I agree with you Brian, that when considering the experience of a lifetime, it is but as one grain of sand on a Vendee beach compared to what can be ascertained as having happened over millenia. However, that does not make what is happening now all over the world any less real. My view is that right now the climate IS changing, and that this is being exacerbated by the activities of man.
I also think that to concentrate on atmospheric CO2 levels is a mistake, as I’m sure that there are many other ‘activities of man’ to be taken into account. What would be interesting to know however is what percentage of the current CO2 level is man made, and what percentage is entirely natural and would happen anyway.
Then of course there are all the other pollutants being emitted, either into the atmosphere, or into the rivers and seas. Neither can be good for us in the long term, as anyone who lives near the petro-chemical facilities that line the Mississippi river will attest. All of these pollutants taken together will change things, as anyone who has inadvertently sprayed weedkiller too close to their fish pond will know.
The fundamental problem is too many people wanting too much ‘stuff’, and some of that ‘stuff’ is very basic by modern standards in the industrialised world. There are more than 300 million people in India who have no electricity in their homes as but one example.
Overall, the problem is one of collective pollution and carbon footprint caused by too many feet treading this earth.
I’m not a scientist, but it must be possible to prove or disprove in a simulation whether increasing the percentage of CO2 in an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.
Ice core samples covering millennia have shown that in the past CO2 levels have been much higher than today; when CO2 levels have been much higher the samples also showed great growth in plant and tree life. CO2 is essential for plant growth - so maybe we’ll need more CO2 when, if the greening does take place, areas today covered by ice and frost will be able to green up fairly quickly and provide extra food for mankind - huge areas to give places to live - and more water…
As for computer simulations - depends who or what organisation is inputting the data -
‘garbage in, garbage out’ - who would you trust to run a simulation ?
Al Gore - he with his multi-millione beach side home (so much for rising sea levels !!)
Elon Musk ?
The UN ?
The bbc ?
I doubt there is one unbiased, neutral trustworthy organisation to run such a simulation - there’s too much invested in the belief of net zero that I wouldn’t trust any government, any UN body - any scientist to run such a test without using ‘dodgy’ figures to support their theories.
Too much money and too many egos involved to trust any of them !!
It’s very simple to me, there has been a very noticeable change in the climate over the last couple of decades but regardless of the cause we all should treat the planet better than we do.
I’m not talking about computer simulation. I mean a physical reproduction on a smaller scale. You take some receptacle big or small, put an “atmosphere" in it, subject it to the sun’s rays and measure the rise in temperature. Then you increase the CO2 content and repeat. If the temperature rise is higher, it’s proven, if not, it’s disproven.
As I wrote, I’m not a scientist, and have no idea if it’s possible, but it would seem to be transparent and not easily faked, as both sides would be interested in an unbiased approach.
If you don’t trust anyone, why do you trust the people you got your information about the ice core samples from?
I’m happy that my comments are well received by you, and hopefully others are too. I find the topic very interesting since I completed my 3rd level postgraduate. As I mentioned yesterday, I have little access to a PC, as I’m not in my workplace this week
Despite forty years working in HE in various countries, I’m not familiar with the term - is that a PG Dip, a Master’s degree, a Doctorate, or a Higher Doc ?
The ice cores are physical; the analysis can’t be rigged - and can be double- and triple- checked by other scientists. The organisations/people I mentioned have vested interests in net zero - and are not to be trusted - follow the money, the greed, corruption, and hypocrisy.
Eg - the recent climate conference - how many thousands of acres of amazon forest trees were cut down - simply to provide a ‘road’ for the delegates to travel on ? And the protests from the native amazon residents - were totally ignored.
How many of the delegates, from many countries around the world - turned up in their jets - private and government ones ?
How many poor countries have jumped on the band-wagon claiming they’ll be covered in sea water in 5 years time - and ‘when’s the UN going to give us money to compensate….’ - already happening regards the money but not the destruction of islands.
In today’s world - with big corporations, big government, big money, it pays to be extremely cynical about a lot of ‘scare stories’.
Remember Trump - and his allegations about the source of the chinese virus ? Think he’s been vindicated hasn’t he - and yet the UN health bods (with their vested interests) - sneered at him - but now look at recent news - even governments can’t hide the truth these days.
Think I’m going to have a brandy and coffee - and maybe some After Eights as well !!
Someone else might know the details of this but offhand it escapes me entirely but I’m sure I read a month or so ago about a French island territory where the government is paying people to relocate their homes to higher ground as it will be underwater within a few decades or so. I’ll have to have a search on the old google if no one else knows what I’m on about.
I’m fairly sure it’s St Pierre et Miquelon, the water level is rising rapidly and lots of people are going to be flooded out as well as transport becoming very complicated. The government is I think helping them (but as they are relatively rich in world terms and aren’t illegal immigrants or brown there’s nothing to object to, phew).
I thought we were trying to have a reasonable discussion about a ‘different’ way of looking at climate change. Why do you bring in the deflection strategy about illegal immigrants or brown people - it is nothing to do with this conversation - and is totally unnecessary and unwelcome.
Maybe france is helping - because as you write ‘it is a french island territory’ - ie part of france’s colonial past then; as eu citizens can we go and live there ? !! - french territory !! And ‘underwater in a few decades’ - how do they know that ?
Oh come on - you know I mean a far bigger picture than the petro-chemical lot. There are some very ‘dodgy’ people on some of the very important UN committees for a start. I’m cynical about the whole damn lot of them.
I used the term ‘poor people’ - as in sympathy for them and their situation, and also likely to be third world - but probably a lot happier than most of us in this so called first world lifestyle !!
Is this a ‘stay on topic’ thread? If not it’s both necessary and welcome! The SF thread drift is legendary and those who fight against it will only end up exasperated and unsatisfied.
I rest my case. A lot of migration is climate driven, generally from countries most impacted for all sorts of reasons, whose populations tend not to fit the Northern European phenotype.