Climate change and extreme events – quantifying the changing odds

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

Once upon a time, Iceinspace used to be about astronomy, not hourly respawning threads about politics and global warming. Shame this crap outweighs the observing reports by 1000:1 these days.

Pretty sure there are plenty of other threads on Ice in Space that involve astronomy, in fact, the greater bulk of them do...

That's why this is the 'General Chat' section... ie: specifically setup to talk about things other than astronomy...

Shame this crap is actually about the survival of life on our planet.. shame some folk might actually be interested in discussiing this...

Feel free to scroll on past if the future of life as we currently know it is not of any interest to you... tis a free world (sort of) afterall...

Plus, you might read that plenty of members on here aren't actually getting to do much astronomy at present... something about fires, smoke filled skies spoiling the view that may or may not have a relationship to the crap that annoys you so...

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by bgilbert

Sorry about the science but it all I've got

I think Barry your comment should more correctly read 'sorry about the science I choose to believe & selectively interpret to support my thoughts on climate science but, it all I've got'

So interesting that much of what those 'so called climate scientists' were predicting 20 years ago is actually becoming lived reality..

But, hey.. you read selectively all you like.. believe what you want...

Me, I'll continue reading widely, looking at the whole of the picture of a very complex set of circumstances that influence the environment & it's ability to sustain life as we currently know it on this planet. Together with the evidence that is in front of my own eyes, I'm pretty comfortable that we are influencing that enviroment & not in a positive way.. to do nothing would simply be mind bogglingly stupid..

Especially since, Fossil Fuel company research from the late 70's is emerging to show that they too were once concerned with the impact their industry was potentially going to have on the environment but, was quickly buried when they figured out the potential impact on their bottom line.. Was their science flawed too?

You bag computer modelling yet, the very things you quote also rely on computer modelling.. very complex computer models supported by historical data.. so, what is it? Some computer modelling is more reliable than others? How do you define which is reliable and which is not? I'm curious...

In the endgame; let's just imagine that climate science is not real... so, we clean up our environment, achieve a cleaner atmosphere.. improve peoples health as a result of said cleaner environment, improve agriculture & a plethora of other benefits that would simply arise from not polluting... what's not to like?

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

Clearly the wrong people are running the BOM, CSIRO and hell even NASA too as there seem to be people on the internet who know more about it than the people who currently run these institutions.

Clearly... obviously just interested in promoting some world wide hoax for some self interested gain that doesn't seem very apparent...

I don't get it either Pete... apparently De Nial is a river in Egypt...

[bgilbert (Barry gilbert)]

. Carlton, I hear what you are saying and I respect that you are well meaning, but so am I. I will put my cards on the table and mention politics just this one time, I'm a lunatic lefty and ex greenie, so my side of politics hates me. Imagine how torn I feel when I find myself agreeing with Tony Abbot or Donald trump. But the science, the physics, I smelt a rat. Please tell me were I've gone wrong. I'll always be a lefty, but tell me where my physics is wrong, please.

. Example why do I believe that CO2 below 150 ppm will be the end of plant life on earth, we were at 180 ppm before the industrial revolution. If we extrapolate the gradual fall in the CO2 over the last several hundred million years, then in less than a million years life on the planet would be over.

. Why do I believe that 99 percent of CO2 on earth is locked up in rocks made from marine deposits and apart from the occasional volcano will never be released, we are doomed. When the coal and oil run out we will have to cook shale to produce CO2 for the world's plants to survive.

. Can you put me on the right track and correct my crook physics and geology, so my lefty mates will accept me again?

[pgc hunter]

Originally Posted by Outcast

Pretty sure there are plenty of other threads on Ice in Space that involve astronomy, in fact, the greater bulk of them do...

That's why this is the 'General Chat' section... ie: specifically setup to talk about things other than astronomy...

Shame this crap is actually about the survival of life on our planet.. shame some folk might actually be interested in discussiing this...

Feel free to scroll on past if the future of life as we currently know it is not of any interest to you... tis a free world (sort of) afterall...

Plus, you might read that plenty of members on here aren't actually getting to do much astronomy at present... something about fires, smoke filled skies spoiling the view that may or may not have a relationship to the crap that annoys you so...

Spare me the alarmist crap please. I'm sure there are plenty of forums where this BS is most welcomed. Just a shame that this astronomy forum has degenerated into this alarmist bulls**t A few years ago observing reports were something to look forward to, now they are completely absent, and are vastly outnumbered by this s**t. Daily.

Every time one of these daily politic/global warming threads are rightfully closed, another one is started the very next day. Meanwhile, observing threads have gone from regular to once every half a year. I wonder why?! The forum is nothing but biased politics and virtue signalling elitism these days. Should be renamed to IceinfarleftAGW

Cloudynights FTW! My last observing adventures there have generated solid discussion, unlike here...

[pgc hunter]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

By 2050, the likes of Jones and Bolt and Kelly will be long gone. No that there won't be others to follow in their footsteps, but very much climate aware millenials will be at the helm....interesting times ahead.

Rather follow that common sense to the grave myself than contemplate a society being run by those far left "woke" millenial exctinction rebellion d!ckheads.

[PS19.1 (Greg)]

one thing I find very disturbing is if you dig a little deeper into a lot of the "solutions" to climate change they often lead down the path to socialism.

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

Spare me the alarmist crap please. I'm sure there are plenty of forums where this BS is most welcomed. Just a shame that this astronomy forum has degenerated into this alarmist bulls**t A few years ago observing reports were something to look forward to, now they are completely absent, and are vastly outnumbered by this s**t. Daily.

Every time one of these daily politic/global warming threads are rightfully closed, another one is started the very next day. Meanwhile, observing threads have gone from regular to once every half a year. I wonder why?! The forum is nothing but biased politics and virtue signalling elitism these days. Should be renamed to IceinfarleftAGW

Cloudynights FTW! My last observing adventures there have generated solid discussion, unlike here...

Yes, fancy that.. a forum whose members enjoy Astronomy, a scientific pursuit discussing well, other scientific issues... can't have that now...

Yep, of course... we are all just 'Lefty Woke Virtue Signallers' I mean, if the revered likes of Jones, Bolt & Kelly think it's all bunkum then who are we to question it...

I repeat, don't like the discussion.. don't join in... scroll on past.. yet here you are

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by PS19.1

one thing I find very disturbing is if you dig a little deeper into a lot of the "solutions" to climate change they often lead down the path to socialism.

Oh please!!

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Originally Posted by bgilbert

. Carlton, I hear what you are saying and I respect that you are well meaning, but so am I. I will put my cards on the table and mention politics just this one time, I'm a lunatic lefty and ex greenie, so my side of politics hates me. Imagine how torn I feel when I find myself agreeing with Tony Abbot or Donald trump. But the science, the physics, I smelt a rat. Please tell me were I've gone wrong. I'll always be a lefty, but tell me where my physics is wrong, please.

. Example why do I believe that CO2 below 150 ppm will be the end of plant life on earth, we were at 180 ppm before the industrial revolution. If we extrapolate the gradual fall in the CO2 over the last several hundred million years, then in less than a million years life on the planet would be over.

. Why do I believe that 99 percent of CO2 on earth is locked up in rocks made from marine deposits and apart from the occasional volcano will never be released, we are doomed. When the coal and oil run out we will have to cook shale to produce CO2 for the world's plants to survive.

. Can you put me on the right track and correct my crook physics and geology, so my lefty mates will accept me again?

Barry, I never questioned the data you presented.. I questioned the manner in which you present it & the fact that you seem to ignore significant portions of data that don't support your theories...

Someone raises temperature recordings... you shoot it down by citing that one time in history when a higher temp was recorded... but, you ignore trending temperature data showing mean temperature rises in the vicinity of 1 degree globally, as predicted by those 'so called climate scientists'.

I'm neither a Lefty or a Righty... I don't give a rats about your politics & funnily enough, neither does the environment...

My point is, that too often.. well meaning (I'm sure) folk on both sides of this discussion rely on isolated data in a very complex issue to present their side of the argument. Sure, all of the data matters but, it's not a game where you play off one bit of data against another to see who wins...

The data is a whole & together, it paints a picture... at present, not a particulary happy one...

One does not look at a dying garden & point to that one plant that is doing okay & say, well.. all good here then.. that one is alive, clearly no problem!

You talk about decline in CO2 levels... but, we are not in decline... we are on the rise...

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

You cite 150ppm CO2 as being catastrophic & from what I read you are quite correct however, you conversely stay away from the fact that we are currently at a level not seen in the past 800,000 years & showing no signs of slowing down..

It's not what you quote that is flawed, it's what you choose to leave out or ignore...

[h0ughy (David)]

OK thanks for your thoughts and feelings, however the progenitor of the thread started we are a few neutrinos short of the full quid.

To make it very clear that these threads go off the track too much, so in the future no matter how or who started it, they will be closed and or removed from public view.

There are other areas on the web to discuss it, go there and do so!

If it is determined that there has been deliberate attempt at baiting and inflaming a post, there will be no global warning; that person will receive an immediate 2 month ban to contemplate their climate change action. I repeat there will be no warning as you knew what you were doing.

It seems like the climate has changed.