UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Big Tea]

we know from ice and other cores there has been catastrophic cooling in quite recent times
(Heinrich events - quickly developing 'mini ice ages')

but warmism imposes 19th century view saying ice needs coincidence of 3 Earth orbit variations so gives 30000 years warning
global warming was invented 'by accident' in anticipation of public fears of the next Heinrich event

the last ice age finished less than 10000 years ago - strictly speaking we are still in an ice age
some IA experts have said the next icing phase has already started

The weight of the ice on the 'plates' was huge and some say the continents are still' bobbing' up and down with the removal of it.

Dependant on who you read, the site of Julius Caesar's landing in Britain is 3 miles inland, and 'battle' the site the battle of Hastings is far inland. All over the world there are ships found many miles from the closest waterway etc.

Water level rise in one place is counteracted by a drop in another place.
We really do not know enough to make accurate decisions.

My niece, who went to the same school I did ( well, I went to the boys school but it is now mixed, but I know the spot very well, it was the smokers gathering ) told me that there was a temperature rise of over 1.2 degrees since records were first kept 50 years ago.

Yes, but then (different) kids went out each 'lesson period' and looked at a alcohol tube and wrote the number down.
It was off to the side of a 'canteen' building and near a football field.

It is now a huge tarmacked car park and records are kept with a digital data logger, and faces a new 3 story Gym block. The 'canteen' which catered for around 150 people now caters for over 600 plus staff.

The fact that heat signature from tarmac and facing brick, and the huge increase in heat from the cooking facilities, plus 24 hour monitoring instead of something done as an incidental by boys going out for a smoke is not even considered.
How can they present an average temperature change comparison between records that were taken (casually from a glass tube) between 9:30 am to 3:30 am and 24 hr digital logging?

This is now 'gospel' to hundreds of kids growing up and moving into sciences.

[Tommy Cookers]

temperature measurements covering 6 areas of Alaska and used until a few years ago in the hunt for warming ....
have now been entirely replaced by one measurement point at Anchorage airport .....
35 yards from this there's a new maintenance hangar that opens its aircraft size doors and releases huge volumes of warm air

and measurements in the polar regions now carry double weighting

[Big Tea]

temperature measurements covering 6 areas of Alaska and used until a few years ago in the hunt for warming ....
have now been entirely replaced by one measurement point at Anchorage airport .....
35 yards from this there's a new maintenance hangar that opens its aircraft size doors and releases huge volumes of warm air

and measurements in the polar regions now carry double weighting

Airports?
Aren't they those places that have huge areas of concrete slabs? usually flat and white? and hold heat for hours after the sun goes down? (does the sun go down daily in Alaska??) Ah! I know, the stuff they put in night storage heaters.

[roon]

Er, no. Confirmation bias is going to look for information that supports your own position on a subject.

I would call that cherry-picking. Confirmation bias is about deriving false conclusions from pattern recognition. I would say it is often, maybe only, a subconscious phenomenon.

Confirmation bias is "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." There are those who support the idea of AGW who will find information to support their view. There are those who disagree with AGW and will find information to support their view. Both will ignore evidence/data that is contrary to their position even though the evidence/data is valid. Both are guilty, in such a situation, of confirmation bais. Heck, you can even get people using the a single piece of evidence to support diametrically opposed positions.

Do you think that is being done intentionally or unintentionally?

[Big Tea]

I would call that cherry-picking. Confirmation bias is about deriving false conclusions from pattern recognition. I would say it is often, maybe only, a subconscious phenomenon.

Confirmation bias is "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." There are those who support the idea of AGW who will find information to support their view. There are those who disagree with AGW and will find information to support their view. Both will ignore evidence/data that is contrary to their position even though the evidence/data is valid. Both are guilty, in such a situation, of confirmation bais. Heck, you can even get people using the a single piece of evidence to support diametrically opposed positions.

Do you think that is being done intentionally or unintentionally?

I know the question was not to me, but it has to be both. There are many who really believe, but also many who just know where the funding lays.

There are also many who just read head line articles and do not do their own research.
It may sound bad, but to do your own research is very difficult.
To find raw data that has not been 'adjusted' or 'Normalized' takes a lot of sifting. Even NASA ( well I say even NASA, they are among the worst) 'Normalises' their data.

[Just_a_fan]

I would call that cherry-picking. Confirmation bias is about deriving false conclusions from pattern recognition. I would say it is often, maybe only, a subconscious phenomenon.

Confirmation bias is "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." There are those who support the idea of AGW who will find information to support their view. There are those who disagree with AGW and will find information to support their view. Both will ignore evidence/data that is contrary to their position even though the evidence/data is valid. Both are guilty, in such a situation, of confirmation bais. Heck, you can even get people using the a single piece of evidence to support diametrically opposed positions.

Do you think that is being done intentionally or unintentionally?

Probably a bit of both. Some of it will be subconscious - people go with things that feel comfortable and their own position is comfortable. Some of it will be conscious - people want to be right and win an argument. The proportion of the conscious/subconscious in a given discussion will vary with situation/person/subject etc.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm surprised people are surprised by climate change. Climate stasis would be truly anomalous in my opinion.

I don't think anyone, even Trump, would deny that climate change exists. The discussion, for some, is whether humans can and/or do play a role in it.

There is no doubt that humans have played a role in local climate change many times by dramatically changing a local environment and thus changing the local climate associated with it. An example would be extensive deforestation in tropical latitudes - the result is a change in the local climate. Another example would be acid rain - killing off trees causes localised climate change. These changes don't usually have a noticeable impact on our day-to-day lives, of course.

The thing they disagree with is whether humans are capable of changing the entire global climate just by releasing greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere so called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[Big Tea]

I'm surprised people are surprised by climate change. Climate stasis would be truly anomalous in my opinion.

I don't think anyone, even Trump, would deny that climate change exists. The discussion, for some, is whether humans can and/or do play a role in it.

There is no doubt that humans have played a role in local climate change many times by dramatically changing a local environment and thus changing the local climate associated with it. An example would be extensive deforestation in tropical latitudes - the result is a change in the local climate. Another example would be acid rain - killing off trees causes localised climate change. These changes don't usually have a noticeable impact on our day-to-day lives, of course.

The thing they disagree with is whether humans are capable of changing the entire global climate just by releasing greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere so called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

This really is the fulcrum of the whole argument if you ignore headlines and soundbites.

[Just_a_fan]

One could also apply a version of Pascal's Wager to "climate change".
1. If it exists, and we do something about it, we win.
2. If it exists, and we don't do anything about it, then we lose.
3. If it doesn't exist, and we don't do anything about it then we lose nothing (a win, in effect).
4. If it doesn't exist, and we do something that we think will "help" then we lose nothing (again, a win).

Best then to avoid 2 and do what we can. At worst we are no worse off than now, at best, we save ourselves a lot of insurmountable problems down the line.

Of course, some people will say "I want my big inefficient car, and my inefficient house etc., so please go away sexually". Others will say, doing somethinjg doesn't hurt me so I'll tag along. Others will want to do something because it's trendy. Yet others because it's the right thing to do.

I don't have children, neither does my sister. My genetic line dies with me so I don't, effectively, give a stuff what happens to the planet in, say 50 years. On that basis, I can burn every drop of oil, burn every lump of coal, fell every rainforest tree. What do I care?

[strad]

Interesting discussion guys.
Obviously I have my own opinion and so do you guys. Some apparently very strong ones.

[Zynerji]

Of course warming is happening. Earth is caught in a gravity well, slowly getting sucked into the sun. The equator was a rain forest before it was a desert. Why does no one ever talk about the fact that the Earth is simply moving out of the "Goldilocks Zone"?

[Just_a_fan]

Of course warming is happening. Earth is caught in a gravity well, slowly getting sucked into the sun. The equator was a rain forest before it was a desert. Why does no one ever talk about the fact that the Earth is simply moving out of the "Goldilocks Zone"?

Wow. Just wow.

[strad]

Wow. Just wow.

????????

[Just_a_fan]

Wow. Just wow.

????????

It's just total wibble.

The Earth's orbit is getting further away from the Sun. By about 15mm a year.

[Zynerji]

Wow. Just wow.

????????

It's just total wibble.

The Earth's orbit is getting further away from the Sun. By about 15mm a year.

I'd love to see the math on that... That statement is akin to ice skating uphill, or water flowing up a drain, with no addition of energy to do so.