Climate strike: UK school pupils take part in call for urgent action

[PostmodernProphet]

Reaction: Planet Earth experiences a rise in CO2 levels, and begins warming, due to the greenhouse effect. It wouldn't be the first time living beings have destroyed their own habitat.

serious question, Poli.....do you think humans caused it the last time it happened?.......you know, around 150,000 years ago?......

[cancel2 2022]

What isn't correct? And could you explain why it isn't?

Yes I could but Roy Spencer is an eminent climatologist and CAGW sceptic, who along with Dr. John Christy, maintains the UAH satellite temperature dataset. What he is saying seems clear enough to me!

[cancel2 2022]

serious question, Poli.....do you think humans caused it the last time it happened?.......you know, around 150,000 years ago?......

The Arctic was several degrees warmer just nine thousand years ago, who can explain that?

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...wedish_Lapland

[cancel2 2022]

We can't use satellites to measure an absolute temperature. Satellites measure light... The emissivity of Earth is unknown. There aren't enough thermometers available to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

I think you are confusing absolute temperatures with temperature anomalies, this is explains it in far more detail.

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/

[cancel2 2022]

The Arctic was several degrees warmer just nine thousand years ago, who can explain that?

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...wedish_Lapland

Why are you groaning Bill? Do you object to scientific papers now, maybe you could elaborate and tell me what exactly it is that you are having problems with?

Abstract

The present paper reports results from an extensive project aiming at improved understanding of postglacial subalpine/alpine vegetation, treeline, glacier and climate history in the Scandes of northern Sweden. The main methodology is analyses of mega fossil tree remnants, i.e. trunks, roots and cones, recently exposed at the fringe of receding glaciers and snow/ice patches. This approach has a spatial resolution and accuracy, which exceeds any other option for tree cover reconstruction in high-altitude mountain landscapes. The main focus was on the forefields of the glacier Tärnaglaciären in southern Swedish Lapland (1470-1245 m a.s.l.). Altogether seven megafossils were found and radio-carbon dated (4 Betula, 2 Pinus and 1 Picea). Betula and Pinus range in age between 9435 and 6665 cal. yr BP. The most remarkable discovery was a cone of Pice aabies, contained in an outwash peat cake, dating 11 200 cal. yr BP. The peat cake also contained common boreal ground cover vascular plant species and bryophytes. All recovered tree specimens originate from exceptionally high elevations, about 600-700 m atop of modern treeline positions. This implies, corrected for land uplift, summer temperatures, at least 3.6 °C higher than present-day standards. The current results, in combination with those from other Swedish glaciers, contribute to a new view on the early postglacial landscape and climate in high-altitude Swedish Scandes

[moon]

Run maggot. The kids are a-comin' fer ya. Haw, haw.........haw.

[PostmodernProphet]

The Arctic was several degrees warmer just nine thousand years ago, who can explain that?

peat burners......

[Port Tack]

Again, it is not possible to measure global temperature. NASA only makes use of about 7,500 thermometers... They are NOT uniformly spaced, nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer. Even if NASA DID meet those requirements of Statistical Mathematics (they don't), that would mean one thermometer for each area about the size of Virginia (about 200 miles in any direction from thermometer to thermometer). Given our knowledge that temperatures can range from -128deg F to 134deg F (262deg F), can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE, and by as much as 49deg F per TWO MINUTES, that means that the margin of error would be +- 100deg F... not anywhere near precise if you ask me... To get that margin of error down to even +- 10deg F, one would need at least 200 million thermometers...

It is not possible to measure global temperature. Any data concerning global temperature is nothing more than random made-up numbers...

What a fucking stupid post.

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

Hello PoliTalker,

Billions of years ago, before the Great Oxygenation Event, there was no oxygen on Earth. Stromatolites thrived on the CO2 atmosphere. Stromatolites used photosynthesis.

We have no idea what actually happened "billions of years ago"... We weren't there to observe it, and we have no functional time machines to go back in time to observe it... Therefore, this is not a scientific discussion anymore, but rather, a religious one. I thought we were keeping things within the framework of science?? Science has no theories about past unobserved events...

It is theorized that stromatolites produced so much oxygen, they essentially destroyed their own habitat, and are now almost completely extinct as a result of it. This would suggest it is possible for living beings to exist in such great numbers that what they do affects the climate, and might even lead to their demise. That is the concern about human caused climate change.

See above. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Also, define "climate change" for me... What do you mean by "climate change"? I've only ever heard circular definitions for the term, and circular definitions do not work. They deny logic.

The majority of science says otherwise. I believe them.

Science is not a "them", PoliTalker... Science is not any group of people. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.

I do not believe you.

That's fine. Don't take it from me, though... Take it from Statistical Mathematics...

NASA only makes use of about 7,500 thermometers... Those thermometers are NOT uniformly spaced and are NOT simultaneously read by the same observer. Let's, for arguments' sake, assume that they were (they aren't). That would mean one thermometer for approx. every 43,000 sq miles (about the size of Virginia). Given that temperatures have been known to range from -128deg F to 134deg F [262 deg F range]), and vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE, and 49deg F per TWO MINUTES, that would result in a margin of error of +- 100deg F... Is that precise enough for you?? Not for me, as that amounts to guessing...

To get the margin of error down to +-10 deg F, which isn't exactly the most precise either, would require over 200 MILLION thermometers uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. We don't have that many thermometers available to us. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately measure global temperature.

It is even impossible with satellites... Satellites measure light, NOT temperature. Light readings cannot be converted to temperature readings via the stefan boltzmann law because we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is, and in order to determine the emissivity of Earth, we would need to already know what we're trying to figure out (what the temperature of the Earth is)... That creates a "chicken and egg" problem, thus it comes back to not having enough thermometers properly spaced and simultaneously read.

It is not logical that a minority of deniers, basically only some conservatives in the USA,

Compositional Error involving people as the class. I am not interested in your bigotry, PoliTalker... It is not just conservatives who reject the Church of Global Warming.

knows something that essentially the rest of the world does not.

The difference is that I am adhering to Statistical Mathematics, Logic, and Science, while YOU are denying (or ignorant of) all those things.

On one hand, we have a few million deniers in the USA, and on the other, billions of believers in the rest of the world.

Appeal to the Masses Fallacy. The number of believers has no effect on the arguments themselves.

This shouldn't even be a political issue.

It shouldn't be ANY type of issue. Climate Change is a void argument. It is an argument based on a circularly defined buzzword. It is meaningless.

It wasn't until the wealthy fossil extractors began to throw big money at the propaganda machine.

Bulverism Fallacy. Also, we don't use fossils for fuel; they don't burn very well. We DO use carbon based fuels, however, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.

That was when it became a political issue. Prior to that, many conservatives believed climate change is real and human caused.

Look, I don't care who believed what and when they believed it. It's completely irrelevant to the arguments at hand.

My belief system is not for sale. I believe what is logical.

No, you don't. You seem to deny logic, actually...

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Okay.

Action: 7.5 billion humans burning things daily, or having them burnt in their name.

Okay.

Reaction: Planet Earth experiences a rise in CO2 levels,

We don't know what the global CO2 levels are. We have no way of knowing, as CO2 is not uniformly distributed across the atmosphere. The same issues I explained above regarding temperature also applies to CO2... Stations are not uniformly spaced out nor simultaneously read by the same observer... Also, Mauna Loa data is cooked, since a fairly recent volcano eruption should have shown a massive spike in the data, but there was no spike...

and begins warming, due to the greenhouse effect.

There is no "greenhouse effect". Describe to me precisely how this "greenhouse effect" is "warming" the Earth? Describe how "global temperature" is being "measured" accurately...

It wouldn't be the first time living beings have destroyed their own habitat.

CO2 is not destroying Earth. Plants love it. It is not a concern in any way.

[gfm7175]

Yes I could but

I don't believe you.

Roy Spencer is an eminent climatologist and CAGW sceptic, who along with Dr. John Christy, maintains the UAH satellite temperature dataset. What he is saying seems clear enough to me!

Seems like you're appealing to a false authority.

Satellites don't measure absolute temperature; they measure light. They are good with relative temperatures, but not absolute temperatures, such as what thermometers read. Light readings cannot be converted to temperature readings via stefan boltzmann, since the emissivity of Earth is unknown. To know emissivity of Earth, we would need to already know what we are trying to figure out, which is what the global temperature is... Chicken and egg problem at it's finest...

[gfm7175]

I think you are confusing absolute temperatures with temperature anomalies, this is explains it in far more detail.

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/

No, I'm not confusing the two. The NASA temperature record isn't useful for global temperatures, as I have explained in other posts. It denies Statistical Mathematics. An absolute temperature measurement is an instantaneous action regarding a specific point (location). A measurement in Tokyo says nothing about a measurement in San Francisco... A "temperature anomaly" is only for the specific point (location) of the historical/present temperature measurements; it does not apply to any other location across the globe...

The problem comes back to the thermometers not being uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer...

[gfm7175]

What a fucking stupid post.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. (dismissing an argument as 'absurd' without providing any counterargument)

Insult Fallacy. (I think that one is rather self explanatory)

Redefinition Fallacy. (statistical mathematics >> "fucking stupid")


Wow, your 5 word response committed at least 3 logical fallacies...

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Hello PoliTalker,

...

CO2 is not destroying Earth. Plants love it. It is not a concern in any way.

I appreciate your statistical analysis of the political issue. A rather unique approach. Very interesting. And mathematics is an interesting thing. I once used simple math to show that a V8 tow vehicle pulling a small car, which was also running, were averaging 55 mpg between the two vehicles. Here's how it worked. The towed car was front wheel drive. The drive axles required cooling. So the engine was allowed to run and idle in neutral as the small car was towed along the highway. The tow vehicle was getting around 10 mpg, but the small car was getting 100 mpg by putting on so many miles as it was only idling. If you add the mileage of the two vehicles together you get 110 mpg. Divide by two for the average of the two vehicles and the result is an average of 55 mpg.

I never said CO2 was destroying the Earth. I said if humans destroyed their own habitat, it wouldn't be the first time living beings have done that.

Now I am going to state some very revered wisdom.

If there is a chance you face some danger, but it is not highly probable, the smart thing to do is be prepared for that danger. Have a plan in case it happens since there is no way to definitively know the future.

There is a chance that humans on Earth face the danger of habitat degradation due to changing climate. The wise thing for humans to do is to be prepared for that. We don't know what the future will bring, but we do have some indicators which suggest acting now would be prudent. So that is what the wise people of the Earth are doing. You can either help, or you can calculate why you don't think there is anything to worry about. I really don't see a problem in improving our efficiency and energy sourcing. That effort is going to create a lot of jobs and improve our lives by utilizing cleaner and more sustainable energy systems. I don't see a down side to that.

Can you calculate the total loss of human life years due to carbon fuel extraction and usage?

Please include all the people harmed/killed by mercury release.

[Stretch]

The UK will be an OK place when it rids itself of the maggot generation . Shameful old parasites.

Don't worry. You'll get to see the end of the planet, but it won't be because of cows, Chevys and climate. Could just be in the next 12 years, too as all the "urgency activists" predict.
We've had quite a few "only 12 years left if we don't do something" declarations over the last 40 or 50 years. So, either there will be another 12 year reprieve...in 12 years...or death is imminent. Be prepared. Enjoy your life in the meantime. Go eat a grouper sandwich and chill out.

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

Hello PoliTalker,

I appreciate your statistical analysis of the political issue. A rather unique approach. Very interesting.

Thank you!

And mathematics is an interesting thing. I once used simple math to show that a V8 tow vehicle pulling a small car, which was also running, were averaging 55 mpg between the two vehicles. Here's how it worked. The towed car was front wheel drive. The drive axles required cooling. So the engine was allowed to run and idle in neutral as the small car was towed along the highway. The tow vehicle was getting around 10 mpg, but the small car was getting 100 mpg by putting on so many miles as it was only idling. If you add the mileage of the two vehicles together you get 110 mpg. Divide by two for the average of the two vehicles and the result is an average of 55 mpg.

Yup, I saw where that one was going right after the "other car was running" part... Of course if one car is idling and being pulled by the other one, it will have a very high MPG rating, and artificially inflate the other vehicle if averaged out between the two of them... Not sure what that example has to do with what I said, though...

I never said CO2 was destroying the Earth. I said if humans destroyed their own habitat, it wouldn't be the first time living beings have done that.

Okay.

Now I am going to state some very revered wisdom.

If there is a chance you face some danger, but it is not highly probable, the smart thing to do is be prepared for that danger. Have a plan in case it happens since there is no way to definitively know the future.

Your argument here commits what is known as the Pascal's Wager Fallacy. This fallacy is when one predicts that something bad will happen (or probably happen, or maybe happen) if we do nothing. The original form of the fallacy was the assertion that one should join Christianity just in case it IS true, and that there will be awful consequences if one doesn't join it and it turns out to be true. This argument you make is making a similar case, and ends up making the same error of logic. In reality, if nothing is done to "prevent [action] from happening (or probably happening, or maybe happening)", it might not come true at all.

In the case of global warming, it is purely a religious belief. There is no science involved with it. Science does not have theories about the unquantifiable. It does not have theories about circularly defined buzzwords. If one religiously believes that "global warming" is going to cause [insert dangers here] and that [insert preventative measures here] need to be taken, then by all means practice that religion, but one shouldn't call it science when it outright denies science.

One needs to think about what path global warming belief is taking them down... It takes them down a path of denying science, denying logic, denying religion, denying philosophy, and etc... It leads them towards ignorance, towards fundamentalism, towards oligarchy, towards void arguments/paradoxes, etc...

There is a chance that humans on Earth face the danger of habitat degradation due to changing climate. The wise thing for humans to do is to be prepared for that. We don't know what the future will bring, but we do have some indicators which suggest acting now would be prudent.

Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy from above...

Define "climate change"...

What "action" should be taken and why?

So that is what the wise people of the Earth are doing. You can either help, or you can calculate why you don't think there is anything to worry about.

Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy. False Dichotomy Fallacy.

My calculation was showing precisely how we have no clue what the "global temperature" is, since Statistical Mathematics shows that, EVEN IF thermometers were uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (all requirements of statistical mathematics which are NOT being met at the present time), that (since temperature variance by mile and minute is so great) the margin of error is far too great to even come up with a reasonable guess as to what the Earth's surface temperature is... We would need at least 200 million (likely many more than that) thermometers before we could even BEGIN to come up with a reasonable statistical analysis of a global temperature at any particular moment of time.

I really don't see a problem in improving our efficiency and energy sourcing. That effort is going to create a lot of jobs and improve our lives by utilizing cleaner and more sustainable energy systems. I don't see a down side to that.

I'm fine with improving efficiency and energy sourcing too... But that all depends on the free market, and what happens to be the most efficient/viable source of energy for any particular situation. A lot of times, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear are far superior in cost/efficiency/etc. than other alternatives such as solar, wind, and hydro. Some areas make good use of those alternatives, but many other areas find those alternatives to be non-feasible. Windmills happen to kill many birds, which isn't a good thing either. It all needs to be sorted out by the free market, and right now, the power sources I mentioned are just much more feasible to power our economy.

Can you calculate the total loss of human life years due to carbon fuel extraction and usage?

Indeterminable...

Please include all the people harmed/killed by mercury release.

Indeterminable...