukaemia aged only 62. He was a great communicator of science and I have no doubt if he had lived another 25 years or more, he would have straightened out a lot of the bullshit peddled by politicians, business lobbies and media manipulators about the science of Climate Change.

As a youth in the early 80's his Cosmos doco series and accompanying book had a profound affect on my thinking. There is also something about his voice / delivery that was almost hypnotic and drew you in to what he is saying. Plus I used to love how he used to say billions and trillions of years or particles. He put an emphasis on second half of billions and trillions that stretched them out.

Below is the video of his 16 minute or so opening statement to the committee. There is another video of that committee hearing that has stuff before Carl makes his statement then takes about 12 minutes of Q&A and other experts talking about climate change and the greenhouse effect back in 1985. All up its 2 hours 24 minutes long.





This was a MSNBC story in 2021 marking the 25th anniversary of his death. The second half of the 4 minute video Brian Williams reads from one of the many book Carl wrote, this one written in 1995 predicting the future - not about climate change, but how the US will change - the last sentence newsreader Brian Williams reads out is;

"The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bite (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations, on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."






billions and billions - Carl says it wasn't him who said it.

Yes he was incredibly intelligent and saw what was coming very clearly.
Enjoyed The Cosmos.

 

[OneGreatClub]

If only the Libs and Nats showed any concern about climate change

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[Grave Danger]

Hope they don't get bogged, although they might not be needed now anyway...

 

[SonOfKek]

Look at the amount of poo, chemical run off, industrial waste and dead bodies washing out from the Ganges to the ocean. Or the emissions from the factories in India and China. The west's reliance on cheap labour has been a huge factor in the ruination of our environment. Couple that with significant volcanic activity as of late, and we're gonna see the full impact on the environment in the near future.

Look at our own shores, all of the shit and chemical waste that sits in the Murray, Torrens and Onkaparinga - look at the algae bloom. We've cooked our own planet.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Yep

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Which idiot thought that there were sailing ships like that one 5000 years ago ?

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[Sunshine81]

If that's true, then that's horrifying.

 

[OneGreatClub]

If that's true, then that's horrifying.

Well it is true

 

[raptalia]

Maybe it is time to ask, 'Why is the world so reliant on the USA ? '

Our daily weather forecast is under threat from Trump cuts to US climate agencies

US President Donald Trump's proposed cuts to US weather and climate services will cause the loss of critical data Australia relies on for its weather and climate modelling.

www.abc.net.au

 

[GremioPower]

Interesting reading on sea levels:

Blockbuster sea level study may turn climate change orthodoxy on its head

“It is crazy that it had not been done,” one of the study’s authors claimed.

trib.al

 

[Cam1870]

Interesting reading on sea levels:

Blockbuster sea level study may turn climate change orthodoxy on its head

“It is crazy that it had not been done,” one of the study’s authors claimed.

trib.al

I'm not a climate change scientist but several things worth considering... 1) the implication that climate change isn't occurring goes against enormous amounts of independent scientific data and the entire scientific consensus, 2) this is reported in the New York Post, 3) the paper it refers to (or doesn't refer to but I tracked down) is published in the J Marine Sci Eng. It has an impact factor less than 3 (IFs are rough measures of a journals worth based on a metric of citations over the past couple of years). Less than 3 is very low and it's well know the majority of low ranking journals are considered "predatory" meaning that hundreds of journals exist to take your money to publish without a proper peer review process. This doesn't mean a paper is necessarily fraudulent, just that's it's unlikely to have withstood anything other than minimal review by other scientists.

Be wary of a thin veil of scientific dressing up as a talking point for people who seek to go against the massive weight of scientific opinion (many similar papers can be found that vaccines cause autism - they don't, smoking isn't a major risk factor for cancer - it is etc etc)

 

[GremioPower]

1) the implication that climate change isn't occurring goes against enormous amounts of independent scientific data and the entire scientific consensus

The article doesn’t deny climate change.

2) this is reported in the New York Post

Ad hominem.

3) the paper it refers to (or doesn't refer to but I tracked down) is published in the J Marine Sci Eng. It has an impact factor less than 3

Ad hominem [2]

 

[Festerz]

Ad hominem.



Ad hominem [2]

These are NOT ad hominem attacks at all.

Because when it comes to the cut and paste publication of research papers in the popular press (in this case Murdoch tabloids and promotion by climate activist Michael Shellenberger) the motivations why that particular scientific research article was selected for focus amongst the tens of thousands out there, the source of the paper and whether the claims have been accurately quoted and a base level of cross referencing and scrutiny is needed.

There have been credible reviews of this paper by Voortman and De Vos - the company and researcher associated with it and the way in which data has been selected and analysed by certain politically aligned individuals (and Trump's revamped DoE) and sections of the press who claim that “the first-ever global study of sea level rise based on data gathered locally rather than on models extrapolating from assumptions.” (untrue)

Bad Science on Sea Level

In a recent report about climate change from the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the authors state that “U.S. tide gauge measurements reveal no obvious acceleration beyond the historical ave…

tamino.wordpress.com

Edit: I suspect that now the Murdoch press has chosen to highlight the Voortman and De Voss paper for disingenuous reasons, many more critical and credible assessments of this research will now emerge, for example.

 

[Cam1870]

The article doesn’t deny climate change.



Ad hominem.



Ad hominem [2]

Neither of us I assume are oceanographers so it's impossible for either of us to evaluate the work

I will however point out there are 2 authors. The first author H G.Voortman is listed on the paper as working at "Vessel Voortnan engineering consultancy". No universities or research institutes. The other author Rob De Vis is listed as an "independent researcher". Ad hominem all you like but I assure you this is NOT typical of valid scientific papers. Make of that what you will.

I agree that BECAUSE something is in a trashy tabloid that itself doesn't make it inaccurate, but it's also worth keeping in mind of the 1000's of reputable climate change papers, THIS is the one the NY Post reports on.

 

[Sunshine81]

Interesting reading on sea levels:

Blockbuster sea level study may turn climate change orthodoxy on its head

“It is crazy that it had not been done,” one of the study’s authors claimed.

trib.al

Why did you post this particular article on this particular study? What about it is interesting to you? What do you think about the validity of the study?

 

[soafraid]

Why did you post this particular article on this particular study? What about it is interesting to you? What do you think about the validity of the study?