The Greta Thunberg Debate

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not so sure. Greta seems pretty passionate in her own right. Apparently she persuaded her parents towards veganism and not the other way round.

But be cynical about it, if it makes you happy.

The urban heat island effect is what I was referring to. Jet streams carry the heat around. As you said cities are expanding. I would say more than just cities you have suburbs and exurbs and so on where you can see the effect. You can have a weather station in the same location for 50 years. 50 years ago the station was in a rural area or at least surrounded by vegetation. Now that same location is developed. It will have warmer readings sans climate change. Climate scientists may factor it in but both weather and climate is a result of an extremely complex set of interactions not fully understood.

Quote :Jimmy, are you seriously going to put more weight on a report by one author (not a climate scientist but an accountant) over that of the UK Met Office? Seriously?

Seems to me that the guy is confusing UK weather with global climate. He's looking at short-term regional weather patterns (UK weather over the last few decades), whereas the broader climate change issue is about large-scale and longer term patterns. When you consider natural and regional variation, nobody would expect short-term regional weather trends to perfectly match global climate change predictions.

Signs of climate change in regional weather patterns are only going to be seen by looking at long-term trends. And instead he's comparing which heatwave was the worst out of 1975 and 2019 and concluding that global warming can't be a 'thing' because 1975 was worse.

If you look at long-term trends, you look at data like this (from the Met Office):
The ten hottest years in the UK since 1884 have all happened in the last 17 years, and the five hottest years have all occurred since 2006.

Do you seriously think the Met Office have got their data wrong?[/quote]

Yes again we can't trust one article, and met Office is much more trustworthy for information in my opinion, and anyhow, being from the UK and having family here, the older generation are always talking about how the weather is hotter and we are having more floods up north than we used to even I've experienced the weather change, we used to have lots of snow every Christmas and now we get one or two days and a thin layer and it's gone... But anyway, we should be looking at climate change as a whole not just the UK as the UK is very small

It's just unfortunate people read into parents too much... My dad was an abusive man but does that mean I was an abusive kid to others kids or abusive now. Definitely not. You are definitely not defined by your parents.... And her knowledge and passion for the subject cannot be forced either

Well are you really going to put your trust in Al Gore who is a politician and not a scientist or Greta who is not a scientist?

I will put my trust in the 31,487 American scientist that said: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth."

Source: Global Warming Petition Project

Let the data speak for itself. [If you looked at the report, is there any specific points that you can cite as erroneous and provide references to substantiate your perspective?] The interesting thing is that there are thousands of authors that have alternate perspectives but their voices have been gagged. I often hear the phrase "the debate is over". That was one of Al Gore's favorite sayings 20 years ago but the interesting thing is there was never really a scientific debate on the subject.

[If you looked at the report, is there any specific points that you can cite as erroneous, where the data cited is incorrect and provide references to substantiate your perspective?]

Last edited by jimmy m on 28 Sep 2019, 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

I would like to see where you have read this number for 31,487 scientists in America. Also according to statistics there are over 6.9million employed scientists in the US which makes 31,000 seem like a very small number in my opinion. Not saying you don't have the right to believe what you believe in, you do of course, just trying to point out a different view

I have read from many trusted scientists and the nasa site of which also shows compelling evidence for climate change and how carbon level is way above what it used to be for hundreds of thousands of years... Here is the link : https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.na ... idence.amp

I believe it is very important to look at numerous sites for data and statistics and ensure they're not biased ones who might emphasise or minimise.

Tokatekika said - I would like to see where you have read this number for 31,487 scientists in America.

The link provides the names of each and every one of these scientist. There is nothing more definitive than that.

Tokatekika said - I have read from many trusted scientists and the nasa site of which also shows compelling evidence for climate change and how carbon level is way above what it used to be for hundreds of thousands of years... Here is the link :https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

The global warming theory is just that a theory. It has not been proven. It is based on models. But the models have not been matching up with the theories. As CO2 levels have been rising, the temperature on Earth should be rising. But since around 1998 they have flatlined. That is a timespan of over 20 years now, 2 decades. This is a climate trend not a weather trend. This observation is based on the most accurate and most comprehensive [in terms of area coverage] satellite data. UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature Data. This dataset is described in the Global Temperature Report.

There exist significant variability in the temperature record and one of the major drivers resides in the oceans. This is known as ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) cycles. Refer to What are El Niño and La Niña? The ENSO cycle is a scientific term that describes the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific (approximately between the International Date Line and 120 degrees West). La Niña is sometimes referred to as the cold phase of ENSO and El Niño as the warm phase of ENSO. These deviations from normal surface temperatures can have large-scale impacts not only on ocean processes, but also on global weather and climate.

El Niño years correspond to warm global temperature years. Very strong El Niño events occurred in 1997-1998 and in 2015-2016 and were major climate drivers. Source: El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities

Sorry I couldn't quote**


Evolution is a theory but a theory that has been proved and this is the same?

I don't see where global warming and climate change has been unmatching with the models?

A source I found says: Around the world, different teams of scientists have built and run models to project future climate conditions under various scenarios for the next century. The model results project that global temperature will continue to increase, but show that human decisions and behavior we choose today will determine how dramatically climate will change in the future. https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

So the global trend is seeming to show climate is getting warmer and would depend on the decisions of humans. Also, some models may not match up as we cannot test them over 30 years accurately as they skip major events (as they are seen as rare) so it would miss these out, but they might not be rare over a 30 year period.

I do understand that climate will naturally get warmer now anyway. But do believe we are directly influencing how fast it is happening, and even what seems like a small change like 1.5degrees C rise, is actually quite large in the time scale

I was invited to sign that petition.
All you needed was a degree with anything even remotely technical. The petition didn't even ask if I had spent any time at all doing work on climate science. They were collecting signatures from engineers who had done nothing but watch Fox News.

Naturally, I did not sign.

I agree! So what if her parents are actors? Who's to say she didnt write the scripts for those speeches herself and then just have someone double check them for errors? I competed in public speaking in high school and my speeches were self written and well researched beforehand.
Is it that crazy to think a 16 year old is capable of intelligent thought??

If the focus of these topics was on her autism I'd probably feel ok about it, but nearly all of these discussions are climate change debates. I find it extremely uncomfortable to add unrelated divisive politics to our already overwhelming list of problems. I really hope this topic dies down and we can regain our focus.

Apologies, novart, you are right and I will shut up.
It's a bit hard to keep quiet sometimes, when people are quoting climate denial websites, to let it go unchallenged.
But climate debates tend to get people riled so perhaps here is not the place.

See above, Jimmy, I don't want to debate here if it's upsetting people.
The only thing I will say is that my previous response explained why the report has got it wrong, and it's not about erroneous data so much as mis-attributing local short-term weather trends to climate change and vice versa.

That comes as no surprise.

I couldn't care less if someone who's made 9 posts is upset. Probably someone's sockpuppet anyways.