Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Climate Change


deane koontz

Recommended Posts

  • Members
14 hours ago, kent_white said:

We can. It's called Palaeoclimatology.

 

It may be able to indicate proof of some cataclysmic weather event or other but there's no fucking way it has any relevance to annual weather patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
5 hours ago, bolty58 said:

It may be able to indicate proof of some cataclysmic weather event or other but there's no fucking way it has any relevance to annual weather patterns.

Bolty doesn't understand it so it must be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bolty58 said:

 

It may be able to indicate proof of some cataclysmic weather event or other but there's no fucking way it has any relevance to annual weather patterns.

We can using techniques called temperature proxies - like dendrochronology or examining cylindrical samples of the ice core. We've got a record from Antarctica dating back just over half a million years using the latter. 

Those are two of the most well known ones - but there are quite a few others too if you look into it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, kent_white said:

We can using techniques called temperature proxies - like dendrochronology or examining cylindrical samples of the ice core. We've got a record from Antarctica dating back just over half a million years using the latter. 

Those are two of the most well known ones - but there are quite a few others too if you look into it.

 

You can fool some of the people some of the time.

Impressed with the vocabulary though. Keep it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
2 hours ago, kent_white said:

We can using techniques called temperature proxies - like dendrochronology or examining cylindrical samples of the ice core. We've got a record from Antarctica dating back just over half a million years using the latter. 

Those are two of the most well known ones - but there are quite a few others too if you look into it.

 

Saw something on that, can even indicate what type of pollen was most prevalent in the air over periods, different pollens indicating grass lands or forests etc, what type of trees in the forest ,itself indicating the weather conditions that must have prevailed and whether it was a coastal area or well inland at the time. Was interesting but obviously it couldn’t tell me that it was raining on a Tuesday 10000 years ago so I’m not sure it’s any use or realiable really 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
2 hours ago, kent_white said:

We can using techniques called temperature proxies - like dendrochronology or examining cylindrical samples of the ice core. We've got a record from Antarctica dating back just over half a million years using the latter. 

Those are two of the most well known ones - but there are quite a few others too if you look into it.

 

499,700 years BC - Snowed
499,699 years BC - Snowed
499,698 years BC - Snowed

.

.

.

1 year BC - Snowed
1 AD - Snowed
2 AD - Snowed

.

.

.

1999 AD - Snowed
2000 AD - Snowed
2001 AD - Snowed
2002 AD - Snowed
2003 AD - Snowed
2004 AD - Snowed
2005 AD - Snowed
2006 AD - Snowed
2007 AD - Snowed
2008 AD - Snowed
2009 AD - Snowed
2010 AD - Snowed
2011 AD - Snowed
2012 AD - Snowed
2013 AD - Snowed
2014 AD - Snowed
2015 AD - Snowed
2016 AD - Snowed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter

Trouble is, if we wait around for absolute proof of things, then we risk not being able to prevent or stop an event. Keep looking at the science, but taking steps on the basis of what we are finding out now can't be a bad thing. Especially if it can be incorporated into the way we live and the economy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Trouble is, if we wait around for absolute proof of things, then we risk not being able to prevent or stop an event. Keep looking at the science, but taking steps on the basis of what we are finding out now can't be a bad thing. Especially if it can be incorporated into the way we live and the economy too.

There's not really any such thing as an absolute certainty in science. That's why I trust it more than anything or anybody that claims to be absolutely certain about things.

But you're dead right - the longer we piss about - the less likely we are to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
31 minutes ago, kent_white said:

There's not really any such thing as an absolute certainty in science. That's why I trust it more than anything or anybody that claims to be absolutely certain about things.

But you're dead right - the longer we piss about - the less likely we are to do anything about it.

Fair point.

Though I remember that group one metals in water video from school, and I reckon with absolute certainty, that if lob rubidium or caesium in a dish of the wet stuff, it goes bang 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, kent_white said:

There's not really any such thing as an absolute certainty in science. That's why I trust it more than anything or anybody that claims to be absolutely certain about things.

But you're dead right - the longer we piss about - the less likely we are to do anything about it.

...and we ALL agree on this I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, kent_white said:

Here's an excerpt from BBC GCSE Bitesize revision to help explain things for you...... :)

https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zx234j6/revision/1

My brain hurts. Won't bother thanks so that worthless turd fromage face can like that.

Like I have said all along, I am with you on many things in this push to clean up our planet.

I just will not swallow everything and discount the possibility of cyclic events having had some effect on the current situation regarding temperatures.

Plastic pollution is clear and evident. Fossil fuels will undoubtedly be phased out over the next few decades. I suspect that the vegan/vegetarian/meat is murder Nazis will eventually have an effect on the production of beef thereby reducing methane levels.

If we could annihilate street blocking protesters as well then we'd really be on a roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

My brain hurts. Won't bother thanks so that worthless turd fromage face can like that.

Like I have said all along, I am with you on many things in this push to clean up our planet.

I just will not swallow everything and discount the possibility of cyclic events having had some effect on the current situation regarding temperatures.

Plastic pollution is clear and evident. Fossil fuels will undoubtedly be phased out over the next few decades. I suspect that the vegan/vegetarian/meat is murder Nazis will eventually have an effect on the production of beef thereby reducing methane levels.

If we could annihilate street blocking protesters as well then we'd really be on a roll.

An interview with a former vegan/protestor type a few weeks back.

He's had a complete change of heart, eats some meat now to help his health.

Now getting plenty of flack from his former comrades. Quite interesting listening to the conversation.

I do accept there is an issue with "methane", what is also not addressed is the environmentally poor method of producing fruit and vegetables.

Everything needs to be looked at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

An interview with a former vegan/protestor type a few weeks back.

He's had a complete change of heart, eats some meat now to help his health.

Now getting plenty of flack from his former comrades. Quite interesting listening to the conversation.

I do accept there is an issue with "methane", what is also not addressed is the environmentally poor method of producing fruit and vegetables.

Everything needs to be looked at. 

The thing is its about volumes, quantities and where things are produced.

Eating vegetarian or vegan might be better for the world - but if everyone did it there would be more transport required.

The issue with meat is the whole cycle and then transport produces a lot of CO2.

However you can just replace that with any other food product and the issues will be there too. 

Ultimately the best way to protect the environment is only eat stuff produced locally (ideally in your own garden) - but that is not practical. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It isn't practical. Yet.

Therefore population control is essential. Too many people.

And couple it with hi-tech production methods.

How do you do that though? That's probably less practical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
30 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

An interview with a former vegan/protestor type a few weeks back.

He's had a complete change of heart, eats some meat now to help his health.

Now getting plenty of flack from his former comrades. Quite interesting listening to the conversation.

I do accept there is an issue with "methane", what is also not addressed is the environmentally poor method of producing fruit and vegetables.

Everything needs to be looked at. 

 

I had a rather brilliant aunt lived in Lostock. She worked for the United Nations in Geneva and was on 2 weekly shifts (i.e two week in Bolton, 2 weeks in Geneva). A really lovely, sweet woman and highly intelligent.

For a while she took up with a really nice Indian bloke called Mukti (which, as a kid, I found very funny - as you would I suppose). He introduced her to vegetarianism which she embraced wholeheartedly. Much later, when she married a local lad, she too had a change of heart. She became a full on vegan and lived on beans and pulses which she often proclaimed (rather loudly) met all of her nutritional needs. She died at 52 years of age.

I have tended to follow the advice of my maternal grandfather (who brought me up). Have a small portion of everything and you won't go far wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not really. Until a few years ago the population of Europe was fairly stable.

Not now.

That isn't true. And not relevant either.

Population growth rate in Europe is lower now than in the 60's. 

But we're talking climate change. Which means we're talking global. How do you reduce global population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.