Reply to: Greta has done a Corbyn

[JohntheBike]

WTF does 40000 come in to it the last glacial maximum was @ 22000 years ago.

well, I was referring to the age of the red lady of Paviland, who is estimated as being 40000 years old and we are told that at that time the shoreline was some way South West of Ireland. I would estimate that sea levels have risen by hundreds of feet since then. Clearly it would be difficult to measure the rise from 40000 to 22000 years ago, but I guess you understand the basis of my question.
Sea levels have risen by no more than 40 cms in the last 200 years, but based on what we are told about the levels at 40000 years ago, most of the rise would appear to have happened pre Roman times.

If you ever venture to Swansea along the coast road, you will pass right by the new UNI campus. To your right will be a row of older houses, which were built before WW2. The road feeding them to the North was originally the main road to Swansea even in my time. My mother distinctly remembers at exceptionally high tides than the sea used to lap the edge of the long gardens of those houses. That's where the main road sits now and the campus would be under a few feet of water. So, what's happening to sea levels there? Granted, it's more likely that the UK is tipping down in the East and coming up in the West. But I'm no expert.

University of Glasgow - University news - Archive of news - 2013 - December - Is Scotland still on the rise?

interesting data here

Historic variations in sea levels. Part 1: From the Holocene to Romans | Climate Etc.

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1.”

[Gibbon]

Sea level have risen by an average of 20cm over the past 100 years. Using an average figure that should mean that over the last 40000 years, the rise should have been about 400 x 0.2 = 80m, which seems to correlate with the actual rise in sea levels. So have sea levels risen at a higher rate in the past 100 years than any period previously? Wiki seems to claim so, but I guess it would be difficult to measure any rises prior to the 19th century.

WTF does 40000 come in to it the last glacial maximum was @ 22000 years ago.

[NotAllThere]

Science is a culture of doubt

For scientists sure. But for non-scientists, not so much. I doubt Greta doubts the science she has embraced.

[BrilloPad]

Science is a culture of doubt. Religion is a culture of faith.

Humans need someone to look up to. If God did not exist, humans would have to invent him.

[Lance]

Plenty of religious people believe due to evidence. You may not accept the evidence, just as some people don't accept the evidence that the climate is changing, and a few more don't accept the evidence is due to human activity. Different types of evidence of course and more subjective. Few people believe anything without having some evidence - we need a reason to believe. No matter how flaky that might be.

Scientific belief remains belief for most people. I recall reading that the majority of school kids in Finland accept the theory of evolution, but when asked, they couldn't explain it correctly in even basic terms. The accept it because they're assured by most scientists that it's (probably) true. Which isn't a bad way to go about things really.

Science is a culture of doubt. Religion is a culture of faith.

[DimPrawn]

So, your point is that because there are 6 different plug types for electric cars than we should give up? Stop trying to address the situation at all and go buy SUVs all around?

Sounds good.

Might get this next if that whining child keeps banging on about Climate and Doom...

Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk | Performance SUV | Jeep(R) UK

[hairymouse]

but "we" aren't. One sector, i.e. "transport" is being demonised above any other and anti transport policies are being peddled as the most suitable solution for tackling climate change. If the UK government was serious about reducing carbon emissions, then it would have a cohesive plan for rolling out electrification in all its guises. They don't have such a policy.

Only a few large cities have existing tram networks, or are planning to introduce them. There are no plans to re-introduce trolley buses, which regrettably were removed from the streets of Cardiff as late as 1970. There is much argument about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, but calls to re-instate the Mumbles railway, which at one time was the oldest in the World, are muted. HMG has shelved plans to electrify the main line to Swansea and there were no plans to extend it further West in the first place.

As far as electric cars are concerned, if they were the answer, then people would be flocking to buy them. However, there are major hurdles, which clearly aren't being addressed adequately. Range, charging time and availability of charging points are not really being addressed. Although attractive ranges are being published, these are the best figures. When presented with running whilst lights, wipers and heating/demisting issues in bad weather are factored in, ranges can be as little as a third of what are published.

There are even 6 different plugs types at the moment and no plans to standardise them. Electric cars are far too expensive and when a Tesla is still subject to more tax than a 1.6 litre Fiesta, you wonder what the government is up to. If they were properly examining the issues, then no ice. vehicle would be taxed less than a completely electric vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not convinced.

So, your point is that because there are 6 different plug types for electric cars than we should give up? Stop trying to address the situation at all and go buy SUVs all around?

[NotAllThere]

You imply she has faith without evidence. Seeing as the evidence exists your suggestion is spurious.

Plenty of religious people believe due to evidence. You may not accept the evidence, just as some people don't accept the evidence that the climate is changing, and a few more don't accept the evidence is due to human activity. Different types of evidence of course and more subjective. Few people believe anything without having some evidence - we need a reason to believe. No matter how flaky that might be.

Scientific belief remains belief for most people. I recall reading that the majority of school kids in Finland accept the theory of evolution, but when asked, they couldn't explain it correctly in even basic terms. The accept it because they're assured by most scientists that it's (probably) true. Which isn't a bad way to go about things really.

[JohntheBike]

I like the way you have combined two bad arguements into one. Some good old fashioned whataboutism: "But what about disease? How can we do anyhting about climate change while people are poor? " and what looks like a poorly articulated attempt at "How can we have global warming when it is snowing outside?"

Here's the answer to both:
#1We can address more than one problem at once. If you think poverty is so important, I encourage you to pick up a sign.
#2 The difference between climate and weather.

We can address more than one problem at once.

but "we" aren't. One sector, i.e. "transport" is being demonised above any other and anti transport policies are being peddled as the most suitable solution for tackling climate change. If the UK government was serious about reducing carbon emissions, then it would have a cohesive plan for rolling out electrification in all its guises. They don't have such a policy.

Only a few large cities have existing tram networks, or are planning to introduce them. There are no plans to re-introduce trolley buses, which regrettably were removed from the streets of Cardiff as late as 1970. There is much argument about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, but calls to re-instate the Mumbles railway, which at one time was the oldest in the World, are muted. HMG has shelved plans to electrify the main line to Swansea and there were no plans to extend it further West in the first place.

As far as electric cars are concerned, if they were the answer, then people would be flocking to buy them. However, there are major hurdles, which clearly aren't being addressed adequately. Range, charging time and availability of charging points are not really being addressed. Although attractive ranges are being published, these are the best figures. When presented with running whilst lights, wipers and heating/demisting issues in bad weather are factored in, ranges can be as little as a third of what are published.

There are even 6 different plugs types at the moment and no plans to standardise them. Electric cars are far too expensive and when a Tesla is still subject to more tax than a 1.6 litre Fiesta, you wonder what the government is up to. If they were properly examining the issues, then no ice. vehicle would be taxed less than a completely electric vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not convinced.

[hairymouse]

To her climate change is a religion. Meanwhile millions die from preventable diseases, poor sanitation and poverty. And yet she is terrified on some meaningless "global average" temperature rise which is less than the change that occurs in 1 minute on any average day.

I like the way you have combined two bad arguements into one. Some good old fashioned whataboutism: "But what about disease? How can we do anyhting about climate change while people are poor? " and what looks like a poorly articulated attempt at "How can we have global warming when it is snowing outside?"

Here's the answer to both:
#1We can address more than one problem at once. If you think poverty is so important, I encourage you to pick up a sign.
#2 The difference between climate and weather.

[Old Greg]

To a large extent she believes what she is told and reproduces it.

She believes in science. Is that so astonishing?

[JohntheBike]

To a large extent she believes what she is told and reproduces it. The fact that the science is correct doesn't affect that. Her views of the consequence of climate change are extreme, and probably not true.

I think it is plain wrong to expose a child especially one with her medical condition, to this level of exposure. It is exploitative.

The fact that the science is correct doesn't affect that

It is clear that since the end of the last ice age, sea levels have risen hundreds of feet. We know that the North Sea has only existed since the last ice age. The majority of that rise would seemed to have happened prior to Roman times. Sea levels appear to have risen only marginally since then. So, is there a model which shows the increase in sea levels since the last ice age, which demonstrates an acceleration in the rise which is greater than at any time prior to the age of industrialisation, e.g. the last 200 years?

I'll answer my own question!

Sea level have risen by an average of 20cm over the past 100 years. Using an average figure that should mean that over the last 40000 years, the rise should have been about 400 x 0.2 = 80m, which seems to correlate with the actual rise in sea levels. So have sea levels risen at a higher rate in the past 100 years than any period previously? Wiki seems to claim so, but I guess it would be difficult to measure any rises prior to the 19th century.

[NotAllThere]

At least she is spending her time on science rather than religion.

To a large extent she believes what she is told and reproduces it. The fact that the science is correct doesn't affect that. Her views of the consequence of climate change are extreme, and probably not true.

I think it is plain wrong to expose a child especially one with her medical condition, to this level of exposure. It is exploitative.

[Old Greg]

You imply she has faith without evidence. Seeing as the evidence exists your suggestion is spurious.


Which global warming will only make worse.

Now that is just a stupid assertion. You're trying for a reaction aren't you?

To be fair, he does include 'Dim' in his name.

[Lance]

To her climate change is a religion.

You imply she has faith without evidence. Seeing as the evidence exists your suggestion is spurious.

Meanwhile millions die from preventable diseases, poor sanitation and poverty.

Which global warming will only make worse.

And yet she is terrified on some meaningless "global average" temperature rise which is less than the change that occurs in 1 minute on any average day.

Now that is just a stupid assertion. You're trying for a reaction aren't you?