Climate Change

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Why do you write these kind of questions Nomad?

You know
a) It does
b) No one is saying it hasn't and
c) That the debate is about the rate of change although this debate has now been pretty much won with only money impeding progress.

And where is the science that shows that there haven't been rapid changes in the past? Just because there are particular start and end points, doesn't meant the transition was even and didn't mostly happen at the end point.
Doesn't mean nothing should be done, just that the drastic measures being pushed, won't work in any way. If people were to truly want to scale things back, then all sorts of trivial objects need to be banned(eg make-up and jewellery) and banned decades ago.

An example of the hypocrisy was in the TV programme on ITV about eco-homes last night(Mon 1st Nov). A couple decided, not for eco reasons, to switch the house layout. They moved the bedrooms to the ground floor with the living area upstairs, just so they had a better view. That used resources and energy with no valid purpose.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Was that around the time they were all getting worked up about acid rain, and then found it was largely a product of natural sources and not the serious problem it was being made out to be.
Eg it was claimed that in 1o years time(from the date of the claim) that half of New York State's trees would be destroyed by Acid Rain. Guess what, it didn't happen, and as the 10-year study found most of any damage that did happen, was from natural sources.

And round about the same time the hole in the ozone layer was found, we changed our ways and now 35 years later the hole is closed all but, blimey, fancy getting worked up by cfcs

Originally Posted by Damien

The fact they continue to study these things and adjust their findings rather than dogmatically insisting their initial findings were correct should give you more faith in climate science rather than less.

The only people whose position on climate change has never adjusted is the 'sceptics and that's because their position isn't based on science but politics.

Yes remember the hullabaloo when global warming became climate change, how the facts had been changed to suit an agenda blah blah

Originally Posted by nomadking

So the science doesn't show that the climate has always changed, all by itself. Eg A large chunk of North America(including Manhattan Island) was well and truly buried under an ice sheet, a matter of thousands of years ago. How could that be, if Man and the Industrial Age were supposed to be responsible. That is Science, not politics.

Previous periods of climate change happened over geological ages, not human generations. The speed of change is what we're worried about, if the climate was changing naturally it would be imperceptible to civilisation because it would happen over thousands of years rather than decades.

There have been occasions when it moved much faster than that, similar to the speeds now, but that was the result of a dramatic change. One of them was the event that killed off the dinosaurs. There was another event hundreds of millions of years before as well with volcanic explosions across a younger, more volatile, earth being the leading theory as to the cause.

These were, geologically speaking, 'sudden' events caused by some incident that dramatically changed the climate. We're in another event now but there hasn't been a huge incident, there has just been us.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

All too little, too late. We needed the action 30 years ago.

Well not much we can do about that, eh? So should we even bother?

Of course we should. Best to look to what we can do rather than what we could have done. The latter is totally pointless.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

The fact they continue to study these things and adjust their findings rather than dogmatically insisting their initial findings were correct should give you more faith in climate science rather than less.

.

Well, it doesn’t. Scientists tend to prat out any old nonsense these days without the scrutiny that these things once had. The number of times they have come out with stuff they’ve later had to retract, such as ‘we’re going into an ice age’ and ‘don’t eat butter, it’s bad for you’, etc, etc, it’s no wonder people are studying these pronouncements more carefully.

Imagine if, after spending trillions of pounds on reducing carbon they find that the temperature keeps on increasing because warming is down to other factors. I suppose we’d never get to find out because the truth will be hidden due to the fact that it is a major embarrassment for politicians everywhere.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

The only people whose position on climate change has never adjusted is the 'sceptics and that's because their position isn't based on science but politics.

That’s not a fair comment. Many people, including myself, became sceptical due to a number of instances where the scientists deliberately set out to mislead (eg the hockey stick graph, the temperature reading manipulations, etc).

We do not know for sure whether we are still experiencing a natural warming phenomenon due to variations in the distance of the Earth from the sun, recovery from the mini-ice age which may have been put back by industrial pollution, etc. It still seems pretty remarkable that only 0.04% of the atmosphere has absorbed carbon despite the incredible volume of emissions for which we are responsible, and it is not lost on sceptics that scientists prefer to record any increase as ppm - parts per million - to big up the figures.

I am happy to go along with all this now because I am anti-pollution, but I still remain to be convinced about carbon being the cause of the warming problem.

I am happy to be convinced otherwise, but I have not heard any convincing arguments to persuade me otherwise. My scepticism has nothing at all to do with the politics - it is all about the science.

[Pierre]

We were at 1min to mid-night 40yrs ago, I suspect in another 40yrs we’ll still be at 1min to mid-night, and Greta will still be knocking about on her soapbox

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well not much we can do about that, eh? So should we even bother?

Of course we should. Best to look to what we can do rather than what we could have done. The latter is totally pointless.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Well, it doesn’t. Scientists tend to prat out any old nonsense these days without the scrutiny that these things once had. The number of times they have come out with stuff they’ve later had to retract, such as ‘we’re going into an ice age’ and ‘don’t eat butter, it’s bad for you’, etc, etc, it’s no wonder people are studying these pronouncements more carefully.

Imagine if, after spending trillions of pounds on reducing carbon they find that the temperature keeps on increasing because warming is down to other factors. I suppose we’d never get to find out because the truth will be hidden due to the fact that it is a major embarrassment for politicians everywhere.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------



That’s not a fair comment. Many people, including myself, became sceptical due to a number of instances where the scientists deliberately set out to mislead (eg the hockey stick graph, the temperature reading manipulations, etc).

We do not know for sure whether we are still experiencing a natural warming phenomenon due to variations in the distance of the Earth from the sun, recovery from the mini-ice age which may have been put back by industrial pollution, etc. It still seems pretty remarkable that only 0.04% of the atmosphere has absorbed carbon despite the incredible volume of emissions for which we are responsible, and it is not lost on sceptics that scientists prefer to record any increase as ppm - parts per million - to big up the figures.

I am happy to go along with all this now because I am anti-pollution, but I still remain to be convinced about carbon being the cause of the warming problem.

I am happy to be convinced otherwise, but I have not heard any convincing arguments to persuade me otherwise. My scepticism has nothing at all to do with the politics - it is all about the science.

You do talk round things - science papers are peer-reviewed and challenged all the time.

The science changes because things are challenged, and more things are discovered/learnt about the matter in hand - it's how scientific progress occurs, and why we still don't have valve radios; people didn't accept the status quo.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

We were at 1min to mid-night 40yrs ago, I suspect in another 40yrs we’ll still be at 1min to mid-night, and Greta will still be knocking about on her soapbox

And if not, it will be our childrens and grandchildrens' problem, so why should we care*?

The one minute to midnight 40 years ago was about nuclear war (and actually, it was 7 minutes to midnight), but don't let facts spoil your diatribe...

(*for the avoidance of any doubt, the <sarcasm> mode was on...)

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

And round about the same time the hole in the ozone layer was found, we changed our ways and now 35 years later the hole is closed all but, blimey, fancy getting worked up by cfcs



Yes remember the hullabaloo when global warming became climate change, how the facts had been changed to suit an agenda blah blah

Closed?

The hole in the ozone layer that develops annually is “rather larger than usual” and is currently bigger than Antartica, say the scientists responsible for monitoring it.
Researchers from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service say that this year’s hole is growing quickly and is larger than 75% of ozone holes at this stage in the season since 1979.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Closed?

Possibly due to a massive leak of CFC that was traced to industrial processes in Eastern China a couple of years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341

The ozone hole is projected to be fully closed over high northern latitudes in the next 10 years, and over Antarctica by the 2060s. TheDaddy's point still absolutely stands however, and the reverse in ozone depletion rates is absolutely attributable to the rare incidence of rapid, international co-operation that led to the CFC ban in the late 1980s.

Your refusal to understand and accept the scientific process that has led to our present understanding of catastrophic, anthropogenic climate change is disappointing, if unsurprising. I wish you would devote some of the energy you devote to searching up tangentially relevant links, to improving your understanding of nuance in argument and the scientific method in general.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well not much we can do about that, eh? So should we even bother?

Of course we should. Best to look to what we can do rather than what we could have done. The latter is totally pointless.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Well, it doesn’t. Scientists tend to prat out any old nonsense these days without the scrutiny that these things once had. The number of times they have come out with stuff they’ve later had to retract, such as ‘we’re going into an ice age’ and ‘don’t eat butter, it’s bad for you’, etc, etc, it’s no wonder people are studying these pronouncements more carefully.

Imagine if, after spending trillions of pounds on reducing carbon they find that the temperature keeps on increasing because warming is down to other factors. I suppose we’d never get to find out because the truth will be hidden due to the fact that it is a major embarrassment for politicians everywhere.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------



That’s not a fair comment. Many people, including myself, became sceptical due to a number of instances where the scientists deliberately set out to mislead (eg the hockey stick graph, the temperature reading manipulations, etc).

We do not know for sure whether we are still experiencing a natural warming phenomenon due to variations in the distance of the Earth from the sun, recovery from the mini-ice age which may have been put back by industrial pollution, etc. It still seems pretty remarkable that only 0.04% of the atmosphere has absorbed carbon despite the incredible volume of emissions for which we are responsible, and it is not lost on sceptics that scientists prefer to record any increase as ppm - parts per million - to big up the figures.

I am happy to go along with all this now because I am anti-pollution, but I still remain to be convinced about carbon being the cause of the warming problem.

I am happy to be convinced otherwise, but I have not heard any convincing arguments to persuade me otherwise. My scepticism has nothing at all to do with the politics - it is all about the science.

Being guided by the science is a fair approach. There are some basic 'yes' or 'no' questions from science that go back to the 19th century that might help here;

• Does solar heating of the earth surface cause radiation of long wavelength infra red light? - yes
• Is this light absorbed by the atmosphere or escape in to space? - some is absorbed by the atmosphere, some escapes in to space
• What molecules in the atmosphere absorb this light? - water, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone
• What happens when this light is absorbed? - it is re-radiated in all directions, including back to the surface
• Are these molecules effectively global insulation? - yes, the Earth should have an average surface temperature of -18°C
• Is it reasonable to expect the concentration of molecules that form this insulation will have an effect on the insulation effect - yes

I don't think the above points are too controversial and we have had getting on for 200 years of science to prove these points wrong so far

There have been a lot of ideas on what cause climate change if it is not man made, including volcanoes and solar radiation changes. How can we mitigate these natural changes to prevent a global increase in temperature? Would lowering the insulation due to what we can control, namely carbon dioxide and methane do the job? Global engineering for the win!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Being guided by the science is a fair approach. There are some basic 'yes' or 'no' questions from science that go back to the 19th century that might help here;

• Does solar heating of the earth surface cause radiation of long wavelength infra red light? - yes
• Is this light absorbed by the atmosphere or escape in to space? - some is absorbed by the atmosphere, some escapes in to space
• What molecules in the atmosphere absorb this light? - water, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone
• What happens when this light is absorbed? - it is re-radiated in all directions, including back to the surface
• Are these molecules effectively global insulation? - yes, the Earth should have an average surface temperature of -18°C
• Is it reasonable to expect the concentration of molecules that form this insulation will have an effect on the insulation effect - yes

I don't think the above points are too controversial and we have had getting on for 200 years of science to prove these points wrong so far

There have been a lot of ideas on what cause climate change if it is not man made, including volcanoes and solar radiation changes. How can we mitigate these natural changes to prevent a global increase in temperature? Would lowering the insulation due to what we can control, namely carbon dioxide and methane do the job? Global engineering for the win!

so if we stop breathing and farting

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The one minute to midnight 40 years ago was about nuclear war (and actually, it was 7 minutes to midnight), but don't let facts spoil your diatribe...

your correcting yourself there, as I was referencing Boris's speech and simply stating that we were told pretty much the same thing decades ago (I wasn't referring to nuclear armageddon) so don't let your personal bias spoil my diatribe.

And if not, it will be our childrens and grandchildrens' problem, so why should we care

I care, but my point, which you must have heard as it whistled over your head..... is that we've heard it all before, many, many ,many times.

and the end hasn't come. So all they do ratchet up the extreme rhetoric.

I'm not a climate change sceptic, how can you be ? Climate changes that's a fact. What I am is a politician and (some) scientists sceptic. As their track record isn't great.

Here's some of their greatest hits.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-...c-predictions/

Has no one ever heard of the boy that cried wolf?

I'm all for a sensible non-sensationalist/ extremist debate on the future and what we can do and what technologies we can produce. As the debate is always around - drive less, fly less, eat less, buy less, build less - we are very resourceful and inventive mammal and I'm sure we'll work out solutions to problems.

We're heading in the right direction, but I don't agree we have to race there, or set arbitrary dates to reach certain targets.

We need to build several new nuclear plants, lets work on reducing the cost of those. Let's wait until the technology of air-source heat pumps is mature and we know they're going to work.

Let's invest in tidal power, the most overlooked renewable there is. Criminally for this island. As long as the Moon and Earth dance with each other we have a predictable power source. Invest in it. I'd rather have a tidal power plant than HS2.

This circus in Glasgow is virtue signaling of the most repulsive type, I actually agree with Greta it's all talk and no real action. Action on things that will really make a difference. Not penalising normal people for wanting to live their lives.

Caring about Climate change is a privileged position, for those that can afford to.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Previous periods of climate change happened over geological ages, not human generations. The speed of change is what we're worried about, if the climate was changing naturally it would be imperceptible to civilisation because it would happen over thousands of years rather than decades.

There have been occasions when it moved much faster than that, similar to the speeds now, but that was the result of a dramatic change. One of them was the event that killed off the dinosaurs. There was another event hundreds of millions of years before as well with volcanic explosions across a younger, more volatile, earth being the leading theory as to the cause.

These were, geologically speaking, 'sudden' events caused by some incident that dramatically changed the climate. We're in another event now but there hasn't been a huge incident, there has just been us.

The mini-ice age of the 1600s was pretty drastic, don’t you think?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The mini-ice age of the 1600s was pretty drastic, don’t you think?

Not sure that ice-skating on The Thames is equivalent to dinosaurs becoming extinct.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Being guided by the science is a fair approach. There are some basic 'yes' or 'no' questions from science that go back to the 19th century that might help here;

• Does solar heating of the earth surface cause radiation of long wavelength infra red light? - yes
• Is this light absorbed by the atmosphere or escape in to space? - some is absorbed by the atmosphere, some escapes in to space
• What molecules in the atmosphere absorb this light? - water, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone
• What happens when this light is absorbed? - it is re-radiated in all directions, including back to the surface
• Are these molecules effectively global insulation? - yes, the Earth should have an average surface temperature of -18°C
• Is it reasonable to expect the concentration of molecules that form this insulation will have an effect on the insulation effect - yes

I don't think the above points are too controversial and we have had getting on for 200 years of science to prove these points wrong so far

There have been a lot of ideas on what cause climate change if it is not man made, including volcanoes and solar radiation changes. How can we mitigate these natural changes to prevent a global increase in temperature? Would lowering the insulation due to what we can control, namely carbon dioxide and methane do the job? Global engineering for the win!

It’s not like a thermostat! If we start interfering to this extent with natural processes, we could trigger the ice age that was predicted in the 1960s.

[Mad Max]

Does anyone really believe things will change when the likes of Russia, India, and China seem to not give a shit about climate change?