Greta Thunberg

This will probably be lost to time and nobody will likely have an answer, but I wonder what Greta thinks to this science article

This was the case during the last interglacial as the temperature then, app. 115,000 years ago, was up to 8 degrees C. warmer than today, according to a former study from the Niels Bohr Institute
Click to expand...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191004105652.htm

If we're supposedly reaching the highest temperatures ever, caused by ourselves, how can the temperature have been 8 degrees warmer only 115k years ago ?

8 degrees is quite a difference considering we're told that even a 2 degree increase in average temperature is enough to put our survival at risk :confused:

I think this is why people cannot agree because the science seems to contradict itself, it's a shame the study it's talking about isn't listed as it would be interesting to read to find the specifics of this 8 degree warmer temperature
 
dowie said:
I'm not saying people should ignore that though, I would say though that if the first thing that springs to mind re: whether you like Greta is that you admire how she triggers people then you have your priorities wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh man... you have trouble reading between the lines it seems sometimes....

Its not that different to you going on about nazis and fascist etc, and you just accused Tuppy as being someone who doesnt care about the enviroment, is autistic and likes shouting at people. I mean come on, talk about the issue if that is why you are here.

(fwiw you do like shouting at folk on this forum, kinda, no?)


Edit: oh man, show me your medals then, what do you do for the enviroment etc?
 
Threepwood said:
Oh man... you have trouble reading between the lines it seems sometimes....

Its not that different to you going on about nazis and fascist etc
Click to expand...

I don’t go on about Nazis and Fascists, I’ve made reference to the fact others do - you seem to have got things rather muddled there.

I mean come on, talk about the issue if that is why you are here.
Click to expand...

I already have done - why don't you?
 
Minusorange said:
This will probably be lost to time and nobody will likely have an answer, but I wonder what Greta thinks to this science article



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191004105652.htm

If we're supposedly reaching the highest temperatures ever, caused by ourselves, how can the temperature have been 8 degrees warmer only 115k years ago ?

8 degrees is quite a difference considering we're told that even a 2 degree increase in average temperature is enough to put our survival at risk :confused:

I think this is why people cannot agree because the science seems to contradict itself, it's a shame the study it's talking about isn't listed as it would be interesting to read to find the specifics of this 8 degree warmer temperature
Click to expand...

Up to, which literally implies inaccuracy, it's also a story and not the actual report in the first place... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12546-2

Not only that, but you're falling into the typical trap of thinking 2 degrees is where it ends, 1.5 degrees makes 2 degree increase more likely, a 2 degree increase makes 3 degrees...4..5...etc more likely.

That's the issue with just saying "oh 2 degrees doesn't look so bad", there are literally billions of tonnes of emissions locked away and the oceans aren't going to absorb heat forever all made worse by ignoring ****.

As soon as we hit even a single incident of sudden emission increases (like the entire permafrost disappearing), any current plan is useless and we'll be chasing the tail.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Up to, which literally implies inaccuracy
Click to expand...

Which is why I said it would have been nice to see the actual study they briefly mention, also up to, suggests it was warmer despite inaccuracy of not being to say just how warm only that is was up to 8 degrees warmer which still begs the question if it was warmer, why is warming now such a problem when it's not the first time it has happened (and probably not the last)

I'm all for being more environmentally friendly, but I think our obsession with trying to control the temperature of the planet is taking our gaze off more important environmental disasters like our use of plastic and turning nature into concrete
 
StriderX said:
Up to, which literally implies inaccuracy, it's also a story and not the actual report in the first place... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12546-2

Not only that, but you're falling into the typical trap of thinking 2 degrees is where it ends, 1.5 degrees makes 2 degree increase more likely, a 2 degree increase makes 3 degrees...4..5...etc more likely.

That's the issue with just saying "oh 2 degrees doesnt look so bad", there are literally billions of tonnes of emissions locked away and the oceans aren't going to absorb forever all made worse by ignoring ****.
Click to expand...
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

We're doomed!
 
Em3bbs said:
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

We're doomed!
Click to expand...

One person, likely controlled by interest groups when the science was poorly understood. Sure, bravo, you win. /s

Didn't even read the article.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
Click to expand...

Which is true.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
Click to expand...

There is legitimate speculation that the Arab Spring and several unstable nations are being caused in no small part to crop failure and a lack of water supply.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.
Click to expand...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19377-new-orleans-are-the-new-defences-tough-enough/

But some say that these upgraded defences, which cost the US federal government $14.45 billion, aren’t tough and comprehensive enough – in part because climate change could lead to more powerful storms.
Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/14/...nge-sea-level-rise-bill-de-blasio-development

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio announced a huge climate-focused infrastructure effort on Thursday, calling for a project that could, among other things, extend lower Manhattan two blocks into the East River and cost as much as $10 billion.
Click to expand...

Two cities (admittedly one is on the "south" coast), $25 billion, almost certainly not going to work well enough against the 80 or so Cat 5 storms potentially occurring by 2100 (obviously inaccurate, as A: We're 80 years out. B: It's a difficult subject)
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
I don’t go on about Nazis and Fascists, I’ve made reference to the fact others do - you seem to have got things rather muddled there.



I already have done - why don't you?
Click to expand...

Sigh. You have said both those words more than anyone else in the last few days, from what I've seen anyway.. you have literally been going on about it!


dowie said:
I already have done - why don't you?
Click to expand...

Yaa, me too, and not only in this thread! I just popped back in to point out some hypocrisy.
 
StriderX said:
One person, likely controlled by interest groups when the science was poorly understood. Sure, bravo, you win. /s

Didn't even read the article.
Click to expand...
30 years ago if you said that about it you'd have been called a climate change denier. HOW DARE YOU! :D
 
dowie said:
Not quite, as already explained... I think you've missed the point somewhat.
Click to expand...
No.... le sigh, I understand what your point is with it Dowie, its not rocket science. But you have been practically forcing it into peoples mouths "eee I am amazed that you have called 'im a nazi or a facist yet" etc. You know.
 
Threepwood said:
No.... le sigh, I understand what your point is with it Dowie, its not rocket science. But you have been practically forcing it into peoples mouths "eee I am amazed that you have called 'im a nazi or a facist yet" etc. You know.
Click to expand...

Sigh, in a light hearted response to someone who has literally been forging it into peoples mouths that they are nazis, fascists etc.. if you understood that then why are you moaning about it/quoting me multiple times over it?
 
dowie said:
Sigh, in a light hearted response to someone who has literally been forging it into peoples mouths that they are nazis, fascists etc.. if you understood that then why are you moaning about it/quoting me multiple times over it?
Click to expand...
Because you don't seem to get that the kind of people that those people are talking about, they really are a bit like what they are saying they are..... They are not talking about really nice people who have a great humanitarian track record.
 
StriderX said:
I'd prefer to look at the actual science, rather than some bureaucratic ****'s summarised version of it, regardless of which side it is on.
Click to expand...

But which side?

There are many scientists that disagree with the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.
There are many who support it.

There are scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. Then there are the ones that don't.

As long as they argue with each other. They will be on the gravey train for life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom