Printable View
Okay, my comment was a bit loose and I don't want to enter the argument about when modern humans first emerged, but it seems generally agreed it was somewhere between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago that modern humans spread out over the earth. The point is that they didn't do anything to accelerate the heating of the planet, as we have done during the last two centuries of the Industrial Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by manic
And what would be the opposite [emoji41]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
This data and the emissions/cycles from the sun are being put into the current Climate models. It’s never been loaded into the model before. Will be interesting to see the outcomes.
UN calls for push to cut greenhouse gas levels to avoid climate chaos
UN calls for push to cut greenhouse gas levels to avoid climate chaos | Environment | The Guardian
Actual UN press releaseQuote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
World on course for more than 3 degree spike, even if climate commitments are met | UN News
The report
Emissions Gap Report 2019 | UNEP - UN Environment Programme
how can you be sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
That last line - that’s the one that concerns me.Quote:
The solutions exist
The study points out that it is possible to reach the 1.5 degree goal by 2030; the technology exists, and there is increased understanding of the additional benefits of climate action, in terms of health and the economy. Many governments, cities, businesses and investors are engaged in ambitious initiatives to lower emissions.
Follow the money...
Maybe you've missed my posts .. but no one is saying that the data is fraud. In fact I believe that the data is about as accurate as can be, but what's fraud is the analysis of the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyDiver
The data has shown that rainfall has increase since records began, and globe(and Aus) has warmed, yet they say that droughts are getting worse!
How can droughts be getting worse when rainfall is increasing?
Reason is, that the BoM specify that consumption is a factor when considering drought conditions.
This is lunacy!
In every dictionary drought is defined as a period of below average rainfall ... no mention of consumption levels.
So if you have more rainfall, and allow increased consumption, then of course droughts will get worse .. it's droughts then are the product of bad socio-economic planning, and nothing to do with the climate.
Some of us aren't sceptical of the data .. we're suspicious of the motives of the scientists making some outrageous claims, that simply don't correlate their own data!
There is zero data to support their notion that the weather is getting more extreme, and a little bit of data to support the opposing viewpoint that it's getting less extreme.
This might fit a skeptic ( Like me) Is extreme weather caused by global warming?Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened. Detecting trends takes time, particularly when observational records are rare or even missing in certain regions. An increase in extreme weather is expected with global warming because rising temperatures affect weather parameters in several ways. Changes in the frequency of extreme events coinciding with global warming have already been observed, and there is increasing evidence that some of these changes are caused by the impacts of human activities on the climate.
"In conclusion, although it isn't possible to state that global warming is causing a particular extreme event, it is wrong to say that global warming has no effect on the weather. Rising air and sea temperatures have a number of effects on the water cycle, and this increases the odds for more extreme weather events"
Have a great day all
There is actually significant evidence that the introduction of agriculture on a large scale may have resulted in significant warming in the 4000BC timeframe on, and that the cooling after the "medieval warm spell" and in the 17-18th century may have resulted from major reductions in agriculture resulting from the Black Death in the first instance and the depopulation of the Americas from introduced plagues (particularly smallpox) after European settlement there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
But these were relatively small climate shifts compared to the last 200 years and it is unlikely that we will ever have sufficiently widespread and accurate temperature data to be certain about any of them with anything like the degree of confidence that we have from the last 150 years of measured data.
In addition to these effects, it is pretty certain that human activities have had major climatic effects in local areas, even if extending this worldwide is uncertain. These include the almost complete deforestation of the lands adjacent to the Mediterranean and in China from 2000-400BC, and similar activities in Northern Europe in the last thousand years. Earlier, the use of fire to modify the landscape of Australia tens of thousands of years ago is very likely to have had a lot of local climate effect. But again, we are unlikely to ever gain sufficiently accurate or detailed data to be able to quantify this.
It's certainly true that firestick farming changed the Australian landscape. I'm reading Bill Gammage's 'The Biggest Estate on Earth: how Aborigines made Australia' right now, and it certainly opens the eyes to read the landscape in a different, non-European, way.
The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia - Google Search
However, it didn't cause major global climate change, in the way of the Industrial Revolution.
We can quibble about details around the edges, but the facts are in on global warming and the science is stark and clear.