The Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming 1988

[Sunny76]

 

[Don]

1 hour ago, Sunny76 said:

 

An interesting watch from all those years ago!

[Sunny76]

Just now, Don said:

An interesting watch from all those years ago!

This was the year we were informed by our English teacher, the dangers of the hole in the ozone layer, and the skin cancer risk.

I think the threat or fear of nuclear war, was superseded by Global warming in 1987/88. This period also falls in line with the U.K. climate starting to change. 

[cheeky_monkey]

43 minutes ago, Sunny76 said:

This was the year we were informed by our English teacher, the dangers of the hole in the ozone layer, and the skin cancer risk.

I think the threat or fear of nuclear war, was superseded by Global warming in 1987/88. This period also falls in line with the U.K. climate starting to change. 

i don't think global warming was peddled as a global threat on a par with a nuclear war until about 5 years ago..the whole climate changing in the UK after 1988 wasn't really a thing discussed until the early 2000s

[Methuselah]

On 18/07/2022 at 20:49, cheeky_monkey said:

i don't think global warming was peddled as a global threat on a par with a nuclear war until about 5 years ago..the whole climate changing in the UK after 1988 wasn't really a thing discussed until the early 2000s

So, you've been blind/ignoring scientific advancement for 45-years, then?

Edited July 20, 2022 by Blessed Weather
Unnecessary comment removed.

[cheeky_monkey]

On 18/07/2022 at 20:54, Ed Stone said:

So, you've been blind/ignoring scientific advancement for 45-years, then? Not that I'm in the least bit surprised!

nope i have been ignoring the obvious media BS that we will all be dead in 10 years that is trolled out on a yearly basis..im on board with the whole rise in Co2 over the last century and the fact the globe has warmed and continues to do so..what i dont see is any real world evidence in the last 40 years that the doom lavished around that warming has actually come to fruition..then again i can think for myself and form my own opinion

Edited July 20, 2022 by Blessed Weather
Unnecessary comment removed.

[Don]

1 hour ago, Sunny76 said:

This was the year we were informed by our English teacher, the dangers of the hole in the ozone layer, and the skin cancer risk.

I think the threat or fear of nuclear war, was superseded by Global warming in 1987/88. This period also falls in line with the U.K. climate starting to change. 

Yes, the first I knew about the ozone layer and greenhouse effect was in 1989.  Like you say, this seemed to coincide with the changes to our seasons becoming more noticeable.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Don

[Sunny76]

Global warming was a term that started being used during the 1989/90 period. 
 

Greenhouse effect was something that was mentioned in 1983/84.

The start of climate change awareness began in the late 80s.

[Methuselah]

Just now, Sunny76 said:

Global warming was a term that started being used during the 1989/90 period. 
 

Greenhouse effect was something that was mentioned in 1983/84.

The start of climate change awareness began in the late 80s.

No, sorry; I went to a lecture on GHGs (notably CO2) back in December 1973.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Well the oil companies knew about it long before 1988:

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

THECONVERSATION.COM

---

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

 

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, Pennine Ten Foot Drifts said:

Well the oil companies knew about it long before 1988:

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

THECONVERSATION.COM

---

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

 

That would explain why the professor who presented our lecture was later hounded-out by Margaret Thatcher, and labelled a 'communist' in the gutter press? How things haven't changed!

[Mucka]

Just for balance and to point how  the media are selective with which weather events are reported as anthropogenic global warming.

 

2022 starts out with record cold temps | KNOX News Radio, Local News, Weather and Sports

KNOXRADIO.COM

---

The Grand Forks Airport set a record low on New Years Eve (December 31st) and on New Years Day (January 1st). ...

 

Alice Springs freezes through longest streak of sub-zero days on record - ABC News

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

---

The temperature in Alice Springs has dropped below zero degrees Celsius for 12 consecutive mornings, beating the previous record set in July 1976.

 

Coldest start to winter in decades for eastern Australia with power grid under strain | Australia news | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Early June temperatures in Melbourne didn’t go above 15 degrees for first time in 70 years as cold weather pattern starts to break

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/cold-weather-set-to-continue-across-large-parts-of-australia/news-story/19253864625e6b86c1b77ba731887069

 

We should not take a regional hot spell caused by global weather patterns as proof of AGW just as we should take the same conditions causing a regional cold spell as proof it does not exist.

The whole "extreme weather" and "unprecedented weather" arguments are somewhat silly given often very local records that are sought out for the headlines are only a few decades old and taken in urban hots spots such as near airport runways.

If next summer turns out to be wet and cool will we see headlines it is proof AGW is not a thing? If the next 10 summers do not yield a new local tempt record will we see the same? Of course not.

Since when did science only take the outlier data as the norm and dismiss all the data that does not fit the theory?

That is not science, it is propaganda.

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Just for balance and to point how  the media are selective with which weather events are reported as anthropogenic global warming.

 

2022 starts out with record cold temps | KNOX News Radio, Local News, Weather and Sports

KNOXRADIO.COM

---

The Grand Forks Airport set a record low on New Years Eve (December 31st) and on New Years Day (January 1st). ...

 

Alice Springs freezes through longest streak of sub-zero days on record - ABC News

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

---

The temperature in Alice Springs has dropped below zero degrees Celsius for 12 consecutive mornings, beating the previous record set in July 1976.

 

Coldest start to winter in decades for eastern Australia with power grid under strain | Australia news | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Early June temperatures in Melbourne didn’t go above 15 degrees for first time in 70 years as cold weather pattern starts to break

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/cold-weather-set-to-continue-across-large-parts-of-australia/news-story/19253864625e6b86c1b77ba731887069

 

We should not take a regional hot spell caused by global weather patterns as proof of AGW just as we should take the same conditions causing a regional cold spell as proof it does not exist.

The whole "extreme weather" and "unprecedented weather" arguments are somewhat silly given often very local records that are sought out for the headlines are only a few decades old and taken in urban hots spots such as near airport runways.

If next summer turns out to be wet and cool will we see headlines it is proof AGW is not a thing? If the next 10 summers do not yield a new local tempt record will we see the same? Of course not.

Since when did science only take the outlier data as the norm and dismiss all the data that does not fit the theory?

That is not science, it is propaganda.

Indeed, we shouldn't. But what we should take as proof of GW is the enormous number of new heat records when compared to a handful of cold ones! To do otherwise is to spout propaganda!

[Inga Horwood]

6 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

No, sorry; I went to a lecture on GHGs (notably CO2) back in December 1973.

Scientific awareness of the Greenhouse effect goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century.  John Tyndall published on it, but apparently an Irish lady is credited with having spotted it a few years earlier.

Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect

WWW.CLIMATECHANGENEWS.COM

---

Eunice Foote demonstrated the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide at a scientific conference in 1856, newly digitised records show

It became politicised in the 1980s, I think.  That's about when the scientist v. denialist battles kicked off, as far as I recall.

[Mixer 85]

I don’t think there are many out there denying global warming. Temperatures have risen by 1degree since the industrial revolution. It’s impossible to dispute that. Also suffice to say, a warmer globe will lead to new high temperature records. 
 

Interestingly though, there has also been a vast amount of low temperature records too. One only has to look at the following thread to appreciate how many 

Similar case currently in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire continent of Australia have been well below average, similar story in New Zealand. Large parts of South America are running well below the multidecadal average. 
Antartica has also been intensely cold for 18 months now with a rare -80 recently recorded there. Greenlands SMB is well above the multidecadal average. Global average temperature for June were 0.06C above the 1980/2010 average.

All of the above contradicts the catastrophic CO2 global warming narrative and begs the question of how much natural variation is at play? Sadly this gets little discussion as those who question the so called consensus are labelled and ridiculed. Even sadder still is that most people are of the belief that we are facing a climate emergency, so many children are terrified that the planet is burning and they are going to die from climate change. People are gluing themselves to roads, setting themselves on fire and the reality is that there is no evidence that we are facing a catastrophe. These catastrophic claims are rarely coming from scientists but from political organisations and environmental groups. 

One only has to scratch beneath the surface to find the real truths. Sea levels have been rising consistently since the last ice age and are not accelerating. Droughts are not increasing in frequency or duration. Floods are no worse than in the past. Hurricanes have decreased in numbers and intensity in recent years, as well as tornadoes. Wildfires are not increasing globally. Climate related deaths have plummeted almost 100% in the last 100yrs. Most climate related deaths are due to cold not warmth. A warmer climate is a more comfortable and hospitable climate for all who roam the earth. It would be nice to perhaps appreciate this rather than get carried away with the mass hysteria of catastrophic global warming. If natural variation does turn out to be the main climate driver and Mother Nature decides to turn down the thermostat then we’ll have a completely different foe on our hands.


 

[Beanz]

8 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

A warmer climate is a more comfortable and hospitable climate for all who roam the earth.

I’m not sure that’s true, in fact I’m struggling to think of a single species on the planet that would prefer the climate to be warmer.   

Edited July 20, 2022 by Beanz

[Sunny76]

Neither option is great, but more people would prefer to live in a milder climate.

If we had temps between 15-29c throughout the seasons, I don’t think many would complain.

Not many people would miss the 7c or below days. I like frosty weather, but not for long periods of time, and that in itself can cause problems with damp and mould, and higher costs for heating.

[Mixer 85]

1 hour ago, Beanz said:

I’m not sure that’s true, in fact I’m struggling to think of a single species on the planet that would prefer the climate to be warmer.   

The fact that 80% of earth’s species live in the tropics should be proof enough that life prefers warmth. Humans evolved in tropical regions and slowly spread northward. Our densest populations exist in tropical regions, the rest of us gravitate towards warmer regions for holidays. Life is well adapted to heat, not so much for cold.
 

[Beanz]

7 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

The fact that 80% of earth’s species live in the tropics should be proof enough that life prefers warmth. Humans evolved in tropical regions and slowly spread northward. Our densest populations exist in tropical regions, the rest of us gravitate towards warmer regions for holidays. Life is well adapted to heat, not so much for cold.
 

You’re aware that the global warming is destroying species habitat in the tropics, right? 

 

 

[Mixer 85]

38 minutes ago, Beanz said:

You’re aware that the global warming is destroying species habitat in the tropics, right? 

 

 

Sorry I wasn’t aware of that. Can you provide an example please?

I am aware that species are being destroyed due to loss of habitat and human interference, that has no connection to climate change whatsoever.

[Beanz]

4 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

Sorry I wasn’t aware of that. Can you provide an example please?

I am aware that species are being destroyed due to loss of habitat and human interference, that has no connection to climate change whatsoever.

I’m sure a few minutes googling will provide all the scientific research you need.  

Species migration from their natural habitats due to hotter temperatures, pushing those that can migrate to higher altitudes and different areas, or cooler waters.  Some can adapt to the new environments, but some won’t, and some can’t migrate.  Some will lose their food source, some won’t, some species won’t reproduce in higher temperatures.  The effects are there, the results are up for debate, but waiting to see the effects first is not the best action.  

I'm sure you’ve seen or read about coral bleaching caused by warmer sea temperatures?  Swathes of coral reefs have become baron, almost lifeless - and it’s not being replaced elsewhere. 
 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015094118

We know what climate change has done historically to the planets living species, which of course wasn’t man-made climate change, but the impact was undeniable.  
 

The discussion around whether our current climate warming is a consequence of human activity or not is another debate, but the effect of climate change on the planets biodiversity is difficult to ignore.  

[jonboy]

I do not deny our climate has changed or is changing. However when we talk about sufficiently the impact man has not in regard to CO2 emissions but rather our changes to the environment we live in. We have significantly increased cities since pre industrial times and more so over the last 30/40 years. Many of these spaces are concrete jungles with little green or shaded space. We have turned once landscapes full of hedges and trees into rolling wide open spaces used for arable crop production.

We are now seeing a shift especially towards greener cities. One example is a city in Pakistan that has made a concerted effort to introduce trees and green the city before it experienced temps of 50c now it see's temps of 40c. Off course the reason given is climate change and its link to Co2 rather than reducing temp by greening and providing less hard surfaces to absorb/reflect heat.

Look at how many front gardens have been paved over in the UK in the last 40 years. Look at how we have reduced our rear gardens with paved patio's etc all these play a part in absorbing and reflecting/storing heat.

I would like proper research into these effects and impacts these changes have made before i knee before the god of CO2

[Methuselah]

14 minutes ago, jonboy said:

I do not deny our climate has changed or is changing. However when we talk about sufficiently the impact man has not in regard to CO2 emissions but rather our changes to the environment we live in. We have significantly increased cities since pre industrial times and more so over the last 30/40 years. Many of these spaces are concrete jungles with little green or shaded space. We have turned once landscapes full of hedges and trees into rolling wide open spaces used for arable crop production.

We are now seeing a shift especially towards greener cities. One example is a city in Pakistan that has made a concerted effort to introduce trees and green the city before it experienced temps of 50c now it see's temps of 40c. Off course the reason given is climate change and its link to Co2 rather than reducing temp by greening and providing less hard surfaces to absorb/reflect heat.

Look at how many front gardens have been paved over in the UK in the last 40 years. Look at how we have reduced our rear gardens with paved patio's etc all these play a part in absorbing and reflecting/storing heat.

I would like proper research into these effects and impacts these changes have made before i knee before the god of CO2

Do you not regard the atmosphere as part of our environment then, jonboy -- or, that all those things you acknowledge we have done might possibly bugger that up, too?

[Sprites]

All these discussions and the resources that were mined, and used to assemble and power electronic devices used to post the discussions, are creating more CO2, and habitat distruction. 

I've just added more CO2 by posting this.

[jonboy]

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Do you not regard the atmosphere as part of our environment then, jonboy -- or, that all those things you acknowledge we have done might possibly bugger that up, too?

Off course these elements I mention affect the atmosphere hence why I suggest that proper research is undertaken to determine there effect. The rhetoric is always the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as that is the sole cause of our warming. Man has affected/changed our planet in many ways especially as urban living becomes more prevalent with massive sprawling conurbations with little overall greenery. Where is that analysis?