Climate Change

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

who/how was that graph produced?

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-years-11.ppm

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

What I don't understand is where the confidence comes from that the majority of scientists and scientific bodies are wrong. People look at a dodgy graph and something some smartarse with a humanities degree wrote in The Spectator and think they know better than NASA.

I’ve never said climate change isn’t happening or real.

But, I reject that it is an emergency. I reject the race for net-zero. Of course we should reduce emissions but setting arbitrary deadlines forcing people to change to more expensive, less reliable products will just cause problems

People will change to greener alternatives by themselves when they are competitively priced, reliable, work just as well and the infrastructure is there to support them.

Forcing people to change and/or scaring them into changing is not the right way to change peoples habits.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-years-11.ppm

I think they have been looking for the attached research link…

For instance, here is the abstract attached to that graphic.

Climate changes are one of the most significant aspects, which cause a threat to all human beings living on the planet Earth. Climate changes could happen due to both natural internal processes and external forcing, or due to persistent anthropogenic changes. The identified drastic temperature changes, increase in the emitted greenhouse gasses, and sea-level changes as witnessed from the acquired data; such as from ice cores, during the past centuries and even decades are all due to climate changes. Due to the increase in the emitted greenhouse gasses, major sectors in the Earth will be hit severely, such as agriculture and industry. Human welfare and health services will consequently suffer and development, in general, is going to be hampered. Large parts of the Earth will be unfavorable for living due to different reasons; such as inundation by seawater, decrease in temperature; however, some scientists believe that the increase in the percentages of the emitted greenhouse gasses has decreased or delayed the possibility of starting a new ice age. We have presented all possible scenarios, which may happen due to climate changes including temperature changes, emitted greenhouse gasses, sea level, and other harsh effects not only on human beings but all other living animal and plant species.

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

[Sephiroth]

Any 'external forcing' that is occurring as a result of Man's activities is right at the top of the regular cycle, which will happen anyway. Just 150 years early, perhaps.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Any 'external forcing' that is occurring as a result of Man's activities is right at the top of the regular cycle, which will happen anyway. Just 150 years early, perhaps.

There’s no real evidence of that. It’s just plucked from thin air.

[Sephiroth]

The cycle is not plucked from thin air. It doesn't matter if my 150 years acceleration is right or wrong - climate change is due anyway.

You got OB withdrawal symptoms?

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’ve never said climate change isn’t happening or real.

But, I reject that it is an emergency. I reject the race for net-zero. Of course we should reduce emissions but setting arbitrary deadlines forcing people to change to more expensive, less reliable products will just cause problems

People will change to greener alternatives by themselves when they are competitively priced, reliable, work just as well and the infrastructure is there to support them.

Forcing people to change and/or scaring them into changing is not the right way to change peoples habits.

I agree that realistically we need to find alternative, climate-friendly, ways to enable people to live their lives normally otherwise we're doomed to failure. It's why I am a big fan of nuclear power and frustrated we're so slow on the uptake of it.

People still need cars, will take flights, will need to live within their means.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The cycle is not plucked from thin air. It doesn't matter if my 150 years acceleration is right or wrong - climate change is due anyway.

You got OB withdrawal symptoms?

You keep ignoring the scale of the change because you've seen one graph that doesn't show scale.

The temperature does change but it takes place over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years in a cycle. It's measured in geological ages. The last one was quick but still takes much longer than we've had civilisations. We're talking about a dramatic increase in the speed of warming. As I said before it's warming 17x faster.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The cycle is not plucked from thin air. It doesn't matter if my 150 years acceleration is right or wrong - climate change is due anyway.

You got OB withdrawal symptoms?

So it’s plucked from thin air, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, and because the Earth (undoubtedly) has its own fluctuations we shouldn’t waste time, effort, energy, cost to gain and understanding of (or indeed influence) them?

Gotcha.

[Pierre]

This is the kind of thing that boils my piss

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is the kind of thing that boils my piss

Mine’s boiled by people who think internet memes and cobbled-together Tw*tter graphics are a decent argument for (or rebuttal of) anything at all, ever.

There has been a trend in TV weather towards using graded colour to indicate temperature, rainfall, rain accumulation, variance from average and all sorts of things. This has become possible because weather models and observations are a lot more granular than they used to be.

‘To scare you’ is an assertion that simply isn’t supported by the evidence available in the photo. We don’t know whether the two pictures are even from the same forecaster, so we can’t see how else their graphical presentation of the weather may have changed in the *six years* between the two images.

Originally Posted by Chris

Mine’s boiled by people who think internet memes and cobbled-together Tw*tter graphics are a decent argument for (or rebuttal of) anything at all, ever.

There has been a trend in TV weather towards using graded colour to indicate temperature, rainfall, rain accumulation, variance from average and all sorts of things. This has become possible because weather models and observations are a lot more granular than they used to be.

‘To scare you’ is an assertion that simply isn’t supported by the evidence available in the photo. We don’t know whether the two pictures are even from the same forecaster, so we can’t see how else their graphical presentation of the weather may have changed in the *six years* between the two images.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2Z30KX

Professor John Marsham, Met Office joint-chair at the University of Leeds, told Reuters via email the adaptations had been made to help people living with colour blindness.

He said: “The (Facebook) post is misleading as it claims the Met Office has changed its colour schemes so that temperatures which before did not look scary now do. In fact, it was actually done for colour blind people.”

Likewise, the BBC told Reuters via email that it adapted its weather forecast maps from 2017 to make them more accessible to viewers, particularly those who live with colour blindness.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0116f21c06717

[Sephiroth]

Don't colour blind people have a problem seeing primary colours?
How does the Met Office statement work?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Don't colour blind people have a problem seeing primary colours?
How does the Met Office statement work?

It’s a bit more nuanced than that. There’s a very basic introduction to the practice of colour-blind design here:

https://www.getfeedback.com/resource...lor-blindness/

Google is your friend.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Don't colour blind people have a problem seeing primary colours?
How does the Met Office statement work?

It can vary. This test gives some idea of the ranges there can be issues.

https://www.colorlitelens.com/ishihara-test.html

AFAIK, the most common colour blindness is red/green.
So I dont quite get how changing green to red would help ?

That said, the colouring on the first one does not look temperature related.
The green just appears to be much like just a satellite view of the countries.

However, if you watch or read the news, the current use of orange/red seems at least partially aimed to stir up peoples reactions.